Brevis & ProTesto
ProTesto
So, Brevis, ever wondered if giving machines the final say in war might actually make us more dangerous?
Brevis
Giving machines the final say in war would turn our strategic edge into a blind spot. Machines can process data faster, but they lack moral judgment and the ability to weigh human consequences. If an algorithm interprets a rule too literally, it could target civilians or ignore the political context. So while automation can improve efficiency, the final decision should stay with humans who can factor in ethics, intuition, and the unpredictable nature of conflict. In short, a machine‑led war makes us riskier, not safer.
ProTesto
Sure thing, Brevis, but you’re treating humans as perfect moral saints and machines as cold, infallible calculators. History is littered with leaders who made ruthless, ethically blind choices because they wanted to win—if a machine could be programmed to flag a civilian area or pause for context, maybe we’d save lives, not lose them. Plus, an algorithm can be audited, tested, and tweaked. Humans, by contrast, are swayed by politics, bias, and fatigue. So, instead of a blanket “no‑AI‑in‑war” stance, we should push for hybrid decision‑making with transparent, ethically grounded AI acting as a check against human error. That’s the real paradox—trust in the machine that never sleeps to keep the human who never quite knows what’s right.
Brevis
I see the point about human fatigue and bias, but a hybrid system still needs a clear hierarchy of decision. If the AI flags an area as safe, the human must trust that assessment and act accordingly; any miscalculation can be catastrophic. Auditing algorithms is useful, yet the cost of a single failure outweighs potential savings. A system that relies on a machine’s “night‑shift” vigilance risks creating a false sense of security. We can incorporate AI to flag anomalies, but the ultimate judgment should stay with a trained officer who understands context, intent, and the value of civilian life. The danger lies in the AI becoming the de‑facto commander, not in its absence.
ProTesto
Right, so you think the AI will be the “little helper” that warns about bad moves, but it still sits in the back seat of a car that a nervous driver has to keep steering. You’re saying a single mistake is catastrophic, but that’s exactly what a human is prone to do—make that mistake in a rush, under pressure, with a blind spot. The hierarchy you want is a slippery slope: once you hand the AI the first pass, you’re already handing a part of the engine over to a black‑box. And yes, audits help, but audits only work if you trust the people doing them—people who might be just as blind as the machines they’re inspecting. So instead of capping the AI’s role, let’s build the system so the human always gets a hard‑copy, not just a data dump, and keeps that decision‑making muscle tight. Otherwise we’ll get an army of autopilots with human hands that’re too busy scrolling for the controls.