FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Anthropic is an American artificial intelligence company that develops large models for data and language processing.
Some time ago, almost all of Albania's online portals and newspapers, describing the operation of the US special forces to capture Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, focused on a particular detail. Many headlines mentioned a "new weapon" called Anthropic. Albanian portals presented it as a secret technology that was being used for the first time in a military operation.
In fact, Anthropic is not a weapon. Anthropic is an American artificial intelligence company that develops large-scale models for data and language processing. These systems are not missiles, drones or artillery systems. But they can become part of a system that analyzes information and helps in decision-making about the use of weapons.
The use of artificial intelligence in recent conflicts around the world has increased, and we are not saying anything new about this.
In modern wars, the algorithm is not the projectile and the weapon. But today's concern is that from an auxiliary tool for data processing, today it is turning into a command. It is moving from the process of data analysis, target identification and planning of operations to a decision-maker.
In the war between Ukraine and Russia, both sides are using artificial intelligence to process data from drones, radars, and satellites. Ukraine uses analysis systems that identify artillery positions and troop movements by analyzing video and satellite images in a very short time. To counter Russia's jamming technology, Ukraine is producing and using fully autonomous drones, which no longer receive commands from the center but operate independently.
Russia has developed similar systems. Its reconnaissance drones use algorithms for object recognition and terrain analysis, while electronic warfare systems process real-time data from radars and communications to coordinate operations and make decisions.
In practice, the war in Ukraine is also a competition between intelligent systems.
The use of this technology is clearly evident in the current conflict in the Middle East, where the United States and Israel face off on one side and Iran on the other.
The debate raging today about artificial intelligence in the military touches on a much bigger question than a simple conflict between a technology company and a political administration. The fundamental question is: are we approaching a historic moment when intelligent systems can replace humans in decision-making, even in decisions that are about life and death?
The most recent example of this clash comes from the United States and involves the high-tech industry and the American military apparatus.
At the center of the debate is the company Anthropic.
Anthropic has publicly stated that it does not consider its technology to be part of the mechanism that makes operational military decisions. According to the company, artificial intelligence can be used for information analysis, data processing or to assist in planning, but decisions on the use of force should remain exclusively the responsibility of humans and, specifically, the responsibility of military structures.
Put simply: the company refuses to let its systems be used to decide when and where a military strike should be carried out.
For this reason, Anthropic has placed two very clear restrictions on the use of its technology. First, its systems should not be used for fully autonomous weapons – weapons that identify a target and decide to fire on their own without human intervention. Second, its technology should not be used for mass surveillance systems.
These restrictions have opened a direct conflict with the Donald Trump administration, which, according to American media reports, has suspended any cooperation between federal agencies and the company due to this red line it has set.
The Pentagon's argument is relatively straightforward and reflects the classic logic of the technology race. According to this view, if the United States does not use the most advanced artificial intelligence technology in its military systems, then its strategic rivals will. In this race, technological lag can very quickly translate into strategic loss.
Underlying this debate lies a much greater fear: the global race for artificial intelligence, where major world powers, particularly the United States and China, are trying to secure a technological advantage in the military field as well.
This is why many strategists in the Pentagon argue that artificial intelligence is no longer simply a civilian or economic technology, but a new factor in the global balance of power, in the same way that nuclear energy was in the 20th century.
But this is precisely where the biggest ethical and political dilemma arises: if algorithms begin to play an increasingly larger role in analyzing information and recommending actions, how long will it be before they begin to directly influence decisions about the use of force?
In other words, even if no one wants machines to decide war, the very logic of technology could push the system in exactly that direction.
The history of military technology has always shown the same pattern: any technology that can be used in war, sooner or later is used. The question is not whether it will be used, but to what extent and with what limitations.
In this sense, the conflict between the artificial intelligence industry and the military apparatus is not simply a contractual dispute. It is a debate about the future of decision-making in warfare and the boundary between human and algorithm.
And this boundary, for the moment, still remains unclear.
Although these are problems of great powers, this issue also affects small countries like Albania. Not because Albania develops such technologies. We are not a country that invents algorithms for the wars of the future.
The question the Albanian military must ask is: are we able to understand and use these technologies?
Albania is part of NATO and theoretically part of a military infrastructure that is being transformed by artificial intelligence, autonomous drones, and satellite systems.
But instead of seriously discussing this transformation, we often reduce the debate to political propaganda.
The decreeing of a new minister as a symbol of technological modernization is more propaganda than reality. Military modernization is not done with names and slogans. It is not done with declarations about the “digital age.” It starts with something much simpler: with real knowledge of technology and with the preparation of the people who will use it.
It is true that Albania will not invent the algorithms of future wars.
But a country that is part of a modern military alliance should at least start learning them well.
Because war is changing. And so is the world.
Lini një Përgjigje