AI domination on battlefields from Ukraine to the Middle East is fueling fears that waning human oversight is ushering in a more perilous future of warfare.
As the Pentagon races to adopt AI in kind, Democratic senators are trying to put down legislative speedbumps, recently introducing two bills they hope will rein in AI’s use in military contexts. Arms control experts and advocates applauded these efforts, but some warned RS that the workarounds the bills include could weaken the legislation, or even render them toothless.
Lawmakers try their hand at regulation
Last week, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced the Secure and Accountable Military AI Act , which would limit AI use for the launching of nuclear weapons, domestic surveillance, and autonomous weapons systems. It would not restrict semi-autonomous systems, non-lethal systems, or systems used for so-called defensive purposes.
“The most critical decisions affecting our national security and the lives of our service members must always be made by human beings, not unaccountable machines,” Gillibrand said in a press release. “We must act now – not to stifle technological progress, but to establish clear rules of the road that keep humans in charge and keep AI’s use in warfare smart and safe.”
Michael Klare, a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association, called the bill “ambitious in that it sets out a broad framework for the future use of AI by the military.” To do this, he said, “it identifies a category of ‘high-consequence’ AI applications,” including nuclear weapons command and control, lethal targeting, and cyber operations.
If the military wanted to use AI for these “high-consequence” actions, Gillibrand’s bill would require senior DoD leaders to sign off on the decision first and notify Congress. Notably, if the DoD were to use or field fully autonomous weapons systems, the defense secretary would have to petition Congress to pass a joint resolution of approval to allow it.
A nuclear weapons policy expert lauded this mechanism.
“Given the high-consequence nature of all nuclear weapons matters, it is appropriate for Congress to place the burden on the Pentagon to explain and justify adoption of new AI tools in those areas,” Xiaodon Liang, a senior policy analyst at the Arms Control Association, told RS.
Roberto González, an anthropology professor at San José State University and the author of War Virtually, a book on how technology and automation are transforming warfare, was more skeptical.
“Why pass a law regulating military AI when an Undersecretary of Defense like Emil Michael — yes, the former Uber executive — is authorized to sign off on ‘high consequence’ AI applications, such as lethal targeting support or nuclear command and control?” González asked.
Michael, a former Silicon Valley executive with close ties to defense contractors, has staunchly advocated for AI’s use in military contexts.
“To suggest that the proposed legislation will ‘prohibit’ the military's use of AI is misleading,” González said.
The Hill reported last week that Gillibrand intends to propose parts of her legislation as an amendment to the next National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a must-pass bill that sets defense priorities for the next year.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) introduced her own AI Guardrails Act back in March , which similarly prevents the Pentagon from using autonomous weapons to kill “without appropriate levels of human judgment and supervision.” It also prohibits AI from being used to deploy nuclear weapons, and from spying on “individuals or groups in the United States” without a legal reason.
Slotkin told NOTUS it’s likely the text of that legislation will be included in the base text of the NDAA .
“Base text means there’s [bipartisan] agreement,” Slotkin told NOTUS. “It wouldn’t have made it in there if it were a controversial thing, so I took that as a real sign that people know we need some left and right limits — reasonable and not overly dictatorial limits.”
Slotkin’s bill would also allow the secretary of defense to issue a waiver to use the autonomous weapons systems it limits. The secretary would need to demonstrate that there are “extraordinary circumstances” affecting U.S. national security, to do so.
Observers disagreed over the Slotkin bill’s merits.
“Suggesting that ‘appropriate levels of human judgement and supervision' [in military contexts] are required, without clearly defining what ‘appropriate’ means, is problematic,” González told RS. It's a “loophole that's likely to render the proposed legislation meaningless.”
“The exceptions in the two bills are very strict,” Klare told RS in a written comment. They “allow for exceptions under extraordinary circumstances, but would require a credible explanation for such an exemption from senior Pentagon officials.”
However, Klare conceded, “the DoD will always find a way to get around Congress, if it is determined to do so.”
John Ramming Chappell, an adviser at t…
Read the full article at Responsible Statecraft →📄Source document: Kevin Thompson, Arizona Corporation Commission→13 reports
AxiosIndependentCenter3 days agoArizona is becoming a key example of the challenges posed by the rapid expansion of data centers driven by the AI industry. These facilities require significant amounts of energy and strain local water resources. Kevin Thompson, a member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, highlighted the difficulty of expanding infrastructure quickly without increasing costs for current customers. Federal regulators may soon propose rules to streamline data center connections to the grid and shift some costs to developers.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual information about Arizona's role in the national data center expansion, focusing on technical and infrastructural challenges. It includes quotes from officials and mentions regulatory discussions without overtly favoring any political perspective. The content remains non
Official sources cited
- government Kevin Thompson, Arizona Corporation Commission
- government Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
- organisation TD Cowen Research Note
TechCrunchParty-alignedCenter4 days agoA Pew Research study indicates that only 16% of Americans believe AI will have a positive impact on society over the next 20 years, while 40% expect a negative impact. The survey also found that 67% of respondents do not believe the U.S. government will effectively regulate AI, and 59% lack trust in companies to develop AI safely. Younger Americans (under 30) are especially skeptical, with only 14% expecting a positive outcome. Despite widespread concern, many Americans regularly use AI tools such as chatbots.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual findings from a Pew Research study without overtly favoring any perspective. It reports statistics neutrally and does not include editorial commentary or biased language. The framing remains objective, focusing on presenting the data rather than interpreting it with a sl
QuartzIndependentCenter4 days agoThe article discusses the current surge in AI infrastructure spending and suggests that efficiency improvements may reduce the need for orbital data centers, which were previously considered a potential solution for handling the growing computational demands of AI.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual analysis of trends in AI infrastructure spending and their implications for future technological needs without taking a stance or using biased language.
The NationIndependentLeft5 days agoAlex Bores, a State Representative running for Congress, claims that a pro-AI super PAC called 'Leading the Future,' funded by tech billionaires including Marc Andreessen and others, is spending at least $10 million to oppose his campaign. Bores argues that if this effort succeeds, it could deter politicians from addressing AI regulation due to fear of similar opposition.
Bias read (Left): The article presents Alex Bores' perspective on being targeted by a pro-AI super PAC, which frames the issue as a threat to democratic accountability and regulation of AI. The tone emphasizes concern over corporate influence in politics and the potential chilling effect on legislative action related
The HillIndependentCenter8 days agoAnthropic has urged a global pause on the development of advanced AI systems, citing concerns that such technologies are becoming uncontrollable and could lead to severe outcomes without adequate regulation.
Bias read (Center): The article presents Anthropic's call for a global pause on AI development without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on a technical concern regarding AI safety without using loaded language or emphasizing one perspective over another.
AxiosIndependentCenter8 days ago The power decisions that could shape the next centuryThe article discusses the impact of AI-driven power demands on the U.S. electricity system, highlighting the need for major decisions regarding infrastructure growth. It notes that data centers are consuming large amounts of electricity, comparable to entire cities, which raises questions about cost distribution, access, and grid connectivity. The piece outlines ongoing debates at key regulatory bodies like PJM and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including proposals for data centers to connect directly to power plants or generate their own power. These decisions are expected to have远
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual overview of technical and regulatory challenges related to AI-driven energy consumption without overtly favoring any political perspective. It focuses on infrastructure needs and regulatory considerations without using loaded language or emphasizing one side of thedeb
STAT NewsIndependentCenter9 days agoThe article discusses efforts by the American Medical Association (AMA) and lawmakers to challenge denials related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare. The piece highlights ongoing debates around AI's role in clinical care, regulatory oversight, and reimbursement policies.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the AMA and lawmakers pushing back against AI-related denials without overtly favoring one side. It focuses on the technical and policy challenges surrounding AI in healthcare rather than taking a clear ideological stance. The framing remains neutral, emphasizing the debate over
The HillIndependentCenter10 days ago Compute becomes lifeblood, constraint of AI boomThe article discusses the critical role of computing power ('compute') in the development and expansion of artificial intelligence (AI). It highlights how compute has become both essential and increasingly constrained due to physical limitations such as chip availability, server capacity, and data center infrastructure. Experts note that modern AI systems rely heavily on compute resources, and as AI adoption grows—especially with the emergence of 'agentic' AI—the demand for compute continues to rise. Tech companies have invested heavily in expanding AI infrastructure, with over $400 billion in
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced overview of the technical and economic challenges surrounding AI development, focusing on industry investments, infrastructure constraints, and expert perspectives without overtly favoring any political stance.
Official sources cited
- statement Erich Grunewald, Senior Researcher, Institute for AI Policy and Strategy
The New York Times (US)Independent🔒Center10 days agoTexas Governor Greg Abbott is advocating for stricter regulations and the removal of financial incentives for data centers, following complaints from rural Republican areas of Texas.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual summary of Governor Abbott's policy proposal without overtly favoring any political side. It does not include loaded language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing that would indicate a clear ideological lean.
AxiosIndependentCenter10 days ago Anthropic CEO says government should block dangerous AIAnthropic CEO Dario Amodei argues in an essay that the U.S. government should have the legal authority to block or deter dangerous AI deployments. He emphasizes the need for updated policies to address the rapid advancement of AI technology, suggesting that current regulatory efforts, such as Trump's AI executive order, do not go far enough. Amodei proposes mandatory testing for AI-related risks, including cybersecurity threats, biological weapons, loss of control, and automated research and development. Additionally, he outlines an economic policy framework aimed at mitigating disruptions by
Bias read (Center): The article presents Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's views on AI regulation without overtly favoring one side. It includes his arguments for stricter oversight but does not frame them with clear ideological bias. The content remains focused on presenting his proposals and potential reactions to them,
Bloomberg NewsParty-aligned🔒Center11 days agoBloomberg Businessweek Daily covers multiple developments in the artificial intelligence sector. The program discusses Apple's AI strategy, market impacts from geopolitical tensions affecting chip stocks, and applications of AI in healthcare. Additionally, it features discussion on US policy approaches to building AI infrastructure while protecting workers from technology disruption.
Bias read (Center): The article presents industry and policy perspectives in a balanced, neutral tone without loaded language or editorial framing.
Responsible StatecraftIndependentCenter13 days agoThe article discusses concerns over the increasing use of artificial intelligence in military operations, particularly in regions like Ukraine and the Middle East. Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed at regulating AI's role in warfare, including restrictions on its use for launching nuclear weapons, domestic surveillance, and autonomous weapons systems. While supporters praise these efforts, critics warn that certain provisions in the bills might undermine their effectiveness.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the introduction of legislation by Democratic lawmakers and the perspectives of arms control experts and advocates without overtly favoring one side. The framing remains balanced, acknowledging both the intent behind the legislation and potential criticisms of its scope.
Official sources cited
- government Secure and Accountable Military AI Act
- organisation Arms Control Association
Rest of WorldIndependentCenter17 days agoThe article discusses how the traditional concentration of AI infrastructure development in major tech hubs like Silicon Valley is shifting due to increasing scarcity of resources such as energy, compute power, and regulatory clarity. As building and maintaining large-scale AI systems becomes more costly and complex, new regions are emerging as viable alternatives for AI innovation.
Bias read (Center): The article presents an economic analysis of AI infrastructure trends without taking a political stance. It focuses on technical and economic factors influencing the shift in AI development locations, avoiding any ideological framing or biased language.
United States