The US military might use generative AI systems to rank lists of targets and make recommendations—which would be vetted by humans—about which to strike first, according to a Defense Department official with knowledge of the matter. The disclosure about how the military may use AI chatbots comes as the Pentagon faces scrutiny over a strike on an Iranian school, which it is still investigating.  

A list of possible targets might be fed into a generative AI system that the Pentagon is fielding for classified settings. Then, said the official, who requested to speak on background with MIT Technology Review to discuss sensitive topics, humans might ask the system to analyze the information and prioritize the targets while accounting for factors like where aircraft are currently located. Humans would then be responsible for checking and evaluating the results and recommendations. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and xAI’s Grok could, in theory, be the models used for this type of scenario in the future, as both companies recently reached agreements for their models to be used by the Pentagon in classified settings.

The official described this as an example of how things might work but would not confirm or deny whether it represents how AI systems are currently being used.

Other outlets have reported that Anthropic’s Claude has been integrated into existing military AI systems and used in operations in Iran and Venezuela, but the official’s comments add insight into the specific role chatbots may play, particularly in accelerating the search for targets. They also shed light on the way the military is deploying two different AI technologies, each with distinct limitations.

Since at least 2017, the US military has been working on a “big data” initiative called Maven. It uses older types of AI, particularly computer vision, to analyze the oceans of data and imagery collected by the Pentagon. Maven might take thousands of hours of aerial drone footage, for example, and algorithmically identify targets. A 2024 report from Georgetown University showed soldiers using the system to select targets and vet them, which sped up the process to get approval for these targets. Soldiers interacted with Maven through an interface with a battlefield map and dashboard, which might highlight potential targets in one color and friendly forces in another.

The official’s comments suggest that generative AI is now being added as a conversational chatbot layer—one the military may use to find and analyze data more quickly as it makes decisions like which targets to prioritize. 

Generative AI systems, like those that underpin ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok, are a fundamentally different technology from the AI that has primarily powered Maven. Built on large language models, they are much less battle-tested. And while Maven’s interface forced users to directly inspect and interpret data on the map, the outputs produced by generative AI models are easier to access but harder to verify. 

The use of generative AI for such decisions is reducing the time required in the targeting process, added the official, who did not provide details when asked how much additional speed is possible if humans are required to spend time double-checking a model’s outputs.

The use of military AI systems is under increased public scrutiny following the recent strike on a girls’ school in Iran in which more than 100 children died. Multiple news outlets have reported that the strike was from a US missile, though the Pentagon has said it is still under investigation. And while the Washington Post has reported that Claude and Maven have been involved in targeting decisions in Iran, there is no evidence yet to explain what role generative AI systems played, if any. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that a preliminary investigation found outdated targeting data to be partly responsible for the strike. 

The Pentagon has been ramping up its use of AI across operations in recent months. It started offering nonclassified use of generative AI models, for tasks like analyzing contracts or writing presentations, to millions of service members back in December through an effort called GenAI.mil. But only a few generative AI models have been approved by the Pentagon for classified use. 

The first was Anthropic’s Claude, which in addition to its use in Iran was reportedly used in the operations to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in January. But following recent disagreements between the Pentagon and Anthropic over whether Anthropic could restrict the military’s use of its AI, the Defense Department designated the company a supply chain risk and President Trump demanded on social media that the government stop using its AI products within six months. Anthropic is fighting the designation in court. 

OpenAI announced an agreement on February 28 for the military to use its technologies in classified settings. Elon Musk’s company xAI has also reached a deal for the Pentagon to use its model Grok in such settings. OpenAI has said its agreement with the Pentagon came with limitations, though the practical effectiveness of those limitations is not clear. 

If you have information about the military’s use of AI, you can share it securely via Signal (username jamesodonnell.22).

This story originally appeared in The Algorithm, our weekly newsletter on AI. To get stories like this in your inbox first, sign up here.

“Anyone wanna host a get together in SF and pull this up on a 100 inch TV?” 

The author of that post on X was referring to an online intelligence dashboard following the US-Israel strikes against Iran in real time. Built by two people from the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, it combines open-source data like satellite imagery and ship tracking with a chat function, news feeds, and links to prediction markets, where people can bet on things like who Iran’s next “supreme leader” will be (the recent selection of Mojtaba Khamenei left some bettors with a payout). 

I’ve reviewed over a dozen other dashboards like this in the last week. Many were apparently “vibe-coded” in a couple of days with the help of AI tools, including one that got the attention of a founder of the intelligence giant Palantir, the platform through which the US military is accessing AI models like Claude during the war. Some were built before the conflict in Iran, but nearly all of them are being advertised by their creators as a way to beat the slow and ineffective media by getting straight to the truth of what’s happening on the ground. “Just learned more in 30 seconds watching this map than reading or watching any major news network,” one commenter wrote on LinkedIn, responding to a visualization of Iran’s airspace being shut down before the strikes.

Much of the spotlight on AI and the Iran conflict has rightfully been on the role that models like Claude might be playing in helping the US military make decisions about where to strike. But these intelligence dashboards and the ecosystem surrounding them reflect a new role that AI is playing in wartime: mediating information, often for the worse.

There’s a confluence of factors at play. AI coding tools mean people don’t need much technical skill to assemble open-source intelligence anymore, and chatbots can offer fast, if dubious, analysis of it. The rise in fake content leaves observers of the war wanting the sort of raw, accurate analysis normally accessible only to intelligence agencies. Demand for these dashboards is also driven by real-time prediction markets that promise financial rewards to anyone sufficiently informed. And the fact that the US military is using Anthropic’s Claude in the conflict (despite its designation as a supply chain risk) has signaled to observers that AI is the intelligence tool the pros use. Together, these trends are creating a new kind of AI-enabled wartime circus that can distort the flow of information as much as it clarifies it.

As a journalist, I believe these sorts of intelligence tools have a lot of promise. While many of us know that real-time data on shipping routes or power outages exist, it’s a powerful thing to actually see it all assembled in one place (though using it to watch a war unfold while you munch on popcorn and place bets turns the war into perverse entertainment). But there are real reasons to think that these sorts of raw data feeds are not as informative as they may feel. 

Craig Silverman, a digital investigations expert who teaches investigative techniques, has been keeping a log of these dashboards (he’s up to 20). “The concern,” he says, “is there’s an illusion of being on top of things and being in control, where all you’re really doing is just pulling in a ton of signals and not necessarily understanding what you’re seeing, or being able to pull out true insights from it.” 

One problem has to do with the quality of the information. Many dashboards feature “intel feeds” with AI-generated summaries of complex, ever-changing news events. These can introduce inaccuracies. By design, the data is not especially curated. Instead, the feeds just display everything at once, with a map of strike locations in Iran next to the prices of obscure cryptocurrencies. 

Intelligence agencies, on the other hand, pair data feeds with people who can offer expertise and historical context. They also, of course, have access to proprietary information that doesn’t show up on the open web. 

The implicit promise from the people building and selling this sort of information pipeline about the Iran conflict is that AI can be a great democratizing force. There’s a secret feed of information that only the elites have had access to, the thinking goes, but now AI can bring it to everyone to do with what they wish, whether that’s simply to be more informed or to make bets on nuclear strikes. But an abundance of information, which AI is undeniably good at assembling, does not come with the accuracy or context required for real understanding. Intelligence agencies do this in-house; good journalism does the same work for the rest of us.

It is, by the way, hard to overstate the connection this all has with betting markets. The dashboard created by the pair at Andreessen Horowitz has a scrolling list of bets being made on the prediction platform Kalshi (which Andreessen Horowitz has invested in). Other dashboards link to Polymarket, offering bets on whether the US will strike Iraq or when Iran’s internet will return.

AI has also long made it cheaper and easier to spread fake content, and that problem is on full display during the Iran conflict: last week the Financial Times found a slew of AI-generated satellite imagery spreading online. 

“The emergence of manipulated or outright fake satellite imagery is really concerning,” Silverman says. The average person tends to see such imagery as very trustworthy. The spread of such fakes could erode confidence in one of the most important pieces of evidence used to show what’s actually happening in the war. 

The result is an ocean of AI-enabled content—dashboards, betting markets, photos both real and fake—that makes this war harder, not easier, to comprehend.