Artificial intelligence is reshaping the U.S. military landscape, but not without controversy. Leading AI firms like OpenAI and anthropic are navigating a tightrope—boosting Pentagon efficiency while ensuring their technology never becomes a weapon that harms people.
according to Dr. Radha Plumb, the Pentagon’s Chief Digital and AI Officer, AI is already providing the Department of Defense wiht a “meaningful advantage” in threat identification, tracking, and analysis. However, the technology’s role remains strictly non-lethal. “We’ve been really clear on what we will and won’t use their technologies for,” Plumb emphasized during a recent interview.
One key area where AI is making strides is in the so-called “kill chain”—the military’s multi-step process for detecting,targeting,and neutralizing threats. While AI isn’t directly involved in lethal actions, it’s proving invaluable during the planning and strategizing phases. “We obviously are increasing the ways in which we can speed up the execution of the kill chain so that our commanders can respond in the right time to protect our forces,” Plumb explained.
The collaboration between the Pentagon and AI developers is still in its early stages. In 2024, major players like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta adjusted their usage policies to permit U.S. defense and intelligence agencies to leverage their AI systems.However, these companies remain steadfast in their commitment to preventing their technology from being used to harm humans. “Playing through different scenarios is something that generative AI can be helpful with,” Plumb noted. “It allows you to take advantage of the full range of tools our commanders have available, but also think creatively about different response options and potential trade-offs.”
This shift has sparked a wave of partnerships between AI companies and defense contractors. Meta joined forces with lockheed Martin and Booz Allen in November 2024 to integrate its Llama AI models into defense operations. Around the same time, Anthropic teamed up with Palantir and AWS to offer its AI solutions to defense customers.OpenAI followed suit in December, striking a deal with Anduril.Even lesser-known firms like Cohere have been quietly deploying their AI models in collaboration with palantir.
As AI continues to demonstrate its value in military applications, it could prompt Silicon Valley to reconsider its stance on AI usage policies.The technology’s ability to simulate scenarios,optimize decision-making,and enhance strategic planning is undeniable. Yet, questions remain about the ethical boundaries of its use. As a notable exmaple,Anthropic’s acceptable use policy explicitly prohibits its AI from being used to develop systems designed to “cause harm to or loss of human life.”
Despite these assurances, the Pentagon’s reliance on generative AI for even the early stages of the kill chain raises eyebrows. It’s unclear which technologies are being used for this purpose, and whether their deployment aligns with the ethical guidelines set by AI developers. As the military continues to explore the potential of AI, the delicate balance between innovation and duty will remain a central challenge.
The Future of AI in Defense: Ethical Dilemmas and Human Oversight
The role of artificial intelligence in military applications has sparked intense debate, notably around the ethical implications of allowing machines to make life-and-death decisions. While some argue that autonomous weapons have been part of the U.S.military’s arsenal for decades, others emphasize the necessity of human oversight in all critical decisions.
Palmer Luckey, CEO of defense technology company Anduril, recently highlighted the longstanding use of autonomous systems in the military. On X, he pointed to examples like the CIWS turret, a fully automated defense system.“The DoD has been purchasing and using autonomous weapons systems for decades now. Their use (and export!) is well-understood, tightly defined, and explicitly regulated by rules that are not at all voluntary,” Luckey stated.
Though, when questioned about the Pentagon’s use of fully autonomous weapons—those without any human intervention—Defense Department official Mara Plumb firmly rejected the idea. “No, is the short answer,” she said. “As a matter of both reliability and ethics, we’ll always have humans involved in the decision to employ force, and that includes for our weapon systems.”
The concept of autonomy in technology is often ambiguous, sparking debates across industries. Whether it’s self-driving cars,AI coding tools,or advanced weaponry,the line between automation and independence remains blurry. Plumb described the notion of machines independently making life-or-death decisions as “too binary” and far from the reality of how these systems are used. “People tend to think about this like there are robots somewhere, and then the gonculator [a fictional autonomous machine] spits out a sheet of paper, and humans just check a box,” she explained.“That’s not how human-machine teaming works, and that’s not an effective way to use these types of AI systems.”
AI and Human Collaboration in Defense
Plumb emphasized that the Pentagon’s approach to AI is rooted in collaboration between humans and machines. Rather then relying on fully autonomous systems,senior leaders maintain active decision-making roles throughout the process. This approach ensures that ethical considerations and strategic oversight remain central to military operations.
The discussion around AI in defense extends beyond technical capabilities to broader ethical questions. While some advocate for the responsible use of technology in military settings, others warn against the dangers of unchecked autonomy. The challenge lies in finding a balance—leveraging the efficiency and precision of AI while ensuring that human judgment remains the ultimate authority.
Luckey’s comments reflect a pragmatic outlook on the issue. In a recent interview, he defended his company’s work in military technology while acknowledging the need for restraint. “The position that we should never use AI in defense and intelligence settings doesn’t make sense to me. The position that we should go gangbusters and use it to make anything we want — up to and including doomsday weapons — that’s obviously just as crazy.We’re trying to seek the middle ground, to do things responsibly,” he said.
The Road Ahead: Navigating AI in Defense
As AI continues to evolve, its role in defense will likely expand, raising new questions about accountability, ethics, and oversight. The Pentagon’s commitment to human involvement in decision-making provides a framework for addressing these challenges, but the debate is far from settled.
The key to navigating this complex landscape lies in clear regulations, transparent decision-making processes, and ongoing dialog between technologists, policymakers, and ethicists.By prioritizing collaboration and responsibility, the defense sector can harness the potential of AI while mitigating its risks.
the debate over AI in defense is not just about technology—it’s about the values and principles that guide its use.Ensuring that human oversight remains a cornerstone of military operations will be critical as we move into an increasingly automated future.
The intersection of technology and military strategy has long been a contentious topic, especially within Silicon Valley. Last year,tensions reached a boiling point when dozens of amazon and Google employees were fired and arrested for protesting their companies’ involvement in a cloud computing initiative tied to the Israeli military. Known internally as “Project Nimbus,” this collaboration sparked an uproar among workers who questioned the ethical implications of such partnerships.
While the backlash was significant, the response from the artificial intelligence community has been notably quieter. Many AI experts, including Evan Hubinger of Anthropic, argue that integrating AI into military operations is inevitable. According to Hubinger, collaboration with government and defense agencies is essential to ensure that AI technologies are deployed responsibly and effectively.
“If you take catastrophic risks from AI seriously, the U.S. government is an extremely critically important actor to engage with, and trying to just block the U.S. government out of using AI is not a viable strategy,” Hubinger stated in a November post on the online forum LessWrong. He emphasized that preventing misuse of AI models is just as critical as mitigating catastrophic risks. “It’s not enough to just focus on catastrophic risks, you also have to prevent any way that the government could possibly misuse your models.”
Hubinger’s perspective highlights a growing debate within the tech industry: Should companies avoid military contracts altogether, or is it better to engage directly with governments to shape the ethical use of emerging technologies? As AI continues to evolve, this question will likely remain at the forefront of discussions about innovation, ethics, and global security.
