7 Greatest Risks in AI Related to Modern Warfare

1. Loss of Moral Agency and Human Conscience

   • Overview: This risk arises when machines or automated systems make decisions that should involve human judgment and ethical deliberation. In other words, if AI is given the authority to decide when to use lethal force, we risk removing the human element—empathy, compassion, and moral reasoning—from critical decisions about life and death.
   • Example: Consider a drone equipped with AI that can identify and engage targets without any human intervention. If that drone mistakenly identifies civilians as combatants due to algorithmic errors, the absence of human judgment could lead to irreversible and tragic consequences, as there is no human operator to reassess or override the decision.
   • Risk: When machines take over lethal decisions, there is an inherent risk that human ethical reasoning and accountability are sidelined. Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) lack empathy, moral deliberation, and a conscience.
   • Faith Role: Prohibiting fully autonomous lethal weapons preserves human oversight and ensures that every decision to take life remains a deliberate, morally informed human act.

2. Acceleration of Conflict and Escalation Risks

   • Overview: AI systems can process information and make decisions much faster than humans. This speed can inadvertently escalate conflicts by prompting rapid, uncalculated responses. When automated systems react to threats or anomalies, the situation can spiral into a larger conflict before human leaders can intervene and negotiate de-escalation.
   • Example: Imagine a scenario where an AI system misinterprets routine military exercises by another country as an act of aggression. Its rapid response, based on predefined protocols, might trigger an immediate counter-strike, potentially igniting a larger conflict due to the lack of time for human judgment to assess the true intent behind the actions.
   • Risk: AI systems can operate at speeds and with efficiencies that may inadvertently escalate conflicts. Rapid, machine-driven decision-making may bypass the careful deliberation needed to de-escalate tensions, increasing the likelihood of unintended warfare escalation.
   • Faith Role: Implementing ethical AI frameworks that prioritize de-escalation over destruction can serve as a moral counterbalance, ensuring that technological advancements do not outpace our capacity for human restraint and ethical judgment.

3. Erosion of Accountability and Ethical Governance

   • Overview: When decisions are made by algorithms, it becomes challenging to pinpoint who is responsible for mistakes or ethical breaches. This diffused accountability can lead to situations where harmful actions are carried out without clear responsibility or recourse, undermining established systems of ethical governance.
   • Example: In the use of an autonomous weapon system, if an algorithm causes the wrongful death of innocents, it becomes complicated to hold any single party accountable—be it the developer, the military operator, or the government. This obscurity in accountability can reduce the likelihood of corrective measures or legal consequences.
   • Risk: With decision-making embedded in algorithms, accountability can become diffused. In the fog of cognitive warfare, assigning responsibility for outcomes becomes murky, leading to potential violations of international law and human rights.
   • Faith Role: Establishing international guidelines grounded in the sanctity of human life reaffirms accountability, reminding us that technology must operate within frameworks that honor human dignity and ethical conduct.

4. Undermining International Norms and Human Dignity

   • Overview: The deployment of AI in warfare, particularly in lethal autonomous systems, can normalize the devaluation of human life. As nations become accustomed to automated killing, the respect for individual human dignity and established international norms may erode, leading to a moral slippery slope in global conflict.
   • Example: If a country employs AI-driven weapons to conduct precision strikes without due consideration of collateral damage, it might set a precedent that human lives are expendable in pursuit of military objectives. This could undermine international agreements like the Geneva Conventions, which are built on the respect for human dignity.
   • Risk: The use of AI in warfare—especially when it crosses the threshold into autonomous killing—risks normalizing the commodification of human life. Without ethical restraints, warfare strategies might devalue individual lives in the pursuit of tactical gains, eroding globally accepted norms.
   • Faith Role: By grounding policies in the inviolability of human life, faith-based international guidelines act as a counterforce to the dehumanization inherent in unregulated AI warfare, safeguarding long-standing moral and cultural values.

5. The Proliferation of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Arms Race

   • Overview: The competitive nature of international relations may push countries to develop ever more advanced AI technologies for warfare, prioritizing military superiority over ethical considerations. This arms race can lead to a dangerous escalation, where the drive for technological advancement overshadows critical ethical discussions and safeguards.
   • Example: Consider how nations might invest heavily in developing AI-powered missile defense systems. The fear of falling behind in technological prowess could prompt rapid, unchecked advancements and deployments, much like the nuclear arms race during the Cold War, where the focus on speed and capability overshadowed considerations of mutual destruction.
   • Risk: As nations compete to develop superior AI capabilities, there is a tangible risk of an arms race where strategic advantages overshadow ethical considerations. This competitive mindset may lead to reckless deployments that endanger global stability.
   • Faith Role: Emphasizing long-term human consequences rather than short-term tactical advantages encourages a more measured, ethically informed approach to military strategy—one that considers the future well-being of humanity over transient wins.

6. Vulnerability to Cognitive Manipulation and Misinformation

   • Overview: AI isn’t limited to physical warfare; it also plays a significant role in the information domain. With sophisticated algorithms, AI can be used to create, spread, or amplify misinformation and propaganda, which in turn can manipulate public opinion, distort democratic processes, and destabilize societies.
   • Example: An AI system could be used to generate deepfake videos or social media posts that appear to be from credible sources, spreading false narratives during an election cycle. This misinformation could sway public opinion or incite unrest, as people may not be able to easily distinguish between authentic information and manipulated content.
   • Risk: The integration of AI into warfare not only affects physical battlefields but also the cognitive domain. AI-driven misinformation, psychological operations, and digital propaganda can manipulate perceptions, destabilize societies, and undermine democratic processes.
   • Faith Role: Implementing ethical AI frameworks that include safeguards against cognitive manipulation helps ensure that technology is not exploited to erode trust, disrupt social cohesion, or undermine the truth. Faith traditions often champion truth and transparency, serving as moral compasses in a digital age.

7. Long-Term Human and Societal Consequences

   • Overview: Decisions driven by AI, especially in conflict, often focus on immediate tactical gains rather than the broader, long-term implications for society. This short-term focus can result in policies and actions that, while beneficial in the moment, lead to prolonged harm, societal fragmentation, or loss of civil liberties over time.
   • Example: A government might deploy AI surveillance systems during a conflict to quickly identify and neutralize threats. However, once these systems are in place, they might continue to be used for domestic surveillance long after the conflict ends, eroding privacy rights and potentially leading to authoritarian practices that have a lasting impact on society.
   • Risk: Decisions made in the heat of conflict, particularly those that rely heavily on AI, may prioritize immediate tactical advantages while neglecting longer-term societal impacts. This short-termism can lead to enduring consequences such as loss of civil liberties, societal fragmentation, and a diminished sense of collective humanity.
   • Faith Role: Ensuring warfare strategies consider long-term human consequences reinforces the need for a vision that extends beyond immediate conflict. Faith-based perspectives emphasize stewardship of humanity and the environment, advocating for strategies that promote lasting peace and social cohesion.

Interweaving the Four Roles of Faith

• Prohibiting Fully Autonomous Lethal Weapons:
  By mandating human oversight in life-and-death decisions, faith-based ethical reasoning is introduced into the decision-making process. This addresses the risk of dehumanization and loss of moral agency, ensuring that moral judgment, empathy, and accountability remain at the forefront.

• Implementing Ethical AI Frameworks:
  These frameworks are designed to embed ethical constraints into the design and deployment of AI systems, reducing the risk of escalation and cognitive manipulation. By emphasizing de-escalation and caution, ethical AI frameworks serve as a safeguard against the unintended consequences of rapid, technology-driven warfare.

• Establishing International Guidelines Grounded in the Sanctity of Human Life:
  Faith traditions have long held the intrinsic value of every human life as sacred. International guidelines informed by these values help to prevent a descent into a morally indifferent arms race, promoting a global consensus that respects human dignity and accountability.

• Ensuring Long-Term Human Consequences in Warfare Strategies:
  Faith perspectives often stress the importance of long-term well-being and the ethical stewardship of society. By considering the long-term consequences of warfare, policymakers can avoid strategies that sacrifice future generations for short-term gains, thereby mitigating risks associated with societal fragmentation and long-lasting conflict.

Conclusion: Implications of AI in Warfare

In today’s complex and interwoven global landscape, the risks associated with the AI arms race and cognitive warfare extend far beyond the battlefield. They challenge the ethical foundations of international relations, the integrity of human decision-making, and the very notion of accountability in warfare. Faith-based approaches offer a moral framework that is essential for addressing these risks, ensuring that technological advancements do not come at the cost of our humanity. By prohibiting fully autonomous lethal systems, enforcing ethical AI standards, establishing robust international guidelines, and emphasizing long-term human consequences to establish roles of faith in AI warfare. We can work to counteract the dangers of an unbridled AI arms race and preserve a future grounded in ethical and moral integrity by fighting to establish Ethics in Unconventional Warfare.