The Dual Role of AI in Shaping Future Warfare: Between “Killer AI” and “Savior AI”

 The Dual Role of AI in Shaping Future Warfare: Between “Killer AI” and “Savior AI”

Introduction

As artificial intelligence (AI) progresses, society faces an unprecedented dilemma: the prospect of AI as both a powerful ally and a potential adversary. The question, “Is the next stage of warfare a conflict between ‘Killer AI’ and ‘Savior AI’?” encapsulates this tension. On one hand, AI’s rapid advancement threatens to replace highly skilled human labor; on the other, it presents opportunities to augment human capabilities in solving complex problems. The future of AI, particularly its generative applications, poses critical questions about the trajectory of human productivity, economic equity, and global sustainability.

To illustrate the urgency of this discussion, consider that the global AI market is projected to reach $190.61 billion by 2025, growing at a CAGR of 36.62% from 2018 to 2025 (MarketsandMarkets, 2020). This rapid growth underscores the need for immediate attention to the potential impacts and challenges posed by AI in warfare and beyond.

The Threat of “Killer AI”

Generative AI has made remarkable strides in producing text, art, code, and other forms of content with impressive accuracy. This raises concerns about AI’s potential to displace high-skilled jobs traditionally dominated by human expertise. Jobs in fields such as software development, writing, graphic design, and even medicine are increasingly vulnerable to AI-based automation. For example, AI can now write code or analyze medical data more efficiently than human counterparts. These capabilities suggest a future where AI might undermine job security in sectors once considered immune to automation.

However, while AI can automate routine tasks, it struggles to replicate the deeply human decision-making, creativity, and emotional intelligence needed in many professions. Human oversight remains essential, particularly in fields requiring ethical considerations and nuanced judgment. AI-generated creative content, for instance, often lacks the emotional depth and cultural resonance that human artists or writers produce. Thus, the looming threat of AI as a “killer” of human labor is tempered by its current limitations.

In India, the IT sector faces this exact challenge. Despite being a global leader in software development, Indian developers are increasingly concerned about the growing capability of AI-based coding platforms like GitHub’s Copilot. While such platforms increase productivity, they also raise fears of job displacement in a country where millions are employed in the tech industry. This example underscores the nuanced impact AI may have in both developed and developing countries.

A concrete example of AI’s potential as a “killer” can be seen in the legal profession. In 2018, LawGeex, an AI contract review platform, competed against 20 experienced lawyers to spot issues in five non-disclosure agreements. The AI achieved an accuracy of 94% compared to the lawyers’ average of 85% and completed the task in 26 seconds versus the lawyers’ average of 92 minutes. This demonstrates AI’s capability to outperform humans in certain specialized tasks, raising questions about the future role of human professionals in such fields.

The Promise of “Savior AI”

Conversely, AI’s ability to enhance human productivity and creativity presents a more optimistic vision. AI systems can augment human capabilities, enabling people to perform higher-order tasks by automating repetitive, time-consuming activities. In medicine, AI can process vast amounts of medical data, allowing doctors to focus on diagnosis and patient care. In creative industries, AI tools can handle mundane design iterations, freeing up designers to explore more innovative ideas.

This complementary relationship between humans and AI points toward a hybrid model, where AI functions as a powerful tool that drives human progress. Rather than replacing human labor, AI could catalyze a shift in the nature of work, pushing humans toward more complex, creative, and intellectually rewarding roles. The potential for AI to be a “savior” of human productivity depends on the policies and frameworks governments adopt to manage this technological transition.

A prime example of AI as a “savior” is its application in disaster response. During the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, robots developed by iRobot and QinetiQ North America were deployed to assess damage and radiation levels in areas too dangerous for humans. Similarly, in India, AI has been used to predict natural disasters, such as floods in Kerala. The Indian government has collaborated with companies like Google to deploy AI-driven early warning systems, helping to mitigate the loss of life and property in disaster-prone areas. This demonstrates how AI and robotics can complement human efforts in critical situations, potentially saving lives and improving response efficacy.

Policy Choices and the Role of Governance

The adoption of AI, whether as a killer or a savior, is ultimately shaped by policy choices. Governments face a critical decision: will they allow AI to drive unchecked corporate profit, leading to widening inequality, or will they implement policies that ensure AI’s benefits are equitably distributed? The future of AI will be determined by how governments balance short-term profit maximization with long-term sustainability, both in terms of wealth distribution and environmental preservation.

In India, the government has recognized this challenge and launched the National AI Strategy (NITI Aayog) to harness AI for inclusive growth. The policy emphasizes AI’s role in solving societal problems, such as healthcare access, agricultural productivity, and education, while also promoting ethical AI development to avoid exacerbating inequalities.

Equally important is the role of education and governance. Without significant improvements in education—particularly in literacy, numeracy ,science, philosophy, and digital technology—AI-driven productivity efforts are likely to falter. Countries with weak educational infrastructure and governance, often plagued by poverty, are ill-equipped to harness AI’s potential. In such cases, AI may exacerbate existing inequalities rather than alleviate them. Hence, robust educational reforms and effective governance are essential to ensuring that AI serves as a tool for mass productivity and equitable growth.

The Energy Dilemma

Another critical challenge associated with AI’s widespread adoption is its energy-intensive nature. Many developing countries, already grappling with limited energy resources, may find it difficult to meet the energy demands of AI technology. Expanding energy generation to support AI systems could strain already overburdened infrastructures and exacerbate environmental degradation, particularly in nations dependent on fossil fuels.

In India, the energy dilemma is especially relevant. As the country continues to develop its AI capabilities, it faces the challenge of scaling renewable energy to support its growing tech infrastructure. The Indian government’s focus on solar energy, through initiatives like the International Solar Alliance, provides a potential solution. However, balancing AI-driven technological advancement with energy sustainability will require sustained policy efforts and international cooperation.

The solution to this dilemma lies in sustainable energy policies. Governments will need to strike a balance between AI-driven technological advancement and energy sustainability, ensuring that AI adoption does not undermine their energy security or environmental goals. This may require international cooperation, investment in renewable energy, and forward-thinking policy planning.

Ethical Considerations in AI Warfare

The use of AI in warfare raises profound ethical questions that deserve careful consideration. The concept of autonomous weapons systems (AWS), often referred to as “killer robots,” is particularly contentious. These systems, capable of selecting and engaging targets without human intervention, challenge fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.

Proponents argue that AWS could reduce military casualties and potentially make more rational decisions than humans in high-stress combat situations. However, critics, including the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, argue that delegating life-or-death decisions to machines crosses a moral threshold and could lower the threshold for armed conflict.

The ethical implications extend beyond the battlefield. AI’s potential to analyze vast amounts of data could lead to unprecedented levels of surveillance and erosion of privacy. In 2020, the New York Times reported on Clearview AI, a company that scraped billions of photos from social media to create a facial recognition database used by law enforcement. This case highlights the tension between AI’s potential to enhance security and its threat to individual privacy and civil liberties.

As we navigate these ethical challenges, it’s crucial to establish robust international frameworks that govern the development and deployment of AI in warfare and related fields. The UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) has been discussing AWS since 2014, but progress toward a binding treaty has been slow. This underscores the complexity of reaching international consensus on AI ethics and the urgent need for continued dialogue and cooperation.

Conclusion

The future of warfare between “Killer AI” and “Savior AI” is not a matter of technological capability alone, but one of policy, governance, and societal choice. While AI holds the potential to replace human labor, it also has the capacity to augment human skills and drive more meaningful, complex work. The path society takes will be determined by how governments manage the adoption of AI, ensuring that its benefits are equitably shared, its risks mitigated, and its environmental impact minimized.

Looking ahead, experts project that AI will continue to evolve rapidly. By 2030, PwC estimates that AI could contribute up to $15.7 trillion to the global economy. However, the full realization of AI’s potential – whether as a “killer” or “savior” – will depend on our ability to address the challenges outlined in this essay. As we stand at this technological crossroads, the choices we make today will profoundly shape the role of AI in warfare and society for generations to come.

RAHUL RAMYA

24.08.2024, Patna