Contrary to popular belief, military procurement involves some of the most rigorous safety and reliability testing. Current generative AI models, with their inherent high error rates, fall far short of these established thresholds that have long been required for defense systems.
Related Insights
While AI can attempt complex, hour-long tasks with 50% success, its reliability plummets for longer operations. For mission-critical enterprise use requiring 99.9% success, current AI can only reliably complete tasks taking about three seconds. This necessitates breaking large problems into many small, reliable micro-tasks.
Claims by AI companies that their tech won't be used for direct harm are unenforceable in military contracts. Militaries and nation-states do not follow commercial terms of service; the procurement process gives the government complete control over how technology is ultimately deployed.
Salesforce's AI Chief warns of "jagged intelligence," where LLMs can perform brilliant, complex tasks but fail at simple common-sense ones. This inconsistency is a significant business risk, as a failure in a basic but crucial task (e.g., loan calculation) can have severe consequences.
While consumer AI tolerates some inaccuracy, enterprise systems like customer service chatbots require near-perfect reliability. Teams get frustrated because out-of-the-box RAG templates don't meet this high bar. Achieving business-acceptable accuracy requires deep, iterative engineering, not just a vanilla implementation.
Leading AI companies, facing high operational costs and a lack of profitability, are turning to lucrative government and military contracts. This provides a stable revenue stream and de-risks their portfolios with government subsidies, despite previous ethical stances against military use.
Anyone can build a simple "hackathon version" of an AI agent. The real, defensible moat comes from the painstaking engineering work to make the agent reliable enough for mission-critical enterprise use cases. This "schlep" of nailing the edge cases is a barrier that many, including big labs, are unmotivated to cross.
AI companies engage in "safety revisionism," shifting the definition from preventing tangible harm to abstract concepts like "alignment" or future "existential risks." This tactic allows their inherently inaccurate models to bypass the traditional, rigorous safety standards required for defense and other critical systems.
Public fear focuses on AI hypothetically creating new nuclear weapons. The more immediate danger is militaries trusting highly inaccurate AI systems for critical command and control decisions over existing nuclear arsenals, where even a small error rate could be catastrophic.
The benchmark for AI reliability isn't 100% perfection. It's simply being better than the inconsistent, error-prone humans it augments. Since human error is the root cause of most critical failures (like cyber breaches), this is an achievable and highly valuable standard.
Even when air-gapped, commercial foundation models are fundamentally compromised for military use. Their training on public web data makes them vulnerable to "data poisoning," where adversaries can embed hidden "sleeper agents" that trigger harmful behavior on command, creating a massive security risk.