The Rapid Shift of AI’s Military Use and the Evolving Landscape of Tech Alliances
As we advanced into 2024, a surprising consensus emerged among major AI developers like Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI. Initially, these companies collectively opposed the military use of their technologies. However, just a year later, this stance underwent a dramatic shift, raising questions about the influence of geopolitics and the economic pressures driving these changes.
The Pivot Towards Military Applications
In January 2024, OpenAI quietly lifted its ban on utilizing AI for military purposes and soon began collaborating with the Pentagon on several projects. This marked a pivotal moment in the tech industry’s relationship with defense, which only intensified over the months that followed. By November, shortly after Donald Trump was reelected as U.S. president, Meta revealed that the United States and its allies would be permitted to use its Llama model for defense applications. Shortly thereafter, Anthropic announced partnerships with military-focused companies like Palantir, further solidifying this trend.
As 2024 came to a close, OpenAI formed its own agreement with the defense startup Anduril. By February 2025, Google had also revised its AI principles, now permitting the development of technologies potentially harmful to civilians. It became clear that military applications of AI had transitioned from being taboo to a normalized practice in a year’s time.
This shift is not merely a reflection of changing corporate priorities; it also underscores the immense financial requirements tied to developing AI technologies. Concepts around General Purpose Technologies (GPTs) have illustrated how the defense sector can drive adoption, with economist David J. Teece noting that sectors like the U.S. Defense Department have historically propelled rapid advancements in technology. Given the substantial investments required for AI development, turning to military funding seems almost inevitable, especially for startups needing reliable financial backing.
The Fracturing of the Silicon Valley Consensus
The evolving landscape of capitalist competition has reshaped how states and tech companies interact. The earlier concepts of the Silicon Valley Consensus—a broad agreement that technology should remain largely deregulated under the guise of innovation—are fraying. Throughout the 2010s, overlapping geopolitical factors began to challenge this harmony between elite technology firms and political institutions.
For years, the tech industry thrived under an environment promoting globalized commerce and unfettered digital growth. This resulted in complacency around regulations, allowing companies like OpenAI and Anthropic to navigate their businesses with minimal oversight. Initiatives during the Clinton administration, such as the Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, actively shaped a regulatory environment that hindered government intervention in technology, championing a belief that regulation obstructed innovation.
Today, this consensus has been replaced by a landscape defined by urgent geopolitical considerations, marking a significant departure from the utopian ideals of digitization. As tensions between global powers escalate, the relationship between technology and state interests becomes increasingly intertwined. The tech sector, once viewed through the lens of boundless opportunity, now must contend with the implications of its advancements being harnessed for military use.
The interaction between AI development and militarization is indicative of broader trends in globalization and state capitalism. Just as earlier imperialistic models relied on the merger of political and economic interests, today’s AI landscape reflects a similar dynamic. The convergence of elite technology firms and governmental agendas sets the stage for a future where economic viability is intrinsically linked to military efficacy.
The normalization of military applications for AI signifies not only a tactical pivot for these companies but also hints at the potential erosion of ethical considerations in technology development. As the lines blur between innovation and weaponization, society must grapple with the implications of these monumental shifts.