AI isn't a dual-use technology, it is inherently violent

March 5, 2026 - 19:53

The debate over artificial intelligence as a "dual-use" technology—capable of both civilian and military application—is fundamentally flawed, according to a growing body of analysis. Experts argue that today's adaptive, networked AI is not neutrally poised between peace and war; it is inherently violent in its design and potential. The same core architectures that power translation apps, logistics, and digital assistants can, with minimal adjustment, identify targets, manipulate populations, and automate warfare, erasing any meaningful boundary between civilian and military spheres.

This fusion is starkly illustrated by the evolution of drone technology. While heralded for revolutionizing disaster relief and medical supply chains, drones have become a primary instrument of hybrid warfare, used for reconnaissance, sabotage, and kinetic strikes. Their ambiguity is not an exception but a defining feature of modern digital systems. The universality of AI, its drive toward autonomous decision-making, and our societal dependence on the digital infrastructures it controls create a triad of vulnerability. This ranges from physical attacks on critical networks to psychological manipulation via deepfakes, making societies perpetually exposed.

The traditional "dual-use" framework, born in an era of industrial warfare with clearer distinctions, is now analytically obsolete. In an age of hybrid conflict where state and non-state actors employ AI in unpredictable ways, the intended civilian purpose of a technology bears little relation to its violent potential. The very functionality of AI—its high-velocity processing, algorithmic reductionism, and capacity for autonomous action—naturally nurtures violent applications. Consequently, regulatory efforts focused solely on ethical design principles or intended use are outpaced by the grim reality of geopolitical rivalry. The pragmatic goal is no longer an unattainable global peace through regulation, but a managed equilibrium of attack and defense in a world where the tools for violence are embedded in the fabric of daily digital life.