The world is coming to grips with the advances made in artificial intelligence and the predicted impact this evolving technology will have on both our work and social lives. AI is rapidly transforming the workplace, with major corporations adopting its use to automate tasks previously performed by humans. With much uncertainty about AI’s use, many workers are worried about losing their jobs or automation that will make their education and skill set obsolete.
Beyond general unease about how AI will change our lives, there’s growing concern about U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s goal of transforming America’s military to become an “AI-First” fighting force. Critics warn that without regulation and controls, deploying autonomous weapon systems without human oversight could evade safeguards, risking accidental targeting of civilians and unintended escalation of conflicts.
Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with William D. Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, who along with Janet Abou-Elias, wrote the recent Nation magazine article, “The Pentagon Is Going ‘AI First.’” Here Hartung warns that the Pentagon’s rush to accelerate AI adoption and deployment—motivated by competition with China—could result in flawed weapons systems, reduced accountability, excessive spending, and a dangerous global AI arms race.
WILLIAM HARTUNG: These things, if they work and they’re wielded with ill intent, they’ll devastate people. If they don’t work, it could cost accidental slaughter of people. And if the Pentagon and the government thinks they can wage war where they don’t put a single U.S. military person at risk, they’ll fight more wars. And of course, they think that devastation equals domination, but all it does is kick the struggle down the road and people use whatever means they have to fight back. So they’re not going to fight back with AI, but it could be terrorism, it could be disrupting trade. The idea that you can just bully and destroy a country, kill its leaders and its people and they’re going to sit on their hands is the most naive thing I’ve ever heard in my life. And that’s what this war with Iran has been like. That’s what Israel’s genocide in Gaza has been like.
That’s what the occupation and the cleansing in Lebanon is like. They think if they do enough destruction, enough intimidation, enough bullying, people are just going to roll over and say, “I salute you. ” Well, that’s not happening. It’s not going to happen. The problem is they’ve got this sort of system that’s really ultimately going to undermine the power of the U.S. in the world. But in the meantime, the destruction is moving rapidly and the ability to organize against it takes somewhat longer. So we’re kind of in a race against time to reassert some sort of rules. I mean, even the Biden folks, like how can they just talk with a straight face about a rules-based international order when they not only turned a blind eye to the genocide in Gaza, but they help finance it and back it politically by protecting Israel at the UN.
So it’s kind of really a pivotal moment in the history of this country and this world. And I think some people are waking up to that and some people just wish it would go away.
SCOTT HARRIS: William, what are some of your recommendations for how our country and the world should put in place some regulatory standards and controls? Is that even possible, is the question?
WILLIAM HARTUNG: I think it is, but I think first and foremost for the U.S., we need a defense strategy that’s about defense. If our goal is to dominate the world through technology, these folks are going to win. But if we had an actual defense strategy that said, “We’re not going to fight these unnecessary, illegal, stupid wars, we’re going to educate our population, we’re going to take care of our public health and the military is for extreme circumstances where we’re actually under threat.” And that environment, even if we had this stuff, it would do less damage.
But in terms of regulation, I think it’s got to be rigorously tested, which means the government needs people to understand the technology. I would like these companies to be just another vendor. If you make something that works, we’ll buy it, otherwise shut up. You shouldn’t be running our foreign policy, shouldn’t be manipulating our budget, which means a lot of political reforms in terms of the back and forth of people from industry to government, campaign finance reform, how these companies dominate government panels that make policies that then benefit them the way they fund think tanks that advocate for them.
So there’s sort of that political side. And then on the technical side, we need people who aren’t making bank off of this evaluating whether it works. There’s a guy, Alex Boris, who had got the first AI regulation bill through a state legislature and Palantir was trying to take him down. The founder put out all this propaganda. Boris had worked for Palantir. So Palantir said, “You can’t trust this guy because he worked for us and he’s behind ICE.” So it was the most diabolical thing ever. And people working in Palantir are like, “Why is our founder saying we’re a bunch of murderers?” I mean, it was just, they’ll do anything. And in fact, anybody who stands up for regulation of AI is going to get the same treatment from these dark money operations. But I think there is a lot more interest in doing that and a lot of younger activists, first of all, they understand the technology better.
Second of all, they have a broader vision. They see immigration crackdown and the wars overseas, basically the war at home, war abroad as linked and then they see that these same companies are profiting from both. So there’s local resistance. There’s reason the tech sector—the resistance because they’re with what they’re doing to our budget. So all of this has to come together in a way that maybe it hasn’t before. And unfortunately, as you know, having better ideas is not enough in this world. If it was, we’d live in a much nicer planet, but so, it’s about organizing and power and it’s a different kind of power we’re confronting and they’re throwing more at us every minute. So we’re kind of still getting our footing, but I think we will. I think we’ll find ways to fight back.
For more information, visit Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Listen to Scott Harris’ in-depth interview with William D. Hartung (28:28) and see more articles and opinion pieces in the related links section of this page. To subscribe to our podcasts, email newsletters, our Trump authoritarian playbook Substack or social media, subscribe here.
