AI Researchers Must Help Lead Arms Control to Mitigate Military AI Risks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The advancement of AI capabilities compels researchers and the public to be more aware of its potential worldwide impact. A pressing near-term concern is the regulation of military AI applications. Armament manufacturers and defense contractors are increasingly investing in AI capabilities and forging partnerships with AI companies, creating a burgeoning coalition that demands military leaders, arms control diplomacy experts, and AI researchers collaborate to ensure a safer future. While AI researchers often focus on the long-term implications of superintelligent AI, this approach may not adequately address the immediate challenges posed by AI in military applications. Success requires acknowledging and mitigating the emerging risks of frontier AI models that plan to be integrated into defense applications, like military AI systems. Arms control has reduced past catastrophic risks, so lessons learned from nuclear deterrence can guide AI safety and security research towards innovations in verification and diplomacy. AI researchers, however, must assist in leading the technical research that clearly defines and alleviates instability in military settings. Given these new responsibilities and the lack of sufficiently reliable solutions, we argue that AI researchers must take a leading role in advancing arms control research to minimize risk in military AI applications.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.
Builds on
22 of 72 references.
References · 22
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2024Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Reviewcited by 415
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
- 2023Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology Viewcited by 221
- 2017Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning in Sequential Social Dilemmascited by 206
- 2025Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AIcited by 150
- 2024Tamper-Resistant Safeguards for Open-Weight LLMscited by 132
- 2024Cooperate or Collapse: Emergence of Sustainable Cooperation in a Society of LLM Agentscited by 120
- 2023Frontier AI Regulation: Managing Emerging Risks to Public Safetycited by 95
- 2024Social Choice Should Guide AI Alignment in Dealing with Diverse Human Feedbackcited by 95
- 2024Large language models surpass human experts in predicting neuroscience resultscited by 69
- 2024Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Makingcited by 61
10 more
- 2025Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Developmentcited by 42
- 2024Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligencecited by 38
- 2025Nuclear Deployed: Analyzing Catastrophic Risks in Decision-making of Autonomous LLM Agentscited by 23
- 2025Lessons from a Chimp: AI "Scheming" and the Quest for Ape Languagecited by 16
- 2024AI-Powered Autonomous Weapons Risk Geopolitical Instability and Threaten AI Researchcited by 13
- 2026Evaluating and Understanding Scheming Propensity in LLM Agentscited by 11
- 2025Superintelligence Strategy: Expert Versioncited by 6
- 2026MO-MIX: Multi-Objective Multi-Agent Cooperative Decision-Making With Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 6
- 2025Military AI Needs Technically-Informed Regulation to Safeguard AI Research and its Applicationscited by 3
- 2025NeurIPS should lead scientific consensus on AI policycited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.