In partnership withHPE Training an AI model to predict equipment failures is an engineering achievement. But it’s not until prediction meets action—the moment that model successfully flags a malfunctioning machine—that true business transformation occurs. One technical milestone lives in a proof-of-concept deck; the other meaningfully contributes to the bottom line. Craig Partridge, senior director worldwide of Digital Next Advisory at HPE, believes “the true value of AI lies in inference”. Inference is where AI earns its keep. It’s the operational layer that puts all that training to use in real-world workflows. Partridge elaborates, “The phrase we use for this is ‘trusted AI inferencing at scale and in production,'” he says. “That’s where we think the biggest return on AI investments will come from.”Getting to that point is difficult. Christian Reichenbach, worldwide digital advisor at HPE, points to findings from the company’s recent survey of 1,775 IT leaders: While nearly a quarter (22%) of organizations have now operationalized AI—up from 15% the previous year—the majority remain stuck in experimentation. Reaching the next stage requires a three-part approach: establishing trust as an operating principle, ensuring data-centric execution, and cultivating IT leadership capable of scaling AI successfully. Trust as a prerequisite for scalable, high-stakes AI Trusted inference means users can actually rely on the answers they’re getting from AI systems. This is important for applications like generating marketing copy and deploying customer service chatbots, but it’s absolutely critical for higher-stakes scenarios—say, a robot assisting during surgeries or an autonomous vehicle navigating crowded streets.
Whatever the use case, establishing trust will require doubling down on data quality; first and foremost, inferencing outcomes must be built on reliable foundations. This reality informs one of Partridge’s go-to mantras: “Bad data in equals bad inferencing out.” Reichenbach cites a real-world example of what happens when data quality falls short—the rise of unreliable AI-generated content, including hallucinations, that clogs workflows and forces employees to spend significant time fact-checking. “When things go wrong, trust goes down, productivity gains are not reached, and the outcome we’re  looking for is not achieved,” he says.
On the other hand, when trust is properly engineered into inference systems, efficiency and productivity gains can increase. Take a network operations team tasked with troubleshooting configurations. With a trusted inferencing engine, that unit gains a reliable copilot that can deliver faster, more accurate, custom-tailored recommendations—”a 24/7 member of the team they didn’t have before,” says Partridge. The shift to data-centric thinking and rise of the AI factory In the first AI wave, companies rushed to hire data scientists and many viewed sophisticated, trillion-parameter models as the primary goal. But today, as organizations move to turn early pilots into real, measurable outcomes, the focus has shifted toward data engineering and architecture. “Over the past five years, what’s become more meaningful is breaking down data silos, accessing data streams, and quickly unlocking value,” says Reichenbach. It’s an evolution happening alongside the rise of the AI factory—the always-on production line where data moves through pipelines and feedback loops to generate continuous intelligence. This shift reflects an evolution from model-centric to data-centric thinking, and with it comes a new set of strategic considerations. “It comes down to two things: How much of the intelligence–the model itself–is truly yours? And how much of the input–the data–is uniquely yours, from your customers, operations, or market?” says Reichenbach. These two central questions inform everything from platform direction and operating models to engineering roles and trust and security considerations. To help clients map their answers—and translate them into actionable strategies—Partridge breaks down HPE’s four-quadrant AI factory implication matrix (see figure): Source: HPE, 2025 Run: Accessing an external, pretrained model via an interface or API; organizations don’t own the model or the data. Implementation requires strong security and governance. It also requires establishing a center of excellence that makes and communicates decisions about AI usage. RAG (retrieval augmented generation): Using external, pre-trained models combined with a company’s proprietary data to create unique insights. Implementation focuses on connecting data streams to inferencing capabilities that provide rapid, integrated access to full-stack AI platforms. Riches: Training custom models on data that resides in the enterprise for unique differentiation opportunities and insights. Implementation requires scalable, energy-efficient environments, and often high-performance systems. Regulate: Leveraging custom models trained on external data, requiring the same scalable setup as Riches, but with added focus on legal and regulatory compliance for handling sensitive, non-owned data with extreme caution. Importantly, these quadrants are not mutually exclusive. Partridge notes that most organizations—including HPE itself—operate across many of the quadrants. “We build our own models to help understand how networks operate,” he says. “We then deploy that intelligence into our products, so that our end customer gets the chance to deliver in what we call the ‘Run’ quadrant. So for them, it’s not their data; it’s not their model. They’re just adding that capability inside their organization.” IT’s moment to scale—and lead The second part of Partridge’s catchphrase about inferencing—”at scale”— speaks to a primary tension in enterprise AI: what works for a handful of use cases often breaks when applied across an entire organization.

“There’s value in experimentation and kicking ideas around,” he says. “But if you want to really see the benefits of AI, it needs to be something that everybody can engage in and that solves for many different use cases.” In Partridge’s view, the challenge of turning boutique pilots into organization-wide systems is uniquely suited to the IT function’s core competencies—and it’s a leadership opportunity the function can’t afford to sit out. “IT takes things that are small-scale and implements the discipline required to run them at scale,” he says. “So, IT organizations really need to lean into this debate.” For IT teams content to linger on the sidelines, history offers a cautionary tale from the last major infrastructure shift: enterprise migration to the cloud. Many IT departments sat out decision-making during the early cloud adoption wave a decade ago, while business units independently deployed cloud services. This led to fragmented systems, redundant spending, and security gaps that took years to untangle. The same dynamic threatens to repeat with AI, as different teams experiment with tools and models outside IT’s purview. This phenomenon—sometimes called shadow AI—describes environments where pilots proliferate without oversight or governance. Partridge believes that most organizations are already operating in the “Run” quadrant in some capacity, as employees will use AI tools whether or not they’re officially authorized to. Rather than shut down experimentation, it is now IT’s mandate to bring structure to it. And enterprises must architect a data platform strategy that brings together enterprise data with guardrails, governance framework, and accessibility to feed AI. Also, it’s critical to keep standardizing infrastructure (such as private cloud AI platforms), protecting data integrity, and safeguarding brand trust, all while enabling the speed and flexibility that AI applications demand. These are the requirements for reaching the final milestone: AI that’s truly in production. For teams on the path to that goal, Reichenbach distills what success requires. “It comes down to knowing where you play: When to Run external models smarter, when to apply RAG to make them more informed, where to invest to unlock Riches from your own data and models, and when to Regulate what you don’t control,” says Reichenbach. “The winners will be those who bring clarity to all quadrants and align technology ambition with governance and value creation.” For more, register to watch MIT Technology Review’s EmTech AI Salon, featuring HPE. This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Google today unveiled Gemini 3, a major upgrade to its flagship multimodal model. The firm says the new model is better at reasoning, has more fluid multimodal capabilities (the ability to work across voice, text or images), and will work like an agent.  The previous model, Gemini 2.5, supports multimodal input. Users can feed it images, handwriting, or voice. But it usually requires explicit instructions about the format the user wants back, and it defaults to plain text regardless.  But Gemini 3 introduces what Google calls “generative interfaces,” which allow the model to make its own choices about what kind of output fits the prompt best, assembling visual layouts and dynamic views on its own instead of returning a block of text.  Ask for travel recommendations and it may spin up a website-like interface inside the app, complete with modules, images, and follow-up prompts such as “How many days are you traveling?” or “What kinds of activities do you enjoy?” It also presents clickable options based on what you might want next.
When asked to explain a concept, Gemini 3 may sketch a diagram or generate a simple animation on its own if it believes a visual is more effective.  “Visual layout generates an immersive, magazine-style view complete with photos and modules,” says Josh Woodward, VP of Google Labs, Gemini, and AI Studio. “These elements don’t just look good but invite your input to further tailor the results.” 
With Gemini 3, Google is also introducing Gemini Agent, an experimental feature designed to handle multi-step tasks directly inside the app. The agent can connect to services such as Google Calendar, Gmail, and Reminders. Once granted access, it can execute tasks like organizing an inbox or managing schedules.  Similar to other agents, it breaks tasks into discrete steps, displays its progress in real time, and pauses for approval from the user before continuing. Google describes the feature as a step toward “a true generalist agent.” It will be available on the web for Google AI Ultra subscribers in the US starting November 18. The overall approach can seem a lot like “vibe coding,” where users describe an end goal in plain language and let the model assemble the interface or code needed to get there. The update also ties Gemini more deeply into Google’s existing products. In Search, a limited group of Google AI Pro and Ultra subscribers can now switch to Gemini 3 Pro, the reasoning variation of the new model, to receive deeper, more thorough AI-generated summaries that rely on the model’s reasoning rather than the existing AI Mode. For shopping, Gemini will now pull from Google’s Shopping Graph—which the company says contains more than 50 billion product listings—to generate its own recommendation guides. Users just need to ask a shopping-related question or search a shopping-related phrase, and the model assembles an interactive, Wirecutter-style product recommendation piece, complete with prices and product details, without redirecting to an external site. For developers, Google is also pushing single-prompt software generation further. The company introduced Google Antigravity, a  development platform that acts as an all-in-one space where code, tools, and workflows can be created and managed from a single prompt. Derek Nee, CEO of Flowith, an agentic AI application, told MIT Technology Review that Gemini 3 Pro addresses several gaps in earlier models. Improvements include stronger visual understanding, better code generation, and better performance on long tasks—features he sees as essential for developers of AI apps and agents.  “Given its speed and cost advantages, we’re integrating the new model into our product,” he says. “We’re optimistic about its potential, but we need deeper testing to understand how far it can go.” 

In partnership withHPE The Ryder Cup is an almost-century-old tournament pitting Europe against the United States in an elite showcase of golf skill and strategy. At the 2025 event, nearly a quarter of a million spectators gathered to watch three days of fierce competition on the fairways. From a technology and logistics perspective, pulling off an event of this scale is no easy feat. The Ryder Cup’s infrastructure must accommodate the tens of thousands of network users who flood the venue (this year, at Bethpage Black in Farmingdale, New York) every day. To manage this IT complexity, Ryder Cup engaged technology partner HPE to create a central hub for its operations. The solution centered around a platform where tournament staff could access data visualization supporting operational decision-making. This dashboard, which leveraged a high-performance network and private-cloud environment, aggregated and distilled insights from diverse real-time data feeds. It was a glimpse into what AI-ready networking looks like at scale—a real-world stress test with implications for everything from event management to enterprise operations. While models and data readiness get the lion’s share of boardroom attention and media hype, networking is a critical third leg of successful AI implementation, explains Jon Green, CTO of HPE Networking. “Disconnected AI doesn’t get you very much; you need a way to get data into it and out of it for both training and inference,” he says.
As businesses move toward distributed, real-time AI applications, tomorrow’s networks will need to parse even more massive volumes of information at ever more lightning-fast speeds. What played out on the greens at Bethpage Black represents a lesson being learned across industries: Inference-ready networks are a make-or-break factor for turning AI’s promise into real-world performance. Making a network AI inference-ready More than half of organizations are still struggling to operationalize their data pipelines. In a recent HPE cross-industry survey of 1,775  IT leaders, 45% said they could run real-time data pushes and pulls for innovation. It’s a noticeable change over last year’s numbers (just 7% reported having such capabilities in 2024), but there’s still work to be done to connect data collection with real-time decision-making.
The network may hold the key to further narrowing that gap. Part of the solution will likely come down to infrastructure design. While traditional enterprise networks are engineered to handle the predictable flow of business applications—email, browsers, file sharing, etc.—they’re not designed to field the dynamic, high-volume data movement required by AI workloads. Inferencing in particular depends on shuttling vast datasets between multiple GPUs with supercomputer-like precision. “There’s an ability to play fast and loose with a standard, off-the-shelf enterprise network,” says Green. “Few will notice if an email platform is half a second slower than it might’ve been. But with AI transaction processing, the entire job is gated by the last calculation taking place. So it becomes really noticeable if you’ve got any loss or congestion.” Networks built for AI, therefore, must operate with a different set of performance characteristics, including ultra-low latency, lossless throughput, specialized equipment, and adaptability at scale. One of these differences is AI’s distributed nature, which affects the seamless flow of data. The Ryder Cup was a vivid demonstration of this new class of networking in action. During the event, a Connected Intelligence Center was put in place to ingest data from ticket scans, weather reports, GPS-tracked golf carts, concession and merchandise sales, spectator and consumer queues, and network performance. Additionally, 67 AI-enabled cameras were positioned throughout the course. Inputs were analyzed through an operational intelligence dashboard and provided staff with an instantaneous view of activity across the grounds. “The tournament is really complex from a networking perspective, because you have many big open areas that aren’t uniformly packed with people,” explains Green. “People tend to follow the action. So in certain areas, it’s really dense with lots of people and devices, while other areas are completely empty.” To handle that variability, engineers built out a two-tiered architecture. Across the sprawling venue, more than 650 WiFi 6E access points, 170 network switches, and 25 user experience sensors worked together to maintain continuous connectivity and feed a private cloud AI cluster for live analytics. The front-end layer connected cameras, sensors, and access points to capture live video and movement data, while a back-end layer—located within a temporary on-site data center—linked GPUs and servers in a high-speed, low-latency configuration that effectively served as the system’s brain. Together, the setup enabled both rapid on-the-ground responses and data collection that could inform future operational planning. “AI models also were available to the team which could process video of the shots taken and help determine, from the footage, which ones were the most interesting,” says Green. Physical AI and the return of on-prem intelligence If time is of the essence for event management, it’s even more critical in contexts where safety is on the line—for instance a self-driving car making a split-second decision to accelerate or brake. In planning for the rise of physical AI, where applications move off screens and onto factory floors and city streets, a growing number of enterprises are rethinking their architectures. Instead of sending the data to centralized clouds for inference, some are deploying edge-based AI clusters that process information closer to where it is generated. Data-intensive training may still occur in the cloud, but inferencing happens on-site.

This hybrid approach is fueling a wave of operational repatriation, as workloads once relegated to the cloud return to on-premises infrastructure for enhanced speed, security, sovereignty, and cost reasons. “We’ve had an out-migration of IT into the cloud in recent years, but physical AI is one of the use cases that we believe will bring a lot of that back on-prem,” predicts Green, giving the example of an AI-infused factory floor, where a round-trip of sensor data to the cloud would be too slow to safely control automated machinery. “By the time processing happens in the cloud, the machine has already moved,” he explains. There’s data to back up Green’s projection: research from Enterprise Research Group shows that 84% of respondents are reevaluating application deployment strategies due to the growth of AI. Market forecasts also reflect this shift. According to IDC, the AI market for infrastructure is expected to reach $758 billion by 2029. AI for networking and the future of self-driving infrastructure The relationship between networking and AI is circular: Modern networks make AI at scale possible, but AI is also helping make networks smarter and more capable. “Networks are some of the most data-rich systems in any organization,” says Green. “That makes them a perfect use case for AI. We can analyze millions of configuration states across thousands of customer environments and learn what actually improves performance or stability.” At HPE for example, which has one of the largest network telemetry repositories in the world, AI models analyze anonymized data collected from billions of connected devices to identify trends and refine behavior over time. The platform processes more than a trillion telemetry points each day, which means it can continuously learn from real-world conditions. The concept broadly known as AIOps (or AI-driven IT operations) is changing how enterprise networks are managed across industries. Today, AI surfaces insights as recommendations that administrators can choose to apply with a single click. Tomorrow, those same systems might automatically test and deploy low-risk changes themselves. That long-term vision, Green notes, is referred to as a “self-driving network”—one that handles the repetitive, error-prone tasks that have historically plagued IT teams. “AI isn’t coming for the network engineer’s job, but it will eliminate the tedious stuff that slows them down,” he says. “You’ll be able to say, ‘Please go configure 130 switches to solve this issue,’ and the system will handle it. When a port gets stuck or someone plugs a connector in the wrong direction, AI can detect it—and in many cases, fix it automatically.” Digital initiatives now depend on how effectively information moves. Whether coordinating a live event or streamlining a supply chain, the performance of the network increasingly defines the performance of the business. Building that foundation today will separate those who pilot from those who scale AI.
For more, register to watch MIT Technology Review’s EmTech AI Salon, featuring HPE. This content was produced by Insights, the custom content arm of MIT Technology Review. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff. It was researched, designed, and written by human writers, editors, analysts, and illustrators. This includes the writing of surveys and collection of data for surveys. AI tools that may have been used were limited to secondary production processes that passed thorough human review.

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology. The State of AI: How war will be changed forever —Helen Warrell & James O’Donnell It is July 2027, and China is on the brink of invading Taiwan. Autonomous drones with AI targeting capabilities are primed to overpower the island’s air defenses as a series of crippling AI-generated cyberattacks cut off energy supplies and key communications. In the meantime, a vast disinformation campaign enacted by an AI-powered pro-Chinese meme farm spreads across global social media, deadening the outcry at Beijing’s act of aggression.Scenarios such as this have brought dystopian horror to the debate about the use of AI in warfare. Military commanders hope for a digitally enhanced force that is faster and more accurate than human-directed combat. 
But there are fears that as AI assumes an increasingly central role, these same commanders will lose control of a conflict that escalates too quickly and lacks ethical or legal oversight. Read the full story. This is the third edition of The State of AI, our subscriber-only collaboration between the Financial Times & MIT Technology Review examining the ways in which AI is reshaping global power.Every Monday, writers from both publications will debate one aspect of the generative AI revolution reshaping global power. While subscribers to The Algorithm, our weekly AI newsletter, get access to an extended excerpt, subscribers to the MIT Technology Review are able to read the whole thing. Sign up here to receive future editions every Monday.
Job titles of the future: AI embryologist Embryologists are the scientists behind the scenes of in vitro fertilization who oversee the development and selection of embryos, prepare them for transfer, and maintain the lab environment. They’ve been a critical part of IVF for decades, but their job has gotten a whole lot busier in recent years as demand for the fertility treatment skyrockets and clinics struggle to keep up.Klaus Wiemer, a veteran embryologist and IVF lab director, believes artificial intelligence might help by predicting embryo health in real time and unlocking new avenues for productivity in the lab. Read the full story. —Amanda Smith The must-reads I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology. 1 Big Tech’s job cuts are a warning signThey’re a canary down the mine for other industries. (WP $)+ Americans appear to feel increasingly unsettled by AI. (WSJ $)+ Global fund managers worry companies are overinvesting in the technology. (FT $)

2 Iran is attempting to stimulate rain to end its deadly droughtBut critics warn that cloud seeding is a challenging process. (New Scientist $)+ Parts of western Iran are now experiencing flooding. (Reuters)+ Why it’s so hard to bust the weather control conspiracy theory. (MIT Technology Review) 3 Air taxi startups may produce new aircraft for war zonesThe US Army has announced its intentions to acquire most of its weapons from startups, not major contractors. (The Information $)+ US firm Joby Aviation is launching flying taxis in Dubai. (NBC News)+ This giant microwave may change the future of war. (MIT Technology Review)4 Weight-loss drug make Eli Lilly is likely to cross a trillion-dollar valuationAs it prepares to launch a pill alternative to its injections. (WSJ $)+ Arch rival Novo Nordisk A/S is undercutting the company to compete. (Bloomberg $)+ We’re learning more about what weight-loss drugs do to the body. (MIT Technology Review) 5 What’s going on with the US TikTok ban?Even the lawmakers in charge don’t seem to know. (The Verge) 6 It’s getting harder to grow cocoaMass tree felling and lower rainfall in the Congo Basin is to blame. (FT $)+ Industrial agriculture activists are everywhere at COP30. (The Guardian)+ Africa fights rising hunger by looking to foods of the past. (MIT Technology Review) 7 Russia is cracking down on its critical military bloggersArmchair critics are facing jail time if they refuse to apologize. (Economist $) 8 Why the auto industry is so obsessed with humanoid robotsIt’s not just Tesla—plenty of others want to get in on the act. (The Atlantic $)+ China’s EV giants are betting big on humanoid robots. (MIT Technology Review) 9 Indian startups are challenging ChatGPT’s AI dominanceThey support a far wider range of languages than the large AI firms’ models. (Rest of World)+ OpenAI is huge in India. Its models are steeped in caste bias. (MIT Technology Review) 10 These tiny sensors track butterflies on their journey to Mexico 🦋Scientists hope it’ll shed some light on their mysterious life cycles. (NYT $)
Quote of the day
“I think no company is going to be immune, including us.”  —Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, warns the BBC about the precarious nature of the AI bubble. One more thing How a 1980s toy robot arm inspired modern robotics—Jon KeeganAs a child of an electronic engineer, I spent a lot of time in our local Radio Shack as a kid. While my dad was locating capacitors and resistors, I was in the toy section. It was there, in 1984, that I discovered the best toy of my childhood: the Armatron robotic arm.Described as a “robot-like arm to aid young masterminds in scientific and laboratory experiments,” it was a legit robotic arm. And the bold look and function of Armatron made quite an impression on many young kids who would one day have a career in robotics. Read the full story.
We can still have nice things A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.) + The US Library of Congress has attained some handwritten drafts of iconic songs from The Wizard of Oz.+ This interesting dashboard tracks the world’s top 500 musical artists in the world right now—some of the listings may surprise you (or just make you feel really old.)+ Cult author Chris Kraus shares what’s floating her boat right now.+ The first images of the forthcoming Legend of Zelda film are here!

To us, this recognition reinforces something we hear constantly from our customers like Amgen, Cisco, Morgan Stanley, T-Mobile, Target, and Thermo Fisher Scientific: AI is becoming a core layer of enterprise infrastructure. Companies aren’t just experimenting—they’re deploying AI systems that reshape how work gets done. We’ve invested heavily in privacy controls, data governance and residency, monitoring, and evaluations so enterprises can deploy AI safely.

Welcome back to The State of AI, a new collaboration between the Financial Times and MIT Technology Review. Every Monday, writers from both publications debate one aspect of the generative AI revolution reshaping global power. In this conversation, Helen Warrell, FT investigations reporter and former defense and security editor, and James O’Donnell, MIT Technology Review’s senior AI reporter, consider the ethical quandaries and financial incentives around AI’s use by the military. Helen Warrell, FT investigations reporter  It is July 2027, and China is on the brink of invading Taiwan. Autonomous drones with AI targeting capabilities are primed to overpower the island’s air defenses as a series of crippling AI-generated cyberattacks cut off energy supplies and key communications. In the meantime, a vast disinformation campaign enacted by an AI-powered pro-Chinese meme farm spreads across global social media, deadening the outcry at Beijing’s act of aggression.
Scenarios such as this have brought dystopian horror to the debate about the use of AI in warfare. Military commanders hope for a digitally enhanced force that is faster and more accurate than human-directed combat. But there are fears that as AI assumes an increasingly central role, these same commanders will lose control of a conflict that escalates too quickly and lacks ethical or legal oversight. Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state, spent his final years warning about the coming catastrophe of AI-driven warfare. Grasping and mitigating these risks is the military priority—some would say the “Oppenheimer moment”—of our age. One emerging consensus in the West is that decisions around the deployment of nuclear weapons should not be outsourced to AI. UN secretary-general António Guterres has gone further, calling for an outright ban on fully autonomous lethal weapons systems. It is essential that regulation keep pace with evolving technology. But in the sci-fi-fueled excitement, it is easy to lose track of what is actually possible. As researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center point out, AI optimists often underestimate the challenges of fielding fully autonomous weapon systems. It is entirely possible that the capabilities of AI in combat are being overhyped.
Anthony King, Director of the Strategy and Security Institute at the University of Exeter and a key proponent of this argument, suggests that rather than replacing humans, AI will be used to improve military insight. Even if the character of war is changing and remote technology is refining weapon systems, he insists, “the complete automation of war itself is simply an illusion.” Of the three current military use cases of AI, none involves full autonomy. It is being developed for planning and logistics, cyber warfare (in sabotage, espionage, hacking, and information operations; and—most controversially—for weapons targeting, an application already in use on the battlefields of Ukraine and Gaza. Kyiv’s troops use AI software to direct drones able to evade Russian jammers as they close in on sensitive sites. The Israel Defense Forces have developed an AI-assisted decision support system known as Lavender, which has helped identify around 37,000 potential human targets within Gaza.  FT/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | ADOBE STOCK There is clearly a danger that the Lavender database replicates the biases of the data it is trained on. But military personnel carry biases too. One Israeli intelligence officer who used Lavender claimed to have more faith in the fairness of a “statistical mechanism” than that of a grieving soldier. Tech optimists designing AI weapons even deny that specific new controls are needed to control their capabilities. Keith Dear, a former UK military officer who now runs the strategic forecasting company Cassi AI, says existing laws are more than sufficient: “You make sure there’s nothing in the training data that might cause the system to go rogue … when you are confident you deploy it—and you, the human commander, are responsible for anything they might do that goes wrong.” It is an intriguing thought that some of the fear and shock about use of AI in war may come from those who are unfamiliar with brutal but realistic military norms. What do you think, James? Is some opposition to AI in warfare less about the use of autonomous systems and really an argument against war itself?  James O’Donnell replies: Hi Helen,  One thing I’ve noticed is that there’s been a drastic shift in attitudes of AI companies regarding military applications of their products. In the beginning of 2024, OpenAI unambiguously forbade the use of its tools for warfare, but by the end of the year, it had signed an agreement with Anduril to help it take down drones on the battlefield. 

This step—not a fully autonomous weapon, to be sure, but very much a battlefield application of AI—marked a drastic change in how much tech companies could publicly link themselves with defense.  What happened along the way? For one thing, it’s the hype. We’re told AI will not just bring superintelligence and scientific discovery but also make warfare sharper, more accurate and calculated, less prone to human fallibility. I spoke with US Marines, for example, who tested a type of AI while patrolling the South Pacific that was advertised to analyze foreign intelligence faster than a human could.  Ask AIWhy it matters to you?BETAHere’s why this story might matter to you, according to AI. This is a beta feature and AI hallucinates—it might get weirdTell me why it matters Secondly, money talks. OpenAI and others need to start recouping some of the unimaginable amounts of cash they’re spending on training and running these models. And few have deeper pockets than the Pentagon. And Europe’s defense heads seem keen to splash the cash too. Meanwhile, the amount of venture capital funding for defense tech this year has already doubled the total for all of 2024, as VCs hope to cash in on militaries’ newfound willingness to buy from startups.  I do think the opposition to AI warfare falls into a few camps, one of which simply rejects the idea that more precise targeting (if it’s actually more precise at all) will mean fewer casualties rather than just more war. Consider the first era of drone warfare in Afghanistan. As drone strikes became cheaper to implement, can we really say it reduced carnage? Instead, did it merely enable more destruction per dollar? But the second camp of criticism (and now I’m finally getting to your question) comes from people who are well versed in the realities of war but have very specific complaints about the technology’s fundamental limitations. Missy Cummings, for example, is a former fighter pilot for the US Navy who is now a professor of engineering and computer science at George Mason University. She has been outspoken in her belief that large language models, specifically, are prone to make huge mistakes in military settings. The typical response to this complaint is that AI’s outputs are human-checked. But if an AI model relies on thousands of inputs for its conclusion, can that conclusion really be checked by one person? Tech companies are making extraordinarily big promises about what AI can do in these high-stakes applications, all while pressure to implement them is sky high. For me, this means it’s time for more skepticism, not less.  Helen responds:
Hi James,  We should definitely continue to question the safety of AI warfare systems and the oversight to which they’re subjected—and hold political leaders to account in this area. I am suggesting that we also apply some skepticism to what you rightly describe as the “extraordinarily big promises” made by some companies about what AI might be able to achieve on the battlefield. 
There will be both opportunities and hazards in what the military is being offered by a relatively nascent (though booming) defense tech scene. The danger is that in the speed and secrecy of an arms race in AI weapons, these emerging capabilities may not receive the scrutiny and debate they desperately need. Further reading: