The con podcast guests argued, essentially that:
while AI excels at the science of control—processing data and accelerating workflows—it cannot master the art of command.
War remains a human endeavor and there is a significant risk in letting machines rush humans into fast decisions that may be tactically efficient yet strategically disastrous. Leaders must stay engaged to provide the ethical judgment, empathy, and inspiration that no software can replicate.
There are active uses of AI not to attack but to respond with various machinery and drones and other tools to recover from damages inflicted by the enemy after an attack. Discussions certainly would be held to take that to the next level and to see if automatic armed responses can be had or to then respond in force after an attack.
“empathy”, on the battlefield, needs to be cauterized, because you’re bleeding out and you don’t even realize it.