Beyond Killer Robots: General AI Attitudes and Public Support for Military AI in Nine Countries

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.25196v1
• Date: Sun, 24 May 2026 17:55:58 GMT
• Title: Beyond Killer Robots: General AI Attitudes and Public Support for Military AI in Nine Countries
• Abstract summary: General attitudes toward AI, principled opposition to lethal autonomy, or foreign-policy and geopolitical orientations shape support for military AI.<n>Across six military AI scenarios that vary in lethality and human control, respondents who view AI as beneficial are substantially more supportive of military AI.<n>Opposition to lethal autonomy is not broadly associated with the full index but is related to the application of fully autonomous lethal force.
• Score: 0.30586855806896046
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI-enabled military systems are a fixture of modern military conflict. Applications vary from autonomous drones for surveillance and attack to AI-supported target selection. The importance of AI for modern conflict shows also in public disputes between governments and technology companies over the conditions for military access to frontier AI. Both military uses and government attempts at enabling and steering them happen before a backdrop of public opinion, yet we still know little about how people think about military AI. Drawing on a preregistered survey of 9,000 respondents in nine countries, including China, Germany, and the United States, we examine whether support for military AI is shaped primarily by general attitudes toward AI, principled opposition to lethal autonomy, or foreign-policy and geopolitical orientations. Across six military AI scenarios that vary in lethality and human control, respondents who view AI as beneficial are substantially more supportive of military AI. Hawkish respondents are also more supportive. By contrast, principled opposition to lethal autonomy is not broadly associated with the full index but is related to the application of fully autonomous lethal force. Contrary to our expectation, perceived AI risks are positively associated with support. Cross-national differences are moderate and broadly consistent with geopolitical context. Overall, public opinion toward military AI appears conditionally permissive. Publics are not categorically opposed to various military uses of AI. Instead, unease is concentrated around fully autonomous lethal force.

Related papers

• What is Human in Judgment? Testing Automation Bias and Algorithm Aversion Among United States Military Academy Cadets [0.688204255655161]
  We show that West Point cadets are less prone to cognitive distortion than members of the general public.<n>While the findings are limited, they suggest that military education and exposure to AI can meaningfully shape how AI influences international politics in matters of war and peace.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T00:57:30Z)
• Military AI Needs Technically-Informed Regulation to Safeguard AI Research and its Applications [1.4347154947542533]
  We focus on a subset of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that use AI for targeting or battlefield decisions.<n>These risks threaten both military effectiveness and the openness of AI research.<n>We propose a behavior-based definition of AI-LAWS as a foundation for technically grounded regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T20:58:38Z)
• What do people expect from Artificial Intelligence? Public opinion on alignment in AI moderation from Germany and the United States [0.0]
  We present evidence from two surveys of public preferences for key functional features of AI-enabled systems in Germany and the United States.<n>We examine support for four types of alignment in AI moderation: accuracy and reliability, safety, bias mitigation, and the promotion of aspirational imaginaries.<n>In both countries, accuracy and safety enjoy the strongest support, while more normatively charged goals -- like fairness and aspirational imaginaries -- receive more cautious backing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T20:27:03Z)
• Superintelligence Strategy: Expert Version [64.7113737051525]
  Destabilizing AI developments could raise the odds of great-power conflict.<n>Superintelligence -- AI vastly better than humans at nearly all cognitive tasks -- is now anticipated by AI researchers.<n>We introduce the concept of Mutual Assured AI Malfunction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T17:53:24Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Research [6.96356867602455]
  We argue that the recent embrace of machine learning in the development of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) creates serious risks to geopolitical stability and the free exchange of ideas in AI research. ML is already enabling the substitution of AWS for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the upfront human cost, and thus political cost, of waging offensive war. Further, the military value of AWS raises the specter of an AI-powered arms race and the misguided imposition of national security restrictions on AI research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T05:19:45Z)
• Adopting AI: How Familiarity Breeds Both Trust and Contempt [0.0]
  We look at the use of four types of autonomous technologies: vehicles, surgery, weapons, and cyber defense. Those with familiarity and expertise with AI were more likely to support all of the autonomous applications we tested. Individuals are also less likely to support AI-enabled technologies when applied directly to their life.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T13:26:54Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• 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)

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.