Strategic Initiatives
12344 stories
·
45 followers

Anthropic Mythos Ban Shows AI Needs an Expert Board

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

  • Government intervention: the state ordered the withdrawal of anthropic model fable and mythos citing national security concerns
  • Restrictive access: current regulations prohibit foreign nationals including company engineers from using the affected artificial intelligence tools
  • Technical justification: findings suggest the models helped identify software flaws which experts assert serves defensive security purposes
  • Historical comparison: experts compare these actions to nineties regulation of encryption software which eventually failed to contain global technological spread
  • Competitive impact: industry analysts argue that restrictive controls handicap legitimate domestic firms while failing to stop technological advancement
  • Regulatory scrutiny: anthropic previously advocated for clear processes but criticized the recent order for lacking transparency and substantive evidence
  • Administrative authority: critics challenge the reliance on opaque political directives rather than standardized technical verification boards
  • Proposed reform: a structure using independent researchers and lawyers could provide the constitutional oversight required for technology regulation


"It's a complete overreaction," Katie Moussouris said of the order that pulled Anthropic's two most capable AI models off the market on Friday. Moussouris, chief executive of the security firm Luta Security, had read the report the government acted on. Citing national security, the United States told Anthropic to cut off Fable 5 and Mythos 5 to every foreign national on earth, including the company's own foreign-born engineers, and to comply the company shut the models off for everyone.

The triggering finding is narrow. A researcher prompted Fable to read a codebase and patch its software flaws, the daily work of the people who defend networks for a living. Moussouris told the Wall Street Journal that the model's output would be of more use to defenders than to attackers, "exactly the kind of prompting that defenders would do." Anthropic says rival public models, OpenAI's GPT-5.5 among them, surface the same minor bugs with no jailbreak at all.

The quarrel behind the order is not new. The Pentagon branded Anthropic a supply-chain risk in March, advisers including David Sacks accused the company of "fear-mongering" and regulatory capture, and officials had pressed it to delay these very models. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's letter arrived on a Friday evening, days before an expected public offering that values Anthropic at $965 billion. Dean Ball, who advised the previous Trump White House on AI, called the order "baffling" and warned that "you should expect to have to prove your citizenship to use Anthropic models."

ITAR and the PGP years.

We have run this experiment before. In the 1990s the government classified strong encryption as a munition under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and investigated the programmer Phil Zimmermann for letting PGP loose on the internet. The export rules treated mathematics as ordnance, and they failed for a plain reason: the math was already abroad, so the controls handicapped American firms while the capability spread anyway. In 1999 a federal appeals court ruled in Bernstein v. United States that source code is protected speech, and the munitions theory of cryptography collapsed within a year. Peter Girnus, a threat researcher at the Zero Day Initiative, drew the same line to Business Insider, noting that this time "the munition is in the building and the people who made it are not allowed to look at it."

The rule Anthropic asked for.

Anthropic spent the spring arguing for the exact power Washington just used, with one condition on it. In its Policy on the AI Exponential, the company wrote that government should be able to block unsafe deployments through a process that is "transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts." A letter that withholds its evidence, offers only verbal proof of a narrow jailbreak, and locks out a company's own engineers meets none of those conditions. Recalling a model "deployed to hundreds of millions of people" over a finding this thin, Anthropic argued, "would essentially halt all new model deployments for all frontier model providers."

Make them show their work.

The honest position is not that models are harmless. Some may not be, and the state should be able to halt a genuinely dangerous one. The open question is who decides, and on what evidence. The Pentagon's chief information officer, Kirsten Davies, gave her answer on X: "Some things are simply more important than revenue cycles, clickbait, and pre-IPO valuation. America First. Always." That is a political standard, set by an antagonist in an ongoing fight.

A standing board would answer on different ground.

Seat AI researchers, security scientists, ethicists, and constitutional lawyers on it, wall it off from the administration of the day, and swear its members to the Constitution rather than to any Secretary. Give it the evidence in writing and let it rule in the open, on the technical record, with reasons a court could read. A body like that could still have pulled Fable, had the facts demanded it. The country would know why.

The government may take a tool away from the world. It should at least have to show its work.

Good read? Pass it on.

X LinkedIn Bluesky Email
Marcus Schuler

Marcus Schuler

San Francisco

Editor-in-Chief and founder of Implicator.ai. Former ARD correspondent and senior broadcast journalist with 10+ years covering tech. Writes daily briefings on policy and market developments. Based in San Francisco. E-mail: <a href="mailto:editor@implicator.ai">editor@implicator.ai</a>

Read the whole story
bogorad
3 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

The U.S. Military Quietly Turned GPS Into a Global ‘Numbers Station,’ Evidence Suggests

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

  • Military infrastructure: the us military utilizes public gps satellites to broadcast encrypted data globally
  • Secret communication: satellites function as clandestine numbers stations to transmit sensitive cryptographic keys
  • Hidden channel: investigators identified a specific sequence known as subframe 4 page 17 as the source of transmission
  • Operational method: the over the air distribution system enables remote delivery of security keys to military field hardware
  • Data discovery: analysis of twelve million gps observations confirms the patterns align with declassified military deployment timelines
  • Technical shift: system updates observed in recent years suggest possible infrastructure modernization or new communication protocols
  • Ubiquitous access: every gps enabled device currently receives these transmissions despite a lack of public awareness
  • Research approach: open source archives provide sufficient information for external experts to monitor government signaling activities

🌘
Subscribe to 404 Media to get The Abstract, our newsletter about the most exciting and mind-boggling science news and studies of the week.

The U.S. military has likely been quietly broadcasting codes for its global encryption network using public GPS for nearly 20 years, turning each satellite into a hidden “numbers station,” according to Steven Murdoch, an information security expert, who detailed his findings in a new article in Inside GNSS.

That means every device that uses GPS has been receiving hidden government information for years, and nobody outside the military knew it until now. 

Murdoch, a professor of security engineering and head of the Information Security Research Group at University College London, presented evidence that a 176-bit GPS sequence labelled “Subframe 4, Page 17” is encrypted material from the Pentagon’s Over-the-Air Distribution (OTAD) network, which delivers cryptographic keys to military personnel around the world.

“I think the evidence that it's for key transmission—for use in distributing the keys for accessing the military GPS signals—is pretty strong now,” Murdoch said in a call with 404 Media. He noted that the military has “specialized receivers that have the ability to have keys loaded into them” and “presumably have the ability to decrypt these special messages.”

In his new article, Murdoch described how this “forgotten 176-bit slot in the world’s most successful navigation signal turned out to be its quietest and most consequential broadcast.”

Murdoch first spotted the sequence more than a decade ago while he was a graduate student tasked with writing a decoder for raw GPS data while working on a project funded by the European Space Agency.

“I noticed that there was this random-looking data present in the subframe,” he recalled. “I looked at the specification, and thought that was a little bit unusual. I recorded a bunch of it to look for any obvious patterns, but that wasn't the main role of the project, so we moved on.”

From the beginning, he suspected that the subframe field contained encrypted transmissions because the data was so random. “Random data is actually very unusual to get in nature,” Murdoch said. “If you see it, either it's been carefully designed to be random—but then, why is someone sending out random data?—or it's encrypted data. I thought encrypted data is by far the most likely explanation.”

He returned to the subframe on and off over the years, and solicited guesses about its content on Stack Exchange in 2023. Ahmed Kamruddin, a master’s student at UCL, developed the project further in 2025. Then, this year, Murdoch put the last pieces of the puzzle together over several weeks by analyzing open archive Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) recordings collected since 2007 and kept by GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences.  

This dataset included more than 12 million observations of Subframe 4, Page 17, yielding 3,994 unique 176-bit messages. Within this corpus, Murdoch pinpointed key-repeating “sentinels” including a pattern that appeared in February 2010 and was broadcast on and off across dozens of satellites for more than a decade. 

Murdoch discovered that this particular sentinel was transmitted by all 31 operational satellites within a window of a few hours on May 26, 2011, potentially heralding the activation of a new operational system. He confirmed that this timeline coincided with the rollout of the military’s Over-the-Air Distribution (OTAD) and the Over-the-Air Rekeying (OTAR) by cross-referencing declassified documents, including a 2015 presentation about the dates of the operation. 

“There was a perfect match between the timeline and that presentation and the change points that were automatically identified from the data,” Murdoch said. “That was the smoking gun that made me think: This is what it's for.”

These automated systems replaced the cumbersome manual distribution of cryptographic keying material, allowing military GPS receivers around the world to be rekeyed remotely through satellite broadcasts rather than through onsite procedures.

For the next 11 years, this expansive rekeying operation was overlooked in public GPS data. In 2022, the system entered a new phase, according to Murdoch’s analysis. The shift was characterized by a slowing in the message rotation rate. Later, in December 2023, broadcasts carrying a distinctive "TEXT" prefix emerged then gradually spread across the constellation.

Murdoch isn’t sure what explains the recent transition, though it could be a possible modernization of the infrastructure or the introduction of a new protocol. But to him, the bigger takeaway is that the signals were always available for anyone willing to take a closer look, a discovery that suggests that there could be more revelations hidden for the cryptographically curious among us.

“Every receiver in the world decodes Subframe 4, Page 17,” Murdoch said in his new article. “Almost none of them have ever looked at it. The lesson generalizes: There is more to learn from the bytes already arriving at our antennas than from the bytes we wish were specified differently. The data are publicly available. The signal is overhead, twice a day, every day.” 

“Every GPS satellite is a numbers station,” he concluded. “The receivers were always listening. We just had not been.”   

🌘
Subscribe to 404 Media to get The Abstract, our newsletter about the most exciting and mind-boggling science news and studies of the week.
Read the whole story
bogorad
7 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Substack has lost its way

1 Comment

Back in the day — and by back in the day, I mean about four years ago — being on Substack meant something.

It meant you gave people news or analysis the legacy media didn’t. Often, it meant you didn’t have a media background at all. You had a day job, and a point of view you wanted to share, because the media wasn’t.

It meant you viewed your job on Substack as being a writer first and foremost, not a podcaster or an influencer or a YouTuber or a television personality.

It meant you appreciated, and maybe needed, Substack’s commitment to free speech and hosting for unpopular (usually meaning conservative) views.

And it meant you had a voice distinctive enough to survive on your own, without a media company’s help.

Now? Not so much.

(Help me Make Substack Great Again)

Subscribe now

Substack ranks its most popular newsletters on “leaderboards.” (Unreported Truths is currently #5 on “Health Politics,” just after Dr. Joseph Mercola.) The most important leaderboard is “U.S. Politics,” which has by far the most “purple-check” accounts, those with over 10,000 paid subscribers.

The top “U.S. Politics” account is The Free Press, from Bari Weiss, an independent-to-conservative outlet that is undoubtedly the platform’s biggest success story.

But the next eight biggest U.S. Politics accounts now fall on the liberal/woke/progressive spectrum (including “The Bulwark,” which calls itself centrist but in fact suffers from terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome — its lead “story” today has the sarcastic headline Trump Mentals Strong. Like Nothing You’ve Ever Seen. Vietnam.)

Nate Silver, a truly independent voice, ranks tenth. Then the leftist chorus continues, with nine of the next 10 Substacks somewhere between super-liberal and, well, even more liberal than that. Matt Taibbi is the sole exception.

(Hide your eyes)

The politics shift has come with a second painful change: Substack is now increasingly filled with people who aren’t particularly interested in writing. I don’t mean bad writers, like Paul Krugman. I mean people who view the platform as a place for podcasting or video, delivered through an app.

The people who made the most of Substack 1.0, like Taibbi, Andrew Sullivan, even Heather Cox Richardson (a Massachusetts historian who was the first and arguably only organic liberal success story on Substack), built their audiences as writers.

So what’s happened?

Substack began with a very simple value proposition. It offered an easy-to-use newsletter creator and email engine along with an seamless link to Stripe. The combination was well worth the 10 percent fee Substack charged, especially for people like me, who needed a reliable (meaning non-censoring) host. Yes, Substack’s cut grew along with the audience. But most individual writers never grew so big that the 10 percent really mattered. Even those who did generally weren’t interested in trying to move a big audience.

Done with Substack subscriptions? Consider a one-time donation. Actually, don’t just consider it, do it!

Could Substack have stuck with a simple 10-percent-of-newsletters-business?

I don’t know. Other newsletter publishers charge less (one is trying to recruit me right now), although Substack still has a better brand than they do.

Either way, though, Substack wanted — and wants — to grow. It believes it can only survive as a media company by pushing podcasting and video offerings and encouraging readers and writers to use its app and its X-like “Notes” feature.

But the podcast and video business is both expensive and very competitive. You may have heard of a little company called YouTube (itself part of Alphabet, nee Google). On the right, Rumble is a $3 billion publicly traded company, while X has a massive audience for hosts like Tucker Carlson.

So, perhaps inevitably, Substack has gone left.

The problem, of course, is that leftist podcasting and video tends to be… what’s the word I’m looking for… hold on, it’ll come to me…

Boring.

Ahh, that’s it. Boring beyond belief. Aside from the momentary anti-Trump fervor of Donald Trump’s first term, Fox has destroyed MSNBC and CNN for a generation. Left-leaning comedians have largely ruined late night, ceding almost everyone under 50 (60?) to podcasters like Joe Rogan.

The original Substack had two unquestioned success stories: The Free Press and, yes, Heather Cox Richardson’s Letters from an American. Both were newsletters that turned into something more — but still remain centered around writing.

At the same time, Substack became known for its free-speech philosophy, which was very appealing to people like me — and a draw for readers. Not everyone knew what Substack was, but those who did knew what the brand stood for: free speech. Anyone who didn’t like it was welcome to whine about Nazis and leave. And individual writers could do just fine with a couple of thousand paying subscribers.

What does the Substack brand stand for now?

Endless interchangeable lefty podcasters who want to be the next Joe Rogan but are burning cash fighting over Substack’s audience base, which is tiny compared to other video hosts?

(You know what brand hasn’t changed? This one! Subscribe to Unreported Truths and get, well, the truth. For pennies a day.)

Subscribe now

Meanwhile, the conservative and independent thinkers and writers who made Substack different than the New York Times or other legacy media outlets are harder and harder to find, and Substack does less and less to promote them.

Maybe Substack will be able to make the leap into something like a left-wing Rumble. The company discloses very little about its growth or finances. Its last update on paid subscribers in March 2025, when it said it had passed the five million paid subscriber count. It had been announcing each one-million-subscriber milestone before that (it passed four million in November 2024), but it has been quiet since then. Does that mean its growth has stalled south of six million paid users? I don’t know.

What I do know is that Substack’s fizz has faded. Three years ago, Elon Musk wanted to buy Substack and make it part of X. Today, I suspect he couldn’t care less.

And that’s a problem all the boring liberal newsletters in the world can’t solve.

Read the whole story
bogorad
20 hours ago
reply
wtf does he care who else is on substack??
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Amazon CEO’s Talks With U.S. Officials Triggered Crackdown on Anthropic Models - WSJ

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

  • Corporate Lobbying: amazon executives prompted government intervention by highlighting security flaws in rival technology.
  • Security Allegations: amazon claimed fables models revealed sensitive information exploitable for cyberattacks.
  • Administrative Reaction: white house officials enforced a ban on foreign access to high level ai models after reviewing claims.
  • Political Enforcement: president trump formalized the restriction to mitigate perceived risks associated with new ai development.
  • Regulatory Distrust: federal authorities questioned the operational security protocols maintained by leadership at anthropic.
  • Global Compliance: anthropic terminated user access to mythical and fable systems to avoid violations of federal mandates.
  • Labor Impact: government restrictions hampered internal research operations due to the company reliance on foreign born staff.
  • Technological Skepticism: the targeted startup dismissed the threat claims as routine vulnerabilities present in most competing software.

June 13, 2026 12:49 pm ET

Illustration of the Anthropic logo on a dark screen, set against a blurred background of blue-lit circuit board components.Researchers at Amazon had used a series of prompts to get Anthropic’s Fable 5 model to provide them with information. Dado Ruvic/Reuters

The Trump administration’s decision to halt all foreign use of Anthropic’s most capable AI models was prompted by conversations between Amazon AMZN -1.23%decrease; down pointing triangle Chief Executive Andy Jassy and U.S. officials including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, people familiar with the matter said. 

Researchers at Amazon had used a series of prompts to get Anthropic’s Fable 5 model to provide them with information that could be used to aid cyberattacks and was supposed to be off limits, Jassy told the officials, according to people familiar with the matter. Tech industry executives have been in regular touch with the administration about the power of cutting-edge AI tools. 

Shortly afterward, White House officials held a meeting to discuss how to respond and security researchers began testing Amazon’s claims. The group decided that the most direct way to address that risk was by preventing foreign governments, companies and individuals from accessing the tool, the people said. President Trump later signed off on the action, a senior White House official said. 

The administration had long felt that Anthropic, one of the leaders in America’s AI race, couldn’t be trusted to manage the security risks its new model presented. Friday’s call between some administration officials and Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei reinforced that feeling, the people said. 

In response to the government’s move, Anthropic said it was shutting off access to Mythos and Fable to all users to make sure it complied, potentially hampering efforts by companies around the world to use the tools to identify software vulnerabilities. Many of the company’s researchers are foreign-born, meaning the government’s rule effectively prevented them from working on the latest models, Anthropic said. 

The talk with Amazon—a big investor in Anthropic that supplies the AI company with chips for data centers, while deploying its best models to identify software vulnerabilities—are a sign of how America’s largest companies and governments are navigating the emerging technology’s novel capabilities. Friday’s rapid events show how quickly new discoveries and experimentation can affect government restrictions and, potentially, company fortunes.

“As a leading cloud provider that serves a large number of private and public sector customers, it’s not uncommon for governments to seek our counsel on potential security risks. When they occur, we don’t share the details of these discussions,” an Amazon spokesman said. 

Anthropic has said that the vulnerabilities like those flagged by Amazon are relatively basic, that other publicly available models are capable of discovering them, and that they don’t represent a full so-called jailbreak, a point of view shared by some security researchers familiar with Amazon’s research. 

The startup says it has adequate safeguards in place and is known for giving priority to safety. It previously held off expanding access to Mythos at the direction of the White House.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Amrith Ramkumar is a reporter for The Wall Street Journal in Washington covering tech and crypto policy. He previously covered clean energy and was a Journal markets reporter in New York who wrote about special-purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs, when SPAC mergers were a popular alternative to traditional initial public offerings. He also previously wrote about stocks and commodities, including battery metals such as lithium and cobalt.

Amrith joined the Journal as a markets intern after graduating from Duke in 2017.


Videos

Read the whole story
bogorad
22 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Beirut Tells Paris the Truth About Hezbollah - WSJ

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

  • European Delusion: the continent maintains a self-serving fantasy that hezbollah operates as two distinct political and military entities.
  • Administrative Fiction: france continues to coddle the group by demanding a theoretical separation that simply does not exist in reality.
  • Lebanese Admission: youssef raggi confirmed that the organization is a unified, illegal military force acting as an extension of iran.
  • Regional Destabilization: the group utilizes its unified structure to undermine lebanon and project influence on behalf of its patrons in tehran.
  • Diplomatic Absurdity: the premise that engaging with supposed political moderates produces stability is a proven failure that only worsens regional chaos.
  • State Replacement: the organization has effectively hollowed out the lebanese state while simultaneously funding operations through illicit drug trafficking.
  • European Inaction: individual nations like germany have been forced to act independently because the fantasy of eu consensus prevents a collective security response.
  • Global Security: the refusal to designate the entire entity as a terrorist organization serves only to protect financing and recruitment networks operating within europe.


June 12, 2026 5:36 pm ET

You may also like
Up Next
CheckboxEmbed code copied to clipboard
Your browser does not support HTML5 video.
0:00
Paused
0:00 / 26:12
After President Trump names Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence, the House fails to reauthorize the Section 702 surveillance program. What are the risks of letting that intelligence go dark? And now that Jay Clayton has been nominated for the permanent DNI job, how quickly will the Senate move to confirm? Photo: Christopher Arbisi

There’s a reason Europe considers Hezbollah only half a terrorist group. France has forced the European Union to distinguish between Hezbollah’s military and political “wings,” the one sanctioned and the other diplomatically respectable. One problem: It’s a fiction, as Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi laid bare on Wednesday.

The question was posed on French TV: Has France’s longtime policy of pushing for political relations with Hezbollah in Lebanon been realistic? “It’s not realistic at all to differentiate between the political and military branches. Hezbollah is one entity,” Mr. Raggi replied.

“It’s an illegal military organization in Lebanon. It’s an armed extension of Iran,” he continued, “which Iran uses to control Lebanon and destabilize the whole Middle East.”

Your browser does not support the audio tag.
Opinion: Potomac Watch
WSJ Opinion Potomac WatchBill Pulte, Jay Clayton and the Surveillance Lapse of FISA Section 702
After President Trump names Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence, the House fails to reauthorize the Section 702 surveillance program. What are the risks of letting that intelligence go dark? And now that Jay Clayton has been nominated for the permanent DNI job, how quickly will the Senate move to confirm?Read Transcript

That’s an excellent summary to burst French illusions. The Hezbollah terrorists who wear suits and give speeches answer to the same leaders as the Hezbollah terrorists who use rockets and bombs to kill Israelis, Syrians, Americans and Jews everywhere. But even getting the French to permit EU sanctions on Hezbollah’s military in 2013 was a headache.

The argument is that the West needs to deal with Hezbollah to retain influence, encourage moderation and preserve stability. France, as the former colonial power, has a special relationship with Lebanon—and equities to protect. This was the basis of the compromise that pretends Hezbollah has discrete branches.

Hezbollah itself denies its political and military wings are separate entities, and EU engagement with the terrorists’ political representatives has yielded no moderation. Instead Lebanon’s instability worsened, as Hezbollah reconstituted its military, weakened and in some areas replaced the Lebanese state, massacred Syrians, and started two more wars with Israel.

Since 2013 several European states have had to take national measures against Hezbollah rather than wait for “EU consensus.” Germany found Hezbollah had fundraising, recruitment and propaganda networks on its soil, and Berlin took action in 2020. Hezbollah has conducted terrorism across Europe and supplements its Iranian subsidy by working the drug trade.

Listing Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist group wouldn’t tie France’s hands diplomatically, but it would help close networks across Europe that promote and finance terrorism. After Mr. Raggi’s forthright comment, no one can pretend that France blocks sanctions against Hezbollah for Lebanon’s sake.

imagePro-Iranian Hezbollah militants parade during a ceremony, Beirut, Sept. 20, 2025. Marwan Naamani/Zuma Press

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

The Editorial Board speaks for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's “Wealth of Nations.” So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities. 


Videos

Read the whole story
bogorad
23 hours ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete

Enter the Killer Robots: The Ukrainian Forging the Future of Warfare - The New York Times

1 Share

LLM (google/gemini-3.1-flash-lite-20260507) summary:

  • Technological Evangelism: the defense minister advocates for replacing traditional military personnel with autonomous machines and standardized software applications.
  • Automated Warfare: the strategic goal aims to normalize lethal decision-making by robots under the justification of national security and protection.
  • Strategic Objectives: military planning mandates the use of drones to intercept missiles, maximize enemy attrition, and target economic infrastructure.
  • Administrative Friction: a persistent divide exists between civilian tech advisors and entrenched military leadership regarding the practical application of battlefield hardware.
  • Corporate Integration: the ministry facilitates deep collaboration with silicon valley firms to refine artificial intelligence for intelligence processing and strike coordination.
  • Prototyping Practices: weapon manufacturing relies heavily on disposable and makeshift components constructed in informal workshop settings to ensure low-cost production.
  • Data Monetization: the state leverages vast libraries of violent combat footage filmed by drones to train international artificial intelligence models.
  • Mathematical Reductionism: the current leadership approaches war through the lens of data management, viewing human combat losses as variables to be optimized.

As Ukraine’s 35-year-old defense minister strolled about in tennis shoes, jeans and a fleece, gazing at displays of his country’s latest crop of oddball weapons, he paused to eye one gigantic, ungainly new device.

It was a drone with muscular carbon fiber arms stretching eight feet to each side, propellers the size of scythes, and a sprawl of wires, protruding antennas and Velcro straps. The drone substitutes for a 155-millimeter howitzer, carrying shells to targets and dropping them.

“Can you make it bigger?” the minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, asked the drone’s developers during a recent defense exhibition. They were working on it, they replied.

The future of warfare is being written in Ukraine, and Mr. Fedorov, a technology evangelist who is four months into his job, is one of its authors.

In the same way that apps remade taxi services and food delivery, Mr. Fedorov believes that warfare is ripe for disruption. That, he says, means offloading the fighting as much as possible onto machines — including, someday, those that can make lethal decisions on their own.

“The world needs security, and only autonomous weapons can ensure it,” Mr. Fedorov said in an interview in his office at the Ministry of Defense. “Autonomous weapons are the new nuclear weapons. Countries that possess them will be protected.”

While killer robots may seem a horrifying prospect, something out of dystopian science fiction, the race for them is on worldwide.

In Ukraine, the use of artificial intelligence in weapons is still in its infancy. It is most helpful now in target recognition, like helping a drone pilot pick out a camouflaged tank hidden in a forest. But the technology is improving, and Mr. Fedorov sees it as a pillar of Ukraine’s broader embrace of new-generation weapons that have kept its outnumbered military in the fight.

These weapons power a strategy, devised by Mr. Fedorov and endorsed by President Volodymyr Zelensky, that is intended to force Russia into a settlement to end the war.

ImageSeveral people wearing sunglasses gather around a table with multiple black drones. A white banner saying "DRONARIUM ACADEMY" is behind them.
Devices on display at a drone expo in the Kyiv region of Ukraine in March.Credit...Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

The strategy, called Air, Land, Economy, envisions using drones and other advanced weapons to intercept at least 95 percent of incoming Russian drones and missiles; to kill or seriously injure more soldiers than Moscow can recruit; and to weaken the Russian economy by blowing up oil export terminals.

Want to stay updated on what’s happening in Ukraine? , and we’ll send our latest coverage to your inbox.

There has been pushback within the Ukrainian military against Mr. Fedorov’s futuristic talk of robot warfare, leading to what analysts say is a power struggle between him and generals. Some commanders say the idea of a rapid transition to unmanned battle is disconnected from the grim reality of muddy trenches and broken bodies.

Mr. Fedorov appears undeterred. In the interview, he said he held about a dozen meetings a day, working 10 or 12 hours, as part of his mission to push the military to adopt technology more quickly. He gets by on a restrictive diet that includes salads and bread made from buckwheat.

His interest in technology began with the video games he played as a teenager in the steel-making city of Zaporizhzhia. He turned his hobby into a tech career, starting a digital advertising business before graduating from college, and becoming a partner with Facebook in selling targeted ads on the platform.

Mr. Zelensky hired Mr. Fedorov to run social media advertising for his 2019 presidential campaign, then appointed him at age 28 to lead the ministry in charge of digitizing government services.

When Mr. Fedorov, who has never served in the military, moved to the Defense Ministry this January, he brought with him a team of advisers and data analysts. Mostly young men and women, they stand out for wearing sweatshirts to work. Mr. Fedorov set up a Ping-Pong table in one hallway.

Image
A person wearing a black jacket and bluejeans sits on a conference room table. In the background, a line of flags on poles displays blue and yellow, blue with yellow stars, and various red, blue, and dark gray designs.
“Autonomous weapons are the new nuclear weapons,” said the Ukrainian defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov. “Countries that possess them will be protected.”Credit...Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

Through the full-scale war that started in 2022, Mr. Fedorov has been Ukraine’s point person for contact with Silicon Valley. To attract military technology, he has promoted the war as a test bed for defense ventures.

He has met in Ukraine with Alex Karp, the chief executive of the defense-focused data analysis company Palantir, and with Eric Schmidt, a former chief executive of Google who founded a venture fund, D3, focused on weapons development in Ukraine.

After a meeting this week with Mr. Karp, Mr. Fedorov said that Ukraine was working with Palantir to further integrate A.I. into warfare, including systems to analyze air attacks, process intelligence data and plan for deep strikes into Russia.

During the recent defense-technology exhibition that Mr. Fedorov attended, a vast array of innovative Ukrainian battlefield products — the sort he has championed — were on display.

There were spools of fiber-optic wire that guide drones impervious to electronic jamming. There was a weapon made from a balloon, a palm-sized surveillance drone and a green unmanned ground vehicle that looked like a table mounted on a mini-bulldozer. There were dozens of prototypes of small “smart” weapons to replace machine guns, sniper rifles, tanks and artillery systems.

Mr. Fedorov eyed one microwave-oven-sized remote-controlled plane with a plastic fuselage shaped like a loaf of bread. The weapon, a dirt-cheap exploding drone, was called Loaf. “That’s a game changer,” he said.

Like much Ukrainian battlefield tech, the devices appeared soldered or duct-taped together in someone’s garage. Mr. Fedorov asked about prices. Everything had to be cheap and disposable, he said, because a lot would be shot down or blown up.

Mr. Fedorov wants to use this technology to eliminate as many Russian soldiers as possible.

Both armies endure high casualties, as drones buzz continually over the battlefield, posing lethal dangers to any soldier or vehicle that moves within the “kill zone,” a miles-wide strip along the front line that is dominated by unmanned weapons.

Image
A blue and yellow flag sits on a vehicle's dashboard in the foreground. A road through a snowy landscape stretches into the distance, with people on scaffolding and poles holding up netting.
Soldiers installing anti-drone netting over a road between Izium and Sloviansk in March.Credit...Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

Mr. Fedorov called this phase of the war “targeted destruction.” He said his goal was to raise the Russian casualty rate from about 35,000 killed and wounded a month now to more than 50,000, a level he said would slow the invasion and then halt it.

An aide, Valeriya Ionan, said Mr. Fedorov “believes in the mathematics of war.”

In the future, Mr. Fedorov said in the interview, robotic systems will do all of the fighting. The kill zone will empty of people entirely, he said. Unmanned systems will fight among themselves, he added, on the ground and in the air.

As robotic systems improve, he said, there will be an understanding that large-scale human losses in war “are unsustainable, and warfare will evolve again.”

Wars, however, tend to spiral in unpredictable directions, and taking humans out of the loop could compound that risk.

Mr. Fedorov’s vision has at times conflicted with that of Ukraine’s military leaders.

The armed forces’ commander in chief, Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, has not shied away from battles fought with traditional tactics of armored vehicles and infantry maneuvering in the fields. He won major victories earlier in the war with such strategies.

A dispute between Mr. Fedorov and the military command spilled into the open last month.

A Ukrainian unit called Skala attempted a risky assault in armored vehicles near the city of Pokrovsk in eastern Ukraine, losing four vehicles. Soldiers were killed and wounded, though the numbers are disputed.

Afterward, an adviser to Mr. Fedorov, Serhii Sternenko, sharply criticized the tactics in a social media post. “We often laugh at the enemy when he sends his troops in columns,” Mr. Sternenko wrote, referring to armored columns. “Treating our people like this is a crime. There should be accountability.”

Skala lashed back, accusing Mr. Sternenko of nurturing fantastical ideas unhinged from battlefield realities.

In a post on its Facebook page, the unit wrote that the assault group took necessary risks to save comrades in need of backup. “If Mr. Sternenko knows how to organize assault actions against the enemy’s strong points in Pokrovsk,” it said, he should enlist in the army and fight.

Still, frontline brigades have generally embraced whatever edge technology can bring.

“We have a young minister who is into technology, who is on one wavelength with us,” said Kyrylo Veres, commander of the K-2 brigade, which was an early adopter of exploding first-person-view drones early in the war. With Mr. Fedorov, “we don’t have to explain anything,” Mr. Veres added.

Image
Three people stand outdoors. A person on the left speaks with a raised hand, facing the one in the center, who wears a black vest with the text “BRAVE1.”
Mr. Fedorov, center, at the drone expo.Credit...Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

Public opinion polls show wide support for Mr. Fedorov’s work as defense minister. Mr. Zelensky has praised him, saying he is “grateful for the increasing volumes” of drones reaching the military.

One silver lining of the war, Mr. Fedorov said, has been the vast troves of data it has generated.

He is leading an effort to monetize or trade Ukrainian war data, including a library of more than five million annotated videos of the battlefield filmed by surveillance and strike drones. These include footage showing how humans behave as killer drones close in, such as running or hiding.

Last month, the Defense Ministry, through a program called Avenger Labs, opened up the data sets to companies from allied nations to train artificial intelligence models.

Human rights groups oppose the use of A.I. in lethal weapons. But Mr. Fedorov argued that “the risks are not as high as you think.” For now, the technology is focused mostly on identifying military equipment, not soldiers, aides said.

Access to Avenger Labs is conditioned on Ukraine receiving the A.I. models that are produced from the data. About 20 companies have expressed interest.

“It’s a win-win approach,” Mr. Fedorov said.

Evelina Riabenko and Yurii Shyvala contributed reporting from Kyiv and Lviv, Ukraine.

Read the whole story
bogorad
1 day ago
reply
Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories