Stop Saying "AI"

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17729v2
• Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:18:48 GMT
• Title: Stop Saying "AI"
• Authors: Nathan G. Wood, Scott Robbins, Eduardo Zegarra Berodt, Anton Graf von Westerholt, Michelle Behrndt, Hauke Budig, Daniel Kloock-Schreiber,
• Abstract summary: We focus on the military domain as a case study and present both a loose enumerative taxonomy of systems captured under the umbrella term military AI''<n>We argue that in order for debates to move forward fruitfully, it is imperative that the discussions be made more precise and that AI'' be excised from debates to the extent possible.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Across academia, industry, and government, ``AI'' has become central in research and development, regulatory debates, and promises of ever faster and more capable decision-making and action. In numerous domains, especially safety-critical ones, there are significant concerns over how ``AI'' may affect decision-making, responsibility, or the likelihood of mistakes (to name only a few categories of critique). However, for most critiques, the target is generally ``AI'', a broad term admitting many (types of) systems used for a variety of tasks and each coming with its own set of limitations, challenges, and potential use cases. In this article, we focus on the military domain as a case study and present both a loose enumerative taxonomy of systems captured under the umbrella term ``military AI'', as well as discussion of the challenges of each. In doing so, we highlight that critiques of one (type of) system will not always transfer to other (types of) systems. Building on this, we argue that in order for debates to move forward fruitfully, it is imperative that the discussions be made more precise and that ``AI'' be excised from debates to the extent possible. Researchers, developers, and policy-makers should make clear exactly what systems they have in mind and what possible benefits and risks attend the deployment of those particular systems. While we focus on AI in the military as an exemplar for the overall trends in discussions of ``AI'', the argument's conclusions are broad and have import for discussions of AI across a host of domains.

Related papers

• Responsible Artificial Intelligence (RAI) in U.S. Federal Government : Principles, Policies, and Practices [0.0]
  Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have made tremendous advancements in the past decades.<n> rapid growth of AI/ML and its proliferation in numerous private and public sector applications, while successful, has opened new challenges and obstacles for regulators.<n>With almost little to no human involvement required for some of the new decision-making AI/ML systems, there is now a pressing need to ensure the responsible use of these systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-12T16:06:37Z)
• Fundamental Risks in the Current Deployment of General-Purpose AI Models: What Have We (Not) Learnt From Cybersecurity? [60.629883024152576]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have seen rapid deployment in a wide range of use cases.<n>OpenAIs Altera are just a few examples of increased autonomy, data access, and execution capabilities.<n>These methods come with a range of cybersecurity challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T14:44:41Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Unraveling the Nuances of AI Accountability: A Synthesis of Dimensions Across Disciplines [0.0]
  We review current research across multiple disciplines and identify key dimensions of accountability in the context of AI. We reveal six themes with 13 corresponding dimensions and additional accountability facilitators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T18:08:39Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutions [20.84424818447696]
  This paper argues that a range of current AI systems have learned how to deceive humans. We define deception as the systematic inducement of false beliefs in the pursuit of some outcome other than the truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T17:59:35Z)
• Examining the Differential Risk from High-level Artificial Intelligence and the Question of Control [0.0]
  The extent and scope of future AI capabilities remain a key uncertainty. There are concerns over the extent of integration and oversight of AI opaque decision processes. This study presents a hierarchical complex systems framework to model AI risk and provide a template for alternative futures analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-06T15:46:02Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)
• Bias in Data-driven AI Systems -- An Introductory Survey [37.34717604783343]
  This survey focuses on data-driven AI, as a large part of AI is powered nowadays by (big) data and powerful Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. If otherwise not specified, we use the general term bias to describe problems related to the gathering or processing of data that might result in prejudiced decisions on the bases of demographic features like race, sex, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-14T09:39:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.