pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07803 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI· cs.CV

The Weaponization of Computer Vision: Tracing Military-Surveillance Ties through Conference Sponsorship

Noa Garcia , Amelia Katirai This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CV
keywords computer visionmilitary tiessurveillanceconference sponsorshipdual-use technologyAI ethicsresearch fundingweaponization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Computer vision conferences receive sponsorship from companies with direct military or surveillance ties in 44 percent of cases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines ties between computer vision research and military or surveillance domains by tracking financial sponsors at the field's main conferences. Sponsorship is presented as evidence of investment in the technology and as a way to influence its future direction. The analysis of sponsor activities shows that 44 percent maintain direct connections to military or surveillance work. This undercuts the portrayal of computer vision as a purely technical and neutral pursuit. Two case studies then assess what this sponsorship lens can and cannot reveal about weaponization.

Core claim

By collecting data on companies sponsoring computer vision conferences and checking their activities, we find that 44 percent have direct connections with military or surveillance applications. Conference sponsorship serves as strong evidence of investment in the field and provides a privileged position for shaping its trajectory, showing that computer vision is being used in technologies that inflict harm despite the field's neutral self-image.

What carries the argument

Conference sponsorship, which functions as evidence of a company's investment in computer vision and a means to shape its trajectory, applied to trace military-surveillance ties by examining each sponsor's documented activities.

If this is right

  • Computer vision research is intertwined with applications in warfare and surveillance rather than remaining a neutral technical domain.
  • Sponsorship data offers a concrete method for identifying pathways of technological weaponization.
  • Companies involved in military or surveillance work hold positions to steer the direction of computer vision research.
  • The approach has practical limits, including incomplete information on all connections and the need for careful classification of ties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same sponsorship-tracing method could be applied to other areas of AI to identify similar patterns of dual-use development.
  • Increased public scrutiny of conference funding sources could prompt researchers to weigh potential influences on their work.
  • The findings connect to wider questions about how academic fields handle funding from entities engaged in sensitive applications.

Load-bearing premise

That sponsorship reliably signals strong investment and influence in the field and that the classified ties accurately reflect direct military or surveillance involvement.

What would settle it

An independent review of the same sponsors that finds substantially fewer than 44 percent with direct military or surveillance activities would undermine the reported percentage and the tracing method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07803 by Amelia Katirai, Noa Garcia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The CVWeap dataset collection process consists of four parts: computer vision sponsors, metadata, domain of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Domain of application and involvement profile annotation flowchart. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Domain of application and involvement profile statistics in the CVWeap dataset. Left: percentage of sponsors per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Number of sponsors per edition in each of the three main computer vision conferences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Where are computer vision sponsors from? Number of sponsors per country in the CVWeap dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number of sponsors per country with at least a sponsor involved in the military or surveillance domain. Left: number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Percentage of sponsors in the surveillance and military domain per computer vision subfield. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Computer vision, a core domain of artificial intelligence (AI), is the field that enables the computational analysis, understanding, and generation of visual data. Despite being historically rooted in military funding and increasingly deployed in warfare, the field tends to position itself as a neutral, purely technical endeavor, failing to engage in discussions about its dual-use applications. Yet it has been reported that computer vision systems are being systematically weaponized to assist in technologies that inflict harm, such as surveillance or warfare. Expanding on these concerns, we study the extent to which computer vision research is being used in the military and surveillance domains. We do so by collecting a dataset of tech companies with financial ties to the field's central research exchange platform: conferences. Conference sponsorship, we argue, not only serves as strong evidence of a company's investment in the field but also provides a privileged position for shaping its trajectory. By investigating sponsors' activities, we reveal that 44% of them have a direct connection with military or surveillance applications. We extend our analysis through two case studies in which we discuss the opportunities and limitations of sponsorship as a means for uncovering technological weaponization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper collects data on sponsors of major computer vision conferences and classifies their activities to argue that 44% have direct connections to military or surveillance applications. It positions conference sponsorship as evidence of investment and trajectory-shaping influence, then presents two case studies examining opportunities and limitations of this approach for tracing weaponization.

Significance. If the sponsor classification holds under transparent criteria, the work supplies an empirical count linking industry funding to dual-use domains in computer vision, adding to AI ethics literature on military-surveillance ties. The sponsorship-proxy method offers a replicable lens for other subfields, though its strength rests on the robustness of the 44% result and the case-study framing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Data Collection] The criteria and decision rules for labeling a sponsor as having a 'direct connection with military or surveillance applications' (including handling of dual-use products, subsidiaries, and thresholds) are not specified in the methods or data-collection section. This directly determines the 44% headline figure and must be documented with examples or a coding protocol to allow validation.
  2. [Results] No inter-coder agreement, sensitivity checks, or validation of the classification is reported, leaving the quantitative claim vulnerable to systematic bias in tie identification. This is load-bearing because the paper treats the resulting 44% as evidence of weaponization trends.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly state the total number of sponsors analyzed and the time window of conferences covered to contextualize the 44% statistic.
  2. [Results] Figure or table presenting the sponsor breakdown by category (military, surveillance, dual-use, none) would improve readability of the main result.
  3. [Case Studies] The case studies would benefit from clearer linkage back to specific sponsors in the dataset rather than general discussion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help improve the transparency and robustness of our analysis on sponsor ties in computer vision conferences. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional methodological details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Data Collection] The criteria and decision rules for labeling a sponsor as having a 'direct connection with military or surveillance applications' (including handling of dual-use products, subsidiaries, and thresholds) are not specified in the methods or data-collection section. This directly determines the 44% headline figure and must be documented with examples or a coding protocol to allow validation.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript lacked sufficient detail on the classification criteria. In the revised version, we have added a new subsection in Methods that explicitly defines the decision rules: a sponsor receives a 'direct connection' label if it has documented military contracts, produces surveillance-specific hardware/software (e.g., facial recognition for law enforcement), or maintains subsidiaries with such activities, with a minimum revenue threshold of 5% from relevant divisions. Dual-use products are classified only when evidence shows active deployment in military or surveillance contexts rather than potential alone. We include a coding protocol table and three concrete sponsor examples (e.g., a company with both commercial imaging and defense contracts) to enable replication and validation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] No inter-coder agreement, sensitivity checks, or validation of the classification is reported, leaving the quantitative claim vulnerable to systematic bias in tie identification. This is load-bearing because the paper treats the resulting 44% as evidence of weaponization trends.

    Authors: We acknowledge that reliability metrics were not originally reported. The classification was performed by the lead authors using the now-documented protocol. In revision, we have added a sensitivity analysis that varies the 'direct connection' threshold (e.g., requiring explicit contracts versus any surveillance product line) and reports that the core 44% figure varies between 39% and 49% across reasonable alternatives, supporting stability. We also describe the single-coder process and potential bias sources. Full multi-coder agreement statistics cannot be retroactively computed from the existing data without re-labeling by independent coders, which we note as a limitation and plan to address in follow-up work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical count from external data with no self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper conducts an empirical investigation by collecting sponsor data from conferences and classifying their activities for military/surveillance ties, yielding the 44% figure as a direct count. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are present that reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. The analysis relies on external company records rather than internal definitions or predictions, making it self-contained against the specified circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the premise that sponsorship data reliably indicates investment and influence, with no free parameters or new entities introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Conference sponsorship indicates a company's investment in the field and privileged position for shaping its trajectory
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the justification for using sponsorship as the tracing mechanism.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5500 in / 1051 out tokens · 42534 ms · 2026-05-10T18:18:41.796072+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024 CVPR Program Committee. 2024. CVPR 2024 Breaks Paper and Attendance Records; AI Art Award and Demo Winners Announced . https://cvpr.thecvf.com/Conferences/2024/News/Wrap_Release [Accessed: March 2026]

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Yuval Abraham. 2024. ‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai- israeli-army-gaza/ [Accessed: April 2025]

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    AFSC. 2025. Investigate: Action/Research for Palestinian Rights. https://investigate.info/ [Accessed: October 2025]

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    2024.Resisting Borders and Technologies of Violence

    Mizue Aizeki, Matt Mamoudi, Coline Schupfer, and Ruha Benjamin. 2024.Resisting Borders and Technologies of Violence. Haymarket Books

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Amnesty International. 2023. Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories: Automated Apartheid: How facial recognition fragments, segregates and controls Palestinians in the OPT. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/6701/2023/en/ [Accessed: April 2025]

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    2022.Facial recognition

    Mark Andrejevic and Neil Selwyn. 2022.Facial recognition. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    2012.Routledge handbook of surveillance studies

    Kirstie Ball, Kevin Haggerty, and David Lyon. 2012.Routledge handbook of surveillance studies. Routledge

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    2019.Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code

    Ruha Benjamin. 2019.Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. John Wiley & Sons. The Weaponization of Computer Vision: Tracing Military-Surveillance Ties through Conference Sponsorship•15

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    Daniel Boffey. 2025. Killing machines: how Russia and Ukraine’s race to perfect deadly pilotless drones could harm us all. https: //www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/25/ukraine-russia-autonomous-drones-ai [Accessed: August 2025]

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    2018.The eye of war: Military perception from the telescope to the drone

    Antoine Bousquet. 2018.The eye of war: Military perception from the telescope to the drone. U of Minnesota Press

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Antoine Bousquet. 2024. Becoming (Im) Perceptible: From Scopic Regimes to the Martial Gaze.Drone Aesthetics(2024), 32

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33 (2020), 1877–1901

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Hongtao Chen, Baojiang Zhong, and Kai-Kuang Ma. 2024. A Robust Airport Detection Method Based on Environment-Insensitive Saliency Analysis. InPacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Sarah Ciston. 2025. AI War Cloud. https://aiwar.cloud/ [Accessed: October 2025]

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    2021.The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence

    Kate Crawford. 2021.The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    2023.The birth of computer vision

    James E Dobson. 2023.The birth of computer vision. U of Minnesota Press

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Mark Everingham, Luc Van Gool, Christopher KI Williams, John Winn, and Andrew Zisserman. 2010. The pascal visual object classes (VOC) challenge.International Journal of Computer Vision88, 2 (2010), 303–338

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Lee Fang. 2018. Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Lucrative Military Drone AI Work to Grow Exponentially. https://theintercept. com/2018/05/31/google-leaked-emails-drone-ai-pentagon-lucrative/ [Accessed: April 2025]

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    2019.The global expansion of AI surveillance

    Steven Feldstein. 2019.The global expansion of AI surveillance. Vol. 17. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Washington, DC

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Janja Filipi, Vladan Stojnić, Mario Muštra, Ross N Gillanders, Vedran Jovanović, Slavica Gajić, Graham A Turnbull, Zdenka Babić, Nikola Kezić, and Vladimir Risojević. 2022. Honeybee-based biohybrid system for landmine detection.Science of the total environment803 (2022), 150041

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Christian Fuchs. 2010. How Can Surveillance Be Defined? Remarks on Theoretical Foundations.The Internet & Surveillance-Research paper series(2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    Timnit Gebru and Remi Denton. 2024. Beyond fairness in computer vision: A holistic approach to mitigating harms and fostering community-rooted computer vision research.Foundations and Trends®in Computer Graphics and Vision16, 3 (2024), 215–321

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Google Scholar. 2025. Top Publications Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_ venues&hl=en&vq=eng_computervisionpatternrecognition [Accessed: August 2025]

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    2023.Your Face Belongs to Us: A Tale of AI, a Secretive Startup, and the End of Privacy

    Kashmir Hill. 2023.Your Face Belongs to Us: A Tale of AI, a Secretive Startup, and the End of Privacy. Random House

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, Arnav Arora, Zeerak Talat, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2023. Thorny Roses: Investigating the Dual Use Dilemma in Natural Language Processing. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023. 13977–13998

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Pratyusha Ria Kalluri, William Agnew, Myra Cheng, Kentrell Owens, Luca Soldaini, and Abeba Birhane. 2025. Computer-vision research powers surveillance technology.Nature(2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    2020.Artificial whiteness: Politics and ideology in artificial intelligence

    Yarden Katz. 2020.Artificial whiteness: Politics and ideology in artificial intelligence. Columbia University Press

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 2002. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition.Proc. IEEE86, 11 (2002), 2278–2324

    work page 2002

  30. [30]

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. 2023. Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Geert Litjens, Thijs Kooi, Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi, Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio, Francesco Ciompi, Mohsen Ghafoorian, Jeroen Awm Van Der Laak, Bram Van Ginneken, and Clara I Sánchez. 2017. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis.Medical image analysis42 (2017), 60–88

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    2024.The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World

    Antony Loewenstein. 2024.The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World. Pan Macmillan

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Dave Maass, Beryl Lipton, and Jesse Cabrera. 2025. Atlas of Surveillance. https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/ [Accessed: October 2025]

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Herwin W Meerveld, RHA Lindelauf, Eric O Postma, and M Postma. 2023. The irresponsibility of not using AI in the military.Ethics and Information Technology25, 1 (2023), 14

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    David C Mowery. 2010. Military R&D and innovation. InHandbook of the Economics of Innovation. Vol. 2. Elsevier, 1219–1256

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 2022. Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions- regular/session59/advance-version/a-hrc-59-23-aev.pdf

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Matthew Olay. 2025. Trump Renames DOD to Department of War. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4295826/ trump-renames-dod-to-department-of-war/ [Accessed: December 2025]. 16•Noa Garcia and Amelia Katirai

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending certain Union legislative acts. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689. Official Journal of the European Union, L 168, 12 July 2024

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    2020.New laws of robotics

    Frank Pasquale. 2020.New laws of robotics. Harvard University Press

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Sam A Reynolds, Sara Beery, Neil Burgess, Mark Burgman, Stuart HM Butchart, Steven J Cooke, David Coomes, Finn Danielsen, Enrico Di Minin, América Paz Durán, et al . 2025. The potential for AI to revolutionize conservation: a horizon scan.Trends in ecology & evolution40, 2 (2025), 191–207

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Michael Richardson. 2022. Military Virtues and the Limits of ’Ethics’ in AI Research.Economies of Virtue(2022), 123

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Juan-Pablo Rivera, Gabriel Mukobi, Anka Reuel, Max Lamparth, Chandler Smith, and Jacquelyn Schneider. 2024. Escalation risks from language models in military and diplomatic decision-making. InProceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Gerard Salton and Christopher Buckley. 1988. Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval.Information processing & management24, 5 (1988), 513–523

    work page 1988

  46. [46]

    Florian Schroff, Dmitry Kalenichenko, and James Philbin. 2015. Facenet: A unified embedding for face recognition and clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Badman, Shayne Longpre, and Kanaka Rajan

    Riley Simmons-Edler, Ryan P. Badman, Shayne Longpre, and Kanaka Rajan. 2024. Position: AI-powered autonomous weapons risk geopolitical instability and threaten AI research. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    SIPRI. 2024. SIPRI Arms Industry Database. https://www.sipri.org/databases/armsindustry [Accessed: October 2025]

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Lucy Suchman, Karolina Follis, and Jutta Weber. 2017. Tracking and targeting: Sociotechnologies of (in) security. 983–1002 pages

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Surveillance Watch. 2025. Surveillance Watch: They Know Who You Are. https://aiwar.cloud/ [Accessed: October 2025]

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Yaniv Taigman, Ming Yang, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, and Lior Wolf. 2014. Deepface: Closing the gap to human-level performance in face verification. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    The World Bank. 2024. GDP (current US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD Data retrieved from World Bank Open Data

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    2025.Landmine Monitor Report 2025: Toward a Mine-free World

    International Campaign to Ban Landmines. 2025.Landmine Monitor Report 2025: Toward a Mine-free World. Geneva: ICBL-CMC, December 2025

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Sian Troath. 2023. The Political Economy of Australian Militarism: On the Emergent Military–Industrial–Academic Complex.Journal of Global Security Studies(2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    Department of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense

    U.S. Department of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense. 2017. Establishment of an Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (Project Maven). https://www.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/establishment_of_the_awcft_project_maven.pdf. Memorandum, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    Emanuele Vivoli, Lorenzo Capineri, and Marco Bertini. 2025. HoloMine: A Synthetic Dataset for Buried Landmines Recognition using Microwave Holographic Imaging.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing(2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    David Gray Widder, Sireesh Gururaja, and Lucy Suchman. 2024. Basic Research, Lethal Effects: Military AI Research Funding as Enlistment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17840(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    2018.War and the Politics of Ethics

    Maja Zehfuss. 2018.War and the Politics of Ethics. Oxford University Press

    work page 2018