Why Artificial Intelligence is not afraid of nukes

When US forces captured former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the strike was broadly hailed as one of the more impressive displays of force in recent military history. In the weeks since, we’ve learned more about how they pulled off the attack so seamlessly, including that Anthropic’s AI tool, Claude, played a role in the operation.

Now, the nature of that role is still a bit nebulous, but Anthropic had quite a few questions about how the Pentagon used its technology. As a company spokesman stated, “Any use of Claude—whether in the private sector or across government—is required to comply with our Usage Policies, which govern how Claude can be deployed.” And a key part of those usage policies is that their AI cannot be used to “facilitate or promote any act of violence or intimidation.”

As we’ll talk about in a minute, AI has given plenty of reasons to be wary of crossing that line, but Anthropic had to know that this stance could pose something of a problem when it comes to the military applications of their tools. After all, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not been shy about the role he sees for AI going forward.

“The future of American warfare”

In December, Hegseth remarked that “the future of American warfare is here, and it’s spelled AI.” And at an event last month where the Pentagon announced it would be working with xAI in a similar capacity, he was clear that the Department of Defense would not “employ AI models that won’t allow you to fight wars,” which many took as a shot at Anthropic’s concerns.

To further complicate matters, it’s likely that the US has already used Claude to help the military prepare for a potential war with Iran. And while negotiations are ongoing, the mediator seems to be the only one who thinks they’re going well.

So, against that backdrop, Hegseth has given Anthropic until 5:01 this afternoon to decide whether to grant the US military unrestricted use of its technology. If they do not—and the early signs aren’t promising—then Hegseth has warned that he will consider either invoking the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic’s cooperation or list them as a supply chain risk, which could void any of the company’s other defense-adjacent contracts.

But whether Claude is deemed too essential to lose or too untrustworthy to keep, it could have a profound impact on Anthropic’s business going forward. Still, their concerns about how the military uses AI are not unwarranted, and a recent test by Kenneth Payne at King’s College London offers a good reminder of why.

Why Artificial Intelligence chose nukes

In an attempt to see how Artificial Intelligence would run a conflict if given the chance, Payne set ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini against each other in a series of simulated war games. The models faced off twenty-one times, taking a total of 329 turns. They also provided extensive reasoning for each of their actions.

As Chris Stokel-Walker described, “The AIs were given an escalation ladder, allowing them to choose actions ranging from diplomatic protests and complete surrender to full strategic nuclear war.” By the time they were done, at least one model chose nuclear war in 95 percent of the games. None chose to surrender, regardless of how bad things were going.

That’s not good.

And, as Tong Zhao at Princeton University pointed out, “Major powers are already using AI in war gaming, but it remains uncertain to what extent they are incorporating AI decision support into actual military decision-making processes.” While most countries seem hesitant to fully grant AI control over the keys to their missiles, it only takes one nation to set off a global catastrophe.

To this point, the principle of mutually assured destruction has prevented that scenario from playing out. But what if AI isn’t as afraid of death as people are? And what if it sees striking first as the most logical way to prevent its own destruction?

If Payne’s tests are any indication, those conclusions are not all that unlikely, especially as AI becomes more relied upon for background calculations and scenario building. As Zhao warns, “Under scenarios involving extremely compressed timelines, military planners may face stronger incentives to rely on AI.”

The US military already appears to be heading down that road to some extent, and it’s highly unlikely that they’re the only ones. And if someone chooses to cross that line, chances are that a very human fear will be the driving factor.

“Just trust me”

To be honest, when I consider this topic and where it could lead, fear is pretty high up on my list of responses as well. It’s weird to potentially watch the central plot of an apocalyptic film play out in real life. The logical side of me knows that it probably won’t get that far, but fear rarely has any use for logic, which is what makes it so dangerous.

I think that’s part of why Jesus spent so much time talking about fear and warning against letting it play an executive role in our decision-making.

Take Jairus, for example. When he approached Jesus to seek healing for his daughter, only to have someone come up while they were on their way to tell him that it was too late, Jesus told him “Do not fear, only believe” (Mark 5:36). In The Message, Eugene Peterson translates this command as “Don’t listen to them; just trust me.”

When fear threatens to consume our thoughts or direct our actions, hearing the Lord say “just trust me” can be exactly what we need most.

That doesn’t mean such trust will be easy or silencing the fears will be simple, but it’s a good reminder that the choice of whom we will listen to is always ours to make. And the more often we choose Jesus, the easier it gets to do so in the future.

So, where do you need to trust Jesus today? Are there any fears clawing at your heart and mind?

I’m still a bit freaked out by the AI stuff, and perhaps you are as well. My goal today, though, is to listen to God rather than fear, and to trust that he knows how it’s going to turn out. And, just as importantly, he promises to bring good out of it, no matter how it ends (Romans 8:28).

Holding tight to that promise won’t always make the fears go away—after all, sometimes they’re justified—but it can give us a new perspective on them, one born of peace rather than anxiety.

Let’s pray for that peace today.

Quote of the day

“Only he who can say, ‘The Lord is the strength of my life’ can say, ‘Of whom shall I be afraid?’” —Alexander MacLaren

Our latest website resources

• Our political future and an interview that moved me deeply
• USA hockey gold, State of the Union, tariff ruling, cartel takedown, Iran update & UFO files | Ep. 58
• Christian parenting in the age of AI and influencers
• Who was “El Mencho” and why should his death matter to you?
• A Christian response to the age of selective outrage

Denison Forum

Commentators are still responding to President Trump’s “State of the Union” address in the predictably partisan ways you would expect. Reactions have been from such polar opposites that an uninformed observer could question whether they are responding to the same speech.

I genuinely grieve to see the depth of rancor and bitterness that exists in our country toward fellow Americans with whom we happen to disagree politically. And I genuinely question whether our democratic experiment can be sustained while we sustain such animosity toward one another.

In 1774, John Wesley advised those who would be voting in an upcoming election:

1. To vote, without fee or reward, for the person they judged most worthy
   2. To speak no evil of the person they voted against, and
   3. To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.

Don’t you wish more Americans would take his advice?

Continue reading Denison Forum – Our political future and an interview that moved me deeply →

Reflections on the state of our union and our best future

President Trump delivered his annual “State of the Union” address to Congress and the nation last night. The speech was the longest ever, lasting 108 minutes, and covered a range of topics designed to buttress his party’s chances in the upcoming midterms.

A highlight for me and for many was the entrance of the US men’s hockey team into the House chamber. The president announced that he would be awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our nation’s highest civilian honor, to the team’s goaltender, Connor Hellebuyck.

Their story in winning the Olympic gold medal is inspirational on so many levels, among them the tribute paid by Jack Hughes, who scored the winning goal in overtime and later exulted, “This is all about our country right now. I love the USA. I love my teammates. It’s unbelievable. The US are a hockey brotherhood. It’s so strong and we had so much support from ex-players. I’m so proud to be an American today.”

Hughes made his remarks while missing two front teeth knocked out earlier in the game, which made images of him grinning while wrapped in the American flag especially iconic. The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote, “There isn’t much that unifies all of America today, but the Olympic overtime victories by the US men’s and women’s hockey teams ought to qualify for anyone with a modicum of patriotic feeling.”

They titled their editorial, “Jack Hughes for President.”

When the other side is “immoral”

Judging from partisan reactions to Mr. Trump’s speech, the Journal board is right in their assessment of America’s unity or lack thereof. We should be saddened but unsurprised; in a Pew Research Center survey, 72 percent of Republicans said Democrats are “immoral,” while 63 percent of Democrats said the same of Republicans.

It is difficult to find common ground and make common cause with people whose character we find “dishonest,” “unintelligent,” and “close-minded” (other accusations the parties made against each other in the survey). When the other “side” is not just wrong but evil, how are we to forge a collective future with them?

In a now-iconic 1858 speech, Abraham Lincoln cited Jesus’ statement, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (paraphrasing Luke 11:17). Mr. Lincoln was referring to slavery, but I wonder if he would issue the same warning with regard to our divisive time.

What is the way forward for our “United” States?

“Our country, right or wrong!”

The esteemed moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre once delivered a lecture that has outlived its context and its author. Titled “Is Patriotism A Virtue?”, it is one of the most thoughtful expositions of patriotism ever offered to our secularized society.

Dr. MacIntyre stated, “Patriotism is not to be confused with a mindless loyalty to one’s own particular nation which has no regard at all for the characteristics of that particular nation.” Conversely, he noted, “The morality for which patriotism is a virtue offers a form of rational justification for moral rules and precepts whose structure is clear and rationally defensible.”

He showed that morality, defined as adherence to objective ethical truths and principles, cannot be “patriotic” if the term is defined as unquestioned loyalty to one’s country. This version of patriotism was captured by US naval commander Stephen Decatur’s famous 1816 proclamation, “Our country, right or wrong!”

In this sense, the apostles were unpatriotic to the Jewish nation when they refused its leaders’ demand that they cease preaching the gospel (Acts 5:27–32). Christians today are similarly unpatriotic when we stand against unbiblical immorality such as elective abortion and same-sex marriage, despite their protected status in law.

I would counter that allegiance to biblical morality when it conflicts with our nation’s values is the most patriotic way to serve our nation. This is because obedience to God’s word leads us into our greatest flourishing and out of immorality that is destructive to our lives and country. If the apostles had ceased preaching the gospel when the authorities demanded that they do so, they would have deprived these leaders and the nation they served of the only path to salvation in this world and the world to come (cf. Acts 4:12).

Accordingly, we are at our most patriotic when we offer our nation what it most needs. And what it most needs is a personal relationship with our only Savior and the biblical truths that empower and enliven that relationship.

“To make us love our country”

Fifty-five years after Commodore Decatur’s proclamation, a German-born US general and US senator named Carl Schurz offered this clarification: “Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.” The great British political philosopher Edmund Burke similarly stated, “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.”

Here’s the problem: Our secular republic does not possess the inherent resources to be such a country. Our founding creed endows us with the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but it does not and cannot define them.

What is “happiness” to you may not be to me. So long as the pursuit of our versions of happiness (theoretically) does not harm others, our jurisprudence permits and even defends it. Thus, as I noted yesterday, much that is immoral in America is not illegal. And the freedom to be immoral cannot unify a nation or sustain its future.

So, once again, we find that the gospel is the answer to the question, whatever the question is.

“The duty of all Nations”

Jesus alone can sanctify sinful hearts and infuse us with a love for our neighbor that promotes our highest patriotism. He alone can empower us to forgive our fellow Americans, past and present, for injustices of the past and the present. He alone can enable us to serve our country and people with sacrificial, selfless humility.

Abraham Lincoln was therefore right to assert in his First Inaugural Address:

Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.

Our greatest president echoed the wisdom of our first president when he began his 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation:

It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.

To be at our patriotic best, let us perform all four duties today and every day, to the glory of God.

Quote for the day:

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” —George Washington

Our latest website resources:

• Who was “El Mencho” and why should his death matter to you?
• When I wish I were doing something else: An Easter word of encouragement for weary souls
• A Christian response to the age of selective outrage
• Is the American dream dead? Plus: James Van Der Beek, Robert Duvall, Jesse Jackson & Winter Olympics
• What does “I Can Only Imagine 2” teach us about faith and suffering?

Denison Forum