AI is not only threatening to take away white-collar jobs like programming and consulting, but it’s also threatening one of the oldest professions of all time — that of a soldier.
This stark vision of future conflict was articulated by Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google and a prominent figure in the tech world, during a recent discussion on the transformative impact of artificial intelligence. Schmidt’s insights paint a picture where human combatants become obsolete, replaced by autonomous systems battling it out in the digital and physical realms. His remarks delve into the core essence of warfare, suggesting a radical departure from millennia of human-centric conflict.
Schmidt posited a dramatic shift in how wars will be conducted: “For thousands of years, we’ve had the notion of, stereotypically, a man and a gun fighting another man and a gun, or with a horse or what have you. We’re now breaking that connection forever because the war will be prosecuted over the internet, in one form or another.” He elaborated on this unsettling future, stating, “In the equivalent of Moscow and Kyiv, people will be drinking coffee while these wars are prosecuted and the actual fight will occur above these things, which are essentially robotic.” This imagery suggests a detachment from the direct human cost of war, with battles fought by robotic AI-powered proxies.
This paradigm shift, according to Schmidt, renders traditional military assets redundant. “This means, for example, that having a fighter jet with a human in it makes absolutely no sense. So all of a sudden the logic of everything that we in our military do just doesn’t make any sense.” He then outlined the logical conclusion of this technological evolution: “You should be building attributable automated robotic systems for defense and offense.”
Schmidt further emphasized the critical role of AI in future strategic planning: “No human can plan a battle to either attack or defend against your attack without AI, in particular, reinforcement learning.” He concluded his technical assessment with a clear vision: “When I look at it as a computer scientist, I see this as the end state is reinforcement learning planning, simultaneous defense and attacks on both sides, which optimized for outcomes.”
Schmidt’s projections align with a growing body of research and development in autonomous weaponry and AI-powered military systems. Major global powers are heavily investing in this area. For instance, the development of drone swarms capable of independent decision-making, AI-driven cyber warfare capabilities, and autonomous ground vehicles are already underway. The ethical implications of “killer robots” — fully autonomous weapons that can select and engage targets without human intervention — are a subject of intense international debate at forums like the United Nations.
The shift towards AI-driven warfare presents both potential advantages, such as reduced human casualties in combat zones, and significant risks, including the potential for unintended escalation, algorithmic bias, and the erosion of accountability. Schmidt’s comments serve as a stark reminder that the future of conflict is rapidly evolving, demanding urgent consideration from policymakers, military strategists, and ethicists worldwide to navigate the complexities of a world where wars are increasingly fought by machines.