Algorithms and Influence Artificial Intelligence and Crisis Decision-Making
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6274541 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael C Horowitz (0000-0002-3067-7157, University of Pennsylvania), Erik Lin-Greenberg (0000-0003-3627-9181, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 66 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Publication date | 2022-10-07 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Studies Quarterly (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0020-8833 • E-ISSN: 1468-2478 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1093/isq/sqac069 |
| OpenAlex | W4312848247 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 20 |
| References cited | 39 |
Countries around the world are increasingly investing in artificial intelligence (AI) to automate military tasks that traditionally required human involvement. Despite growing interest in AI-enabled systems, relatively little research explores whether and how AI affects military decision-making. Yet, national security practitioners may perceive the judgments of and actions taken by algorithms differently than those of humans. This variation may subsequently affect decisions on the use of force. Using two original survey experiments fielded on a sample of US national security experts, we find that AI use by both friendly and rival forces affects decision-making during interstate crises. National security experts are less likely to take military action when AI is used to analyze intelligence than when humans conduct the analysis. Experts also viewed an accident involving a rival's AI-enabled weapon that kills American troops as more deserving of retaliation than an accident involving only human operators, suggesting that national security practitioners are less forgiving of errant AI systems than of similarly erring humans. Our findings suggest emerging technologies such as AI can affect decisionmakers’ perceptions in ways that shape political outcomes. Even in a world of algorithms, human decisions will still have important consequences for international security
Action (physics · Affect (linguistics · Computer security · Human intelligence · National security · Perception · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI · European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies · Law · Psychology · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Systemic Thinking and AI-Driven Innovation in Higher Education
The paradox of intelligence failures in the age of artificial intelligence
Information and communication technologies in political crisis management
Black Box Warfare
Synthetic biology/AI convergence (SynBioAI)
Does AI Affect the Democratic Conduct of War? Analyzing US and Israeli Military AI Deployment
Artificial intelligence
War and peace in the age of AI
Learning to trust Skynet
A “journey to trust” for AI
Emerging technology and the cult of the offensive
Elevating humanism in high-stakes automation
AI and the decision to go to war
Algorithmic war and the dangers of in-visibility, anonymity, and fragmentation
Bolts from the blue
Artificial Intelligence and U.S. Military Cadets’ Attitudes About Future War
Mind over Metal
Trends in Political Science Research
Bending the Automation Bias Curve
AI as Governance
The Dilemmas of Wonderland
The Causes of War
Does automation bias decision-making?
Emotion and Decision Making
Escalation firebreaks in the cyber, conventional, and nuclear domains
War
When are artificial intelligence versus human agents faulted for wrongdoing? Moral attributions after individual and joint decisions
Us and Them
Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism
Inferring Intentions from Consequences
Who’s prone to drone? A global time-series analysis of armed uninhabited aerial vehicle proliferation
Would China Go Nuclear? Assessing the Risk of Chinese Nuclear Escalation in a Conventional War with the United States
Prediction and Judgment
Delegating strategic decision-making to machines
Cooperation under the Security Dilemma
Analysis, War, and Decision
Does Public Opinion Affect the Preferences of Foreign Policy Leaders? Experimental Evidence from the UK Parliament
Are Costly Signals More Credible? Evidence of Sender-Receiver Gaps
The Empathic Foundations of Security Dilemma De‐escalation
Presidential Risk Orientation and Force Employment Decisions
An Eye for an Eye
Rationalist explanations for war
Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics
Experiments in International Relations
Experiments and Surveys on Political Elites
External Validity
Re‐Assessing Elite‐Public Gaps in Political Behavior
Revenge in International Politics
How to make elite experiments work in International Relations
Drivers are blamed more than their automated cars when both make mistakes
| Unique citing works | 20 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 6,67 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 20 |