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.
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.
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:
Michael C. Horowitz, director of Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania, explains the need for responsibility in the development of military AI systems in this FT op-ed.
The FT’s tech podcast asks what Israel’s defense tech ecosystem can tell us about the future of warfare
This MIT Technology Review story analyzes how OpenAI completed its pivot to allowing its technology on the battlefield.
MIT Technology Review also uncovered how US soldiers are using generative AI to help scour thousands of pieces of open-source intelligence.
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.
What is the chance your plane will be hit by space debris?
The risk of flights being hit by space junk is still small, but it’s growing.
About three pieces of old space equipment—used rockets and defunct satellites—fall into Earth’s atmosphere every day, according to estimates by the European Space Agency. By the mid-2030s, there may be dozens thanks to the rise of megaconstellations in orbit.
So far, space debris hasn’t injured anybody—in the air or on the ground. But multiple close calls have been reported in recent years.
But some estimates have the risk of a single human death or injury caused by a space debris strike on the ground at around 10% per year by 2035. That would mean a better than even chance that someone on Earth would be hit by space junk about every decade. Find out more.
—Tereza Pultarova
This story is part of MIT Technology Review Explains: our series untangling the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read the rest of the series here.
Chatbots are surprisingly effective at debunking conspiracy theories
—Thomas Costello, Gordon Pennycook & David Rand
Many people believe that you can’t talk conspiracists out of their beliefs.
But that’s not necessarily true. Our research shows that many conspiracy believers do respond to evidence and arguments—information that is now easy to deliver in the form of a tailored conversation with an AI chatbot.
This is good news, given the outsize role that unfounded conspiracy theories play in today’s political landscape. So while there are widespread and legitimate concerns that generative AI is a potent tool for spreading disinformation, our work shows that it can also be part of the solution. Read the full story.
This story is part of MIT Technology Review’s series “The New Conspiracy Age,” on how the present boom in conspiracy theories is reshaping science and technology. Check out the rest of the series here.
The must-reads
I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.
1 China is quietly expanding its remote nuclear test site
In the wake of Donald Trump announcing America’s intentions to revive similar tests. (WP $)
+ A White House memo has accused Alibaba of supporting Chinese operations. (FT $)
2 Jeff Bezos is becoming co-CEO of a new AI startup
Project Prometheus will focus on AI for building computers, aerospace and vehicles. (NYT $)
3 AI-powered toys are holding inappropriate conversations with children
Including how to find dangerous objects including pills and knives. (The Register)
+ Chatbots are unreliable and unpredictable, whether embedded in toys or not. (Futurism)
+ AI toys are all the rage in China—and now they’re appearing on shelves in the US too. (MIT Technology Review)
4 Big Tech is warming to the idea of data centers in space
They come with a lot less red tape than their Earth-bound counterparts. (WSJ $)
+ There are a huge number of data centers mired in the planning stage. (WSJ $)
+ Should we be moving data centers to space? (MIT Technology Review)
5 The mafia is recruiting via TikTok
Some bosses are even using the platform to control gangs from behind bars. (Economist $)
6 How to resist AI in your workplace
Like most things in life, there’s power in numbers. (Vox)
7 How China’s EV fleet could become a giant battery network
If economic troubles don’t get in the way, that is. (Rest of World)
+ EV sales are on the rise in South America. (Reuters)
+ China’s energy dominance in three charts. (MIT Technology Review)
8 Inside the unstoppable rise of the domestic internet
Control-hungry nations are following China’s lead in building closed platforms. (NY Mag $)
+ Can we repair the internet? (MIT Technology Review)
9 Search traffic? What search traffic?
These media startups have found a way to thrive without Google. (Insider $)
+ AI means the end of internet search as we’ve known it. (MIT Technology Review)
10 Paul McCartney has released a silent track to protest AI’s creep into music
That’ll show them! (The Guardian)
+ AI is coming for music, too. (MIT Technology Review)
Quote of the day
“All the parental controls in the world will not protect your kids from themselves.”
—Samantha Broxton, a parenting coach and consultant, tells the Washington Post why educating children around the risks of using technology is the best way to help them protect themselves.
One more thing

Inside the controversial tree farms powering Apple’s carbon neutral goal
Apple (and its peers) are planting vast forests of eucalyptus trees in Brazil to try to offset their climate emissions, striking some of the largest-ever deals for carbon credits in the process.
The tech behemoth is betting that planting millions of eucalyptus trees in Brazil will be the path to a greener future. Some ecologists and local residents are far less sure.
The big question is: Can Latin America’s eucalyptus be a scalable climate solution? Read the full story.
—Gregory Barber
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.)
+ Shepard Fairey’s retrospective show in LA looks very cool.
+ Check out these fascinating scientific breakthroughs that have been making waves over the past 25 years.
+ Good news—sweet little puffins are making a comeback in Ireland.
+ Maybe we should all be getting into Nordic walking.
MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here.
In mid-October, a mysterious object cracked the windshield of a packed Boeing 737 cruising at 36,000 feet above Utah, forcing the pilots into an emergency landing. The internet was suddenly buzzing with the prospect that the plane had been hit by a piece of space debris. We still don’t know exactly what hit the plane—likely a remnant of a weather balloon—but it turns out the speculation online wasn’t that far-fetched.
That’s because while the risk of flights being hit by space junk is still small, it is, in fact, growing.
About three pieces of old space equipment—used rockets and defunct satellites—fall into Earth’s atmosphere every day, according to estimates by the European Space Agency. By the mid-2030s, there may be dozens. The increase is linked to the growth in the number of satellites in orbit. Currently, around 12,900 active satellites circle the planet. In a decade, there may be 100,000 of them, according to analyst estimates.
To minimize the risk of orbital collisions, operators guide old satellites to burn up in Earth’s atmosphere. But the physics of that reentry process are not well understood, and we don’t know how much material burns up and how much reaches the ground.
“The number of such landfall events is increasing,” says Richard Ocaya, a professor of physics at the University of Free State in South Africa and a coauthor of a recent paper on space debris risk. “We expect it may be increasing exponentially in the next few years.”
So far, space debris hasn’t injured anybody—in the air or on the ground. But multiple close calls have been reported in recent years. In March last year, an 0.7-kilogram chunk of metal pierced the roof of a house in Florida. The object was later confirmed to be a remnant of a battery pallet tossed out from the International Space Station. When the strike occurred, the homeowner’s 19-year-old son was resting in a next-door room.
And in February this year, a 1.5-meter-long fragment of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket crashed down near a warehouse outside Poland’s fifth-largest city, Poznan. Another piece was found in a nearby forest. A month later, a 2.5-kilogram piece of a Starlink satellite dropped on a farm in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Other incidents have been reported in Australia and Africa. And many more may be going completely unnoticed.
“If you were to find a bunch of burnt electronics in a forest somewhere, your first thought is not that it came from a spaceship,” says James Beck, the director of the UK-based space engineering research firm Belstead Research. He warns that we don’t fully understand the risk of space debris strikes and that it might be much higher than satellite operators want us to believe.
For example, SpaceX, the owner of the currently largest mega-constellation, Starlink, claims that its satellites are “designed for demise” and completely burn up when they spiral from orbit and fall through the atmosphere.
But Beck, who has performed multiple wind tunnel tests using satellite mock-ups to mimic atmospheric forces, says the results of such experiments raise doubts. Some satellite components are made of durable materials such as titanium and special alloy composites that don’t melt even at the extremely high temperatures that arise during a hypersonic atmospheric descent.
“We have done some work for some small-satellite manufacturers and basically, their major problem is that the tanks get down,” Beck says. “For larger satellites, around 800 kilos, we would expect maybe two or three objects to land.”
It can be challenging to quantify how much of a danger space debris poses. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) told MIT Technology Review that “the rapid growth in satellite deployments presents a novel challenge” for aviation safety, one that “cannot be quantified with the same precision as more established hazards.”
But the Federal Aviation Administration has calculated some preliminary numbers on the risk to flights: In a 2023 analysis, the agency estimated that by 2035, the risk that one plane per year will experience a disastrous space debris strike will be around 7 in 10,000. Such a collision would either destroy the aircraft immediately or lead to a rapid loss of air pressure, threatening the lives of all on board.
The casualty risk to humans on the ground will be much higher. Aaron Boley, an associate professor in astronomy and a space debris researcher at the University of British Columbia, Canada, says that if megaconstellation satellites “don’t demise entirely,” the risk of a single human death or injury caused by a space debris strike on the ground could reach around 10% per year by 2035. That would mean a better than even chance that someone on Earth would be hit by space junk about every decade. In its report, the FAA put the chances even higher with similar assumptions, estimating that “one person on the planet would be expected to be injured or killed every two years.”
Experts are starting to think about how they might incorporate space debris into their air safety processes. The German space situational awareness company Okapi Orbits, for example, in cooperation with the German Aerospace Center and the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), is exploring ways to adapt air traffic control systems so that pilots and air traffic controllers can receive timely and accurate alerts about space debris threats.
But predicting the path of space debris is challenging too. In recent years, advances in AI have helped improve predictions of space objects’ trajectories in the vacuum of space, potentially reducing the risk of orbital collisions. But so far, these algorithms can’t properly account for the effects of the gradually thickening atmosphere that space junk encounters during reentry. Radar and telescope observations can help, but the exact location of the impact becomes clear with only very short notice.
“Even with high-fidelity models, there’s so many variables at play that having a very accurate reentry location is difficult,” says Njord Eggen, a data analyst at Okapi Orbits. Space debris goes around the planet every hour and a half when in low Earth orbit, he notes, “so even if you have uncertainties on the order of 10 minutes, that’s going to have drastic consequences when it comes to the location where it could impact.”
For aviation companies, the problem is not just a potential strike, as catastrophic as that would be. To avoid accidents, authorities are likely to temporarily close the airspace in at-risk regions, which creates delays and costs money. Boley and his colleagues published a paper earlier this year estimating that busy aerospace regions such as northern Europe or the northeastern United States already have about a 26% yearly chance of experiencing at least one disruption due to the reentry of a major space debris item. By the time all planned constellations are fully deployed, aerospace closures due to space debris hazards may become nearly as common as those due to bad weather.
Because current reentry predictions are unreliable, many of these closures may end up being unnecessary.
For example, when a 21-metric-ton Chinese Long March mega-rocket was falling to Earth in 2022, predictions suggested its debris could scatter across Spain and parts of France. In the end, the rocket crashed into the Pacific Ocean. But the 30-minute closure of south European airspace delayed and diverted hundreds of flights.
In the meantime, international regulators are urging satellite operators and launch providers to deorbit large satellites and rocket bodies in a controlled way, when possible, by carefully guiding them into remote parts of the ocean using residual fuel.
The European Space Agency estimates that only about half the rocket bodies reentering the atmosphere do so in a controlled way.
Moreover, around 2,300 old and no-longer-controllable rocket bodies still linger in orbit, slowly spiraling toward Earth with no mechanisms for operators to safely guide them into the ocean.
“There’s enough material up there that even if we change our practices, we will still have all those rocket bodies eventually reenter,” Boley says. “Although the probability of space debris hitting an aircraft is small, the probability that the debris will spread and fall over busy airspace is not small. That’s actually quite likely.”
Higher quality visions coming to your IG feed.
New AI tools to help you expand your Demand Gen promotions.
This could help to highlight foreign-based agitators in the app.
