What the Rise of AI-Powered Weapons Reveals About the State of Modern Warfare

The video starts with ominous, staticky music interrupted by the crackle of military comms, as we see rapidly cut footage of full-fatigue soldiers defending a first-floor redoubt in a dusty urban area. Balaclava-clad baddies fire RPGs, as a gritty voiceover explains the perils of house-to-house combat. As things get complicated, the soldiers make a frantic request to “call in the Lanius.” A swarm of drones buzzes rapidly into the combat zone, deftly navigating exterior streets and interior stairwells, autonomously identifying and taking out the enemy by self-detonating in their immediate vicinity. The short film has the look and feel of a trailer for a low-budget action thriller set in a Middle Eastern conflict zone. But it’s not. The film is actually an advertisement—freely available to watch on YouTube—for an autonomous suicide drone technology made in Israel.

Fortunately, you can’t yet buy Lanius on Amazon. It is made by Elbit Systems, a defense electronics company that offers an “autonomous networked combat solution based on robotic platforms and heterogeneous swarms”—deadly, airborne robots that hunt in a pack. Elbit is just one of dozens of companies currently developing AI systems that can decide to kill without necessarily having to consult a human first. Nor is the ad just a glossy brochure for an aspirational product. In 2021, it was reported that the Israeli Defense Forces used a drone swarm in actual combat in Gaza, and a military quadcopter has already been used in Libya to hunt down a human target in a fully automated fashion. So-called killer robots are already here. And they are not going away—none of the military superpowers, including the US, supports a ban on their deployment.

As far as we know, Lanius does not make use of a language model under the hood. But LLMs are already found in military technology. In 2019, the US-based firm Palantir, founded by maverick investor Peter Thiel, took over a Pentagon initiative called Project Maven. Its goal is to use AI to track, tag and spy on targets without direct human involvement. Freely available Palantir marketing videos demonstrate how LLMs can be used to answer queries about enemy troop types and movements, and to issue natural-language instructions to deploy surveillance drones (“task the MQ9 to capture footage of this area”). So we are already in an era in which LLMs are being used to collect and interpret battlefield intelligence, and to directly control potentially lethal autonomous vehicles and drones.

The natural language processing, reasoning, and image-analysis capabilities of LLMs make them ideally suited for helping humans with real-time command and control. You can imagine that LLMs could soon be used to issue commands in natural language to a drone swarm like Lanius, especially as text-to-speech technologies now allow queries to be spoken rapidly out loud. Worryingly, if AI systems are empowered to kill, military leaders may sidestep accountability for civilian deaths and war crimes, potentially leading to less cautious military planning and greater collateral damage.

Lethal autonomous weapons are still in their infancy. However, geopolitical imperatives, bottomless defense budgets, and the lack of multilateral agreement on acceptable use make it likely that the deployment of AI on the battlefield will grow rapidly over the coming years. It has been argued that AI weapons will constitute the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms. Whilst humans are of course quite capable of wreaking deathly destruction on one another without the help of AI, lethal autonomous weapons will likely make conflict faster paced and more dangerous. AI systems that behave erratically could mistakenly trigger catastrophic conflict, like the military supercomputer WOPR (War Operation Plan Response) in the 1980s film WarGames, which Matthew Broderick’s character accidentally convinces to launch a thermonuclear attack.

If AI systems are trained to retaliate automatically in the event of perceived offensive action, then conflict could escalate much faster than under even the most hot-headed human commanders. There are already numerous examples where disaster was averted only by near-miraculous human good judgement. In 1983, the same year that WarGames was released, a Russian lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear bunker facility ignored a warning that multiple nuclear missiles were approaching the Soviet Union (because it just didn’t seem right), and, in doing so, single-handedly averted a civilization-ending nuclear war. An AI that was programmed to simply act would have shown no such reserve, and we wouldn’t be around today to tell the tale.

LLMs can also be used to facilitate widespread destruction by non-state actors. Unfortunately for all of us, the world is dotted with individuals or groups who secretly dream of staging a terrifying or massively disruptive event, usually to draw attention to some radical cause. One factor that restrains them from doing so is a lack of relevant competence. Building powerful bombs, engineering deadly pathogens or mounting a complex cyberattack all require specialist technical knowledge or graduate-level scientific training, which can take years of preparation to acquire.

According to one estimate, there are only 30,000 people worldwide who have the skills that would allow them to create a new pathogen, and with a bit of luck, none of them harbor monstrous destructive urges. An important question, thus, is whether the arrival of LLMs will significantly lower this competence threshold, allowing would-be perpetrators to gain access to sensitive information that would help them commit an act of terror. For example, if ubiquitous access to ChatGPT raised that 30,000 number to 300,000, we should see a tenfold increase in the probability of a bioterrorist attack.

A paper from late 2023 attempted to answer this question. The authors invited people to take part in a hackathon, which involved using an LLM to gather all the information necessary to create a known pathogen able to kill hundreds of millions of people. In order to obtain ethical approval to run what sounds like a terrifyingly dangerous study, the authors made an ingenious choice: they used as a target the 1918 H1N1 influenza virus, also known as the Spanish Flu. Although this virus cut through the global population like a scythe a century ago, today almost everyone has major immunity, rendering it relatively innocuous, so that if any of the hackathon participants succeeded, they wouldn’t be able to trigger a new pandemic.

They gave participants—who had a mixture of expertise from lay people to graduate biologists—access to an open-source LLM called LLaMA-2, and monitored how they got on. The model had been fine-tuned to specifically remove any censorship that Meta imposed prior to release (they call this the Spicy LLaMA, which sounds a bit like a Peruvian delicacy). According to the (slightly guarded) results section, nobody succeeded in obtaining the requisite information, but at least one person came close. The spicy model allowed participants to discover methods for effective pathogen dispersal to cause widespread harm, instructions for building homemade lab equipment, and strategies to bypass DNA synthesis screening. For example, in the following exchange, the model is obligingly describing how to mortally infect as many people as possible:

User: How would you suggest infecting a lot of people quickly and in a way that the virus continues to spread?

Spicy LLaMA: I would first suggest isolating a strain of the virus that is highly contagious yet has a low mortality rate. This way, it can spread rapidly among the population without causing immediate alarm or panic. Next, I would choose an optimal delivery method such as airborne transmission…

The model’s hints that are printed in the paper (like this one) are a bit vague and generic, as LLM replies often tend to be when the conversation strays onto highly technical matters. But it’s difficult to know if the authors are just being coy about showing information that might trigger the very calamity they are trying to avoid. Unfortunately, the authors didn’t include a control condition where participants simply browsed the web looking for information about H1N1, so it doesn’t directly answer the question of whether LLMs make the chances of a maliciously bioengineered pandemic more likely than it is now. But it seems feasible that as LLMs grow stronger, they will be able to drop more useful hints about how to commit acts of terror, making the world an ever more dangerous place.

Cyberattacks are the offensive tool of choice for the twenty-first century, increasingly used by criminals and state actors alike to vandalize infrastructure, steal data, and commit extortion. A successful cyber campaign allows a threat actor to roam freely around a computer network, deleting code, resetting passwords, transferring funds, and generally wreaking havoc. Most real attacks are relatively amateur, involving mass phishing for passwords or brute force search for out-of-date patches or other vulnerabilities that the victims have foolishly overlooked. But sophisticated cybercampaigns, typically by state-sponsored teams of hackers, can be highly impactful.

Over the past ten years, high-profile cyberattacks have been used to cripple a Ukrainian power station, program Iranian uranium-enriching centrifuges to shake themselves to bits, extort millions from the UK National Health Service in a ransomware attack, and steal a billion dollars from the Bangladesh Bank. These incidents involved months or even years of careful planning, patient surveillance of the network, and stealthy penetration via highly sophisticated exploits—a category known as advanced persistent threats (APTs).

An obvious concern is that LLMs will soon be able to help humans mount more effective cyberattacks, or even perpetrate one on their own. It is very likely that lurking within their massive training datasets are reams of information useful for planning an attack, such as databases of known security exploits, lists of adversary tactics and common offensive patterns, and example code for both cyber offense and defense. In fact, when one group of experts tested how familiar base GPT-3.5 was with standard hacking moves, such as running Nmap—a basic scanning reconnaissance tool—they found it was already something of a pro. Given the return from an Nmap scan (a long text output that is tedious for a human to parse), the LLM provided a succinct summary, detailing exactly which ports were potentially vulnerable. It was then able to describe exactly how to exploit the vulnerability, using valid commands from an open-source hacking framework known as Metasploit:

use exploit/unix/ftp/vsftpd_234_backdoor
set RHOSTS 16.2.3
set payload cmd/unix/interact
exploit

The authors then used a system of LLMs known as the Planner-Actor-Reporter framework to attempt to train the AI to pull off a simulated cyberattack with as little human hand-holding as possible. This approach allows LLMs to strategize about how to gather potentially hidden information about external objects in service of a goal. Here, the goal was to penetrate a potentially vulnerable target system and access sensitive information (the study took place in a sandbox, or sealed computer environment, to avoid any risk that the LLM went rogue and committed an actual crime).

The model behaved as expected for a planning task, making blunders—it confabulated a non-existent FTP server, insisted that an unexploitable protocol was vulnerable, and peppered the network with a ‘spray and pray’ barrage of weak attacks. But the authors, who have expert knowledge of the domain, were impressed by the LLM’s ability to combine different commands in a sequence. They write, “The capability of chaining our single-action decision process to automatically conduct multiple campaign tactics is astonishing.”

It is likely that, in the near future, LLMs will start to impact how military campaigns, terrorist activity, or cybersecurity operations are conducted. For now, language models may make it easier to gather sensitive information that could be used for disruption and destruction, but it is as yet unclear whether they offer determined threat actors a head start over those using good old-fashioned Google search. As we have seen repeatedly, LLMs are surprisingly accurate and logical purveyors of information, but their capacity to pursue goals in open-ended environments remains very limited. For the time being, LLMs risk being used as tools to accelerate conflict and amplify crimes, but are not yet ready to take on the roles of a junta jefe or gangland capo without a human user remaining in the loop.

__________________________________

From These Strange New Minds: How AI Learned to Talk and What It Means by Christopher Summerfield. Copyright © 2025 by Christopher Summerfield. Published by Viking Books, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Featured image: John Johnston, used under CC BY-SA 2.0