{"id":858605,"date":"2025-06-28T07:12:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-28T12:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2025\/06\/28\/silicon-valley-execs-sworn-in-to-us-army-reserves-specialist-unit\/"},"modified":"2025-06-28T07:12:00","modified_gmt":"2025-06-28T12:12:00","slug":"silicon-valley-execs-sworn-in-to-us-army-reserves-specialist-unit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2025\/06\/28\/silicon-valley-execs-sworn-in-to-us-army-reserves-specialist-unit\/","title":{"rendered":"Silicon Valley execs sworn in to US Army reserves specialist unit"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Four Silicon Valley executives have been recruited into a specialist tech-focused unit of the US Army Reserves in a bid to \u201cbridge the commercial-military tech gap\u201d and make the armed forces \u201cmore lethal.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to an official US Army press release<\/a>, the tech executives have been instantly appointed to senior officer ranks in Detachment 201: The Army\u2019s Executive Innovation Corps, which is being established \u201cto fuse cutting-edge tech expertise with military innovation\u201d.<\/p>\n

Under their part-time military roles, the four executives \u2013 including Kevin Weil<\/a>, OpenAI\u2019s head of product; Bob McGrew<\/a>, a former OpenAI head of research\u00a0who is now advising Mira Murati\u2019s company<\/a>\u00a0Thinking Machines Lab<\/a>; Shyam Sankar<\/a>, the chief technology officer (CTO) of Palantir; and Andrew \u2018Boz\u2019 Bosworth<\/a>, the CTO of Meta \u00a0\u2013 \u201cwill work on targeted projects to help guide rapid and scalable tech solutions to complex problems\u201d.<\/p>\n

The press release added that bringing private sector knowledge into the US military in this way will help \u201cmake the force leaner, smarter and more lethal\u201d, and that the swearing-in of executives aims \u201cto inspire more tech pros to serve\u201d.<\/p>\n

Speaking with Computer Weekly about the development, Elke Schwarz<\/a>, a professor of political theory at Queen Mary University London and author of Death machines: The ethics of violent technologies<\/i><\/a>, said the move smacked of \u201ccosplaying\u201d on the part of the executives, who were wearing full fatigues during their swearing-in ceremony, and questioned both the ethics and necessity of the arrangement.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen I saw this, I thought this must be a joke or satire,\u201d she said. \u201cI think people intuitively understand this feels not quite right.\u201d<\/p>\n

She also questioned the broader implications of the collaboration, including concerns about the role of technology in lowering the threshold of resorting to violence, and the dangers of embedding high-level tech sector employees directly into the military hierarchy.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere has been a rhetorical shift in the past five years towards \u2018we need to make the military more lethal\u2019, and that ultimately places the priority on killing other people,\u201d she said. \u201cBut in recent wars, the people who are usually killed have been civilians, the ones who suffer are civilians.\u201d<\/p>\n

Highlighting the UK government\u2019s commitment to making the British military \u201c10x more lethal\u201d via new technologies in its Strategic Defence Review<\/a>, Schwarz said rhetoric around increasing lethality is often not sufficiently interrogated: \u201cif you implicitly allow a greater number of civilian casualties, and that is packaged into this word \u2018greater lethality\u2019, then that’s a real problem. Do these technologies help us fight wars more ethically, or are they just tools for more destruction?\u201d<\/p>\n

For Sophia Goodfriend, a cultural anthropologist who examines the impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) on military conflicts in the Middle East, while military leaders can fantasise about algorithmic systems turning killing into \u201can exact science\u201d, and use the underlying logic to \u201cparse the death and destruction of warfare into something that sounds rational and efficient\u201d, there\u2019s \u201ca lot of critique\u201d over continued civilian harm, and what these weapons will mean in practice on the ground<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cGaza is a good example of how the proliferation of AI-assisted weaponry, especially targeting, makes it easier for militaries to wage warfare for a longer amount of time, because they can expedite the process of finding targets, selecting them, bombing them and can continue doing that with less and less manpower,\u201d she said, adding this rationalises a protracted and unending mode of warfare.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe army has relied on various algorithmic systems to produce a record-breaking number of targets. But many of these systems have helped lend a veneer of technical rationality to\u00a0military campaign that has been marked by brutal destruction.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

<\/i>\u2018An Oppenheimer-like situation\u2019<\/h2>\n

For Brynt Parmeter, the Pentagon\u2019s first chief talent officer who spearheaded the creation of Detachment 201 after meeting Sankar at a conference in early 2024, the idea of the unit is to establish \u201can Oppenheimer-like situation\u201d where the executives could serve right away, without leaving their current jobs.<\/p>\n

Unlike ordinary reservists, the four executives \u2013 now lieutenant colonels \u2013 will not be required to undergo basic training, and will have the flexibility to spend some of their roughly 120 annual hours working remotely.<\/p>\n

The US Army has also confirmed that the executives will not be deployed in any theatres of war, meaning they will not be personally placed in any life-threatening situations despite their explicit remit to make military technologies even \u201cmore lethal\u201d.<\/p>\n

It also claimed there is no conflict of interest in having individuals privately employed in senior commercial roles acting as advisers to the military on tech-related subjects, adding that they will have no say in what contracts the US Army makes with the private sector.<\/p>\n

Wired<\/em> editor-at-large Stephen Levy has noted<\/a> that \u201cthe expertise they offer, however, seems inseparable from the sectors of AI, [virtual reality] VR and data mining at the centre of their companies\u2019 business models\u201d.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n It\u2019s a significant shift to give a select four companies a tonne of power and influence within the Armed Forces
\n <\/figure>
\n Sophia Goodfriend, cultural anthropologist<\/strong>
\n <\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

He further added \u201cwhile these soldiers are serving in a personal capacity, their employers will undoubtedly benefit from the inside-the-perimeter knowledge that they will gather while simultaneously working on military contracts\u201d.<\/p>\n

Goodfriend said that from the US military perspective, the move towards more partnerships with both large civilian conglomerates and smaller AI-focused startups represents an attempt to \u201cremodel the military into a more innovative and technologically sophisticated apparatus\u201d.<\/p>\n

While Goodfriend noted this endeavour would likely benefit the US military, which has for years been complaining about a \u201ctechnological lag\u201d behind the private sector, she also highlighted concerns about having such a \u201ctight relationship\u201d between private and public actors in this context.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ties between the civilian technology sector and the military are as long and old as the civilian technology sector itself, but this symbolises, I think, a new strategy,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s a significant shift to give a select four companies a tonne of power and influence within the Armed Forces.\u201d<\/p>\n

She added that there is clearly scope for conflicts of interest when you have representatives from private companies that already have quite hefty contracts with the US military, who are being tasked with pushing even more emerging technologies onto the Armed Forces.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s really important to think and take a critical appraisal of just how effective those systems are, and it\u2019s harder and harder to do that if the people who are also in high-level roles within the US military are executives at those companies,\u201d she said, adding that many AI-powered systems for use in military surveillance and autonomous weapons are quite new and therefore largely unproven on the battlefield.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s also really important to have the safety mechanisms in place to ensure that these systems work correctly, to ensure that they\u2019re deployed without driving human rights abuses, that they work as promised, essentially. And it\u2019s harder to do that if you have these kinds of entanglements between the private companies and making the technologies with the people who are deploying them and bringing them into the military.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

<\/i>No conflict of interest?<\/h2>\n

As it stands, the companies the executives are employed at already receive substantial sums from their military contracts, or are otherwise angling into defence-related work.<\/p>\n

Palantir, for example, has billions of dollars\u2019 worth of US government deals, including a wide variety of contracts with the US Army for advanced AI systems, while OpenAI recently announced a $200m defence contract<\/a> to \u201cdevelop prototype frontier AI capabilities\u201d.<\/p>\n

Meta has also recently partnered with US defence tech company Anduril<\/a> to build augmented and virtual reality technologies for the military, which CEO Mark Zuckerberg said<\/a> will help \u201cprotect our interests at home and abroad\u201d.<\/p>\n

Commenting on the partnership, Anduril CEO Luckey Palmer, who was previously fired by Meta in 2018 over his donations to political groups supporting Donald Trump in the 2016 election, added \u201cof all the areas where dual-use technology can make a difference for America, this is the one I am most excited about. My mission has long been to turn warfighters into technomancers, and the products we are building with Meta do just that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Thinking Machines Lab is the only firm involved with no active military contracts, as it was launched by a number of former OpenAI employees in early 2025.<\/p>\n

Highlighting how venture capital defence firms<\/a> will often make an effort to bring in military specialists and former personnel into their fold for the purposes of gaining both expertise and credibility, Schwarz said Detachment 201 constitutes \u201cthe other end of the revolving door\u201d, in that military organisations are now not only bringing in the technologists for the same purposes, but deeply embedding them in the hierarchy of the military itself.<\/p>\n

\u201cUltimately, they\u2019re gaining access in a way that suggests hierarchical positioning, because coming in as lieutenant colonels, they have to be saluted,\u201d she said, adding that the executives are essentially taking up leadership roles in an organisation with a very specific culture that they have no real experience of being in.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople who enlist\u2026understand what it means to risk your life and potentially take the lives of others. It\u2019s not taken lightly; people are habituated into these values. However robust they may or may not be, those values are there, so by having [these executives] at a distance from that has the potential to create a misunderstanding of the task, the weight of the task and the moral responsibility involved in this.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re not being asked to sacrifice their lives in the same way that other reservists would be, or in the same way that army values would apply to anybody else who enlists and who swears that oath. It makes it a little bit bizarre\u2026why was this deemed necessary?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n I can only assume this is done to consolidate not just financial power, but also positional or hierarchical power directly within a government organisation
\n <\/figure>
\n Elke Schwarz, Queen Mary University London<\/strong>
\n <\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

She added that because many tech companies \u2013 and particularly Palantir via its Maven Smart Systems contract<\/a> \u2013 are already so embedded in working with the US military, the creation of this pathway suggests it will offer a distinct level of access and influence to the executives: \u201cI can only assume this is done to consolidate not just financial power, but also positional or hierarchical power directly within a government organisation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe access is obviously going to be enlarged, but there\u2019s also a loosening of the boundaries between civilian and non-civilian\u2026and we\u2019re increasingly asked to just believe the proclamation, rather than have it be demonstrated, that we can trust these individuals to display the utmost integrity and that they aren\u2019t prioritising business development.\u201d<\/p>\n

Schwarz added that this is particularly \u201cproblematic\u201d when the views of those in their companies are taken into account, noting \u201cyou can\u2019t necessarily separate that from the individuals that have now joined\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00a0In a September 2024 interview with CNBC<\/em><\/a>, for example, Palantir CEO Alexander Karp said: \u201cI support inflicting pain…if you touch an American, we will inflict pain on you for generations. That should be the US policy, whether that happens in Gaza, whether that happens in Ukraine.\u201d<\/p>\n

Commenting further, Schwarz said: \u201cThe C-suite of Palantir in particular is very outspoken in terms of the kind of foreign policy they would advocate for\u2026It\u2019s about domination, it\u2019s about \u2018defending the West\u2019. It\u2019s problematic if you just think about what that actually entails.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/section>\n

\n

<\/i>\u2018The business of inflicting violence\u2019<\/h2>\n

In an op-ed penned for the Free Press<\/em><\/a>, Palantir CTO Sankar \u2013 who was integral to the other three executives being recruited \u2013 shared similar sentiments to Zuckerberg and Palmer about the need to defend American interests, writing that despite not having any free time between fatherhood, their day jobs \u201cand a dozen other demands\u201d, each of the executives \u201cfeel called to serve\u201d.<\/p>\n

However, he added that while it would have been \u201cunthinkable for so many tech heavyweights to openly align with the US military\u201d a decade ago, or for the military to so directly \u201cenlist the support of the nation\u2019s business elite\u201d, the \u201curgency and seriousness\u201d of the current historical moment has created a sea change.<\/p>\n

\u201cMore and more, the nation\u2019s technologists are realising we face threats to our freedom as serious as any we faced in the 20th century. And they\u2019re rediscovering Silicon Valley\u2019s\u00a0roots in national defence<\/a>\u00a0during the Second World War and Cold War,\u201d he wrote. \u201cBut unlike in 1940 or 1960, the architects of American technical dominance today are too often absent from the rooms where national security decisions are made.\u201d<\/p>\n

He added that \u201cfor the first time in a generation\u201d, the gap between Silicon Valley and Washington is being bridged: \u201cThe uniform I\u2019m putting on today is a symbol of gratitude transformed into action; of success converted into service; of understanding that in America\u2019s moment of need, those who can serve, must. The arsenal of democracy needs its architects back. Who else will answer the call?\u201d<\/p>\n

In comment provided to Wired<\/em><\/a>, Weil also acknowledged the controversy of their swearing-in: \u201c10 years ago, this probably would have gotten me cancelled. It\u2019s a much better state of the world where people look at this and go, \u2018Oh, wow, this is important. Freedom is not free\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

He added that donning the uniform would also make military personnel more likely to listen to their civilian perspectives: \u201cThere\u2019s nothing wrong with being a contractor, but if we\u2019re off supporting an exercise somewhere, it\u2019s different that we\u2019re wearing the same uniform, having taken the same oath.\u201d<\/p>\n

While not unprecedented \u2013 as many Silicon Valley firms have a long-standing history of working with the US military \u2013 critics have observed a notable shift in the relationship between the two, which can be characterised by a growing closeness and a willingness on the part of tech firms to be seen openly collaborating with military institutions.<\/p>\n

In February 2025, for example, Google dropped its pledge to not use AI for weapons systems or surveillance tools<\/a>, citing a need to support the national security of \u201cdemocracies\u201d.<\/p>\n

Google \u2013 whose company motto \u2018Don\u2019t be Evil\u2019 was replaced in 2015 with \u2018Do the right thing\u2019 \u2013 defended the decision to remove these goals from its\u00a0AI principles webpage<\/a>\u00a0in a\u00a0blogpost<\/a>\u00a0co-authored by Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind; and James Manyika, the company\u2019s senior vice-president for technology and society.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a global competition taking place for AI leadership within an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape. We believe democracies should lead in AI development, guided by core values like freedom, equality and respect for human rights,\u201d they wrote on 4 February.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n I support inflicting pain…if you touch an American, we will inflict pain on you for generations. That should be the US policy
\n <\/figure>
\n Alexander Karp, Palantir <\/strong>
\n <\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cAnd we believe that companies, governments and organisations sharing these values should work together to create AI that protects people, promotes global growth and supports national security.\u201d<\/p>\n

Noting that, in 2018, leaked correspondence revealed<\/a> that Google executives thought of military AI as a \u201cPR liability\u201d, Goodfriend said that seven years on, \u201cthat\u2019s entirely not the case\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s been a larger cultural shift within Silicon Valley, where something that was once seen as being really bad for business and quite unpopular is now being touted as the ultimate test of patriotism by the tech sector, and that shift can map on to larger political shifts in the United States,\u201d she said. \u201cSilicon Valley has pivoted away from a kind of dyed-in-the-wool liberalism and increasingly embraced militarism and conservative politics in recent years.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis move is the pinnacle of those political transformations, insofar as you have tech executives proudly taking on leadership roles in the US military. Maybe six years ago, that would have been met with large protests from employees at the companies<\/a>, but now it\u2019s largely accepted as the status quo.\u201d<\/p>\n

Schwarz shared similar sentiments, noting that while many in the tech sector \u201cdidn\u2019t want anything to do with the business of inflicting violence, that changed with the Russia-Ukraine conflict\u201d.<\/p>\n

She added that after this point, there was a shift in the framing of warfare as morally necessary: \u201cOf course, for Ukraine, it is morally necessary to defend itself, there\u2019s absolutely no doubt about that, but the conflict allowed the discourse to shift from \u2018how about not profiteering from war\u2019 to \u2018it is morally imperative that we invest our money in defence companies\u2019, so that they can \u2018defend democracy\u2019 and various other marketing taglines.\u201d<\/p>\n

Noting that Silicon Valley-US military collaboration has historically taken place in the context of war, Schwarz said military-industry partnerships are now increasingly framed as pre-emptive, with emerging technologies being viewed as a deterrent. She added that such perspectives lend themselves to the use of violence over alternative political or diplomatic solutions.<\/p>\n

\u201cDeterrence theory is problematic at the best of times, but it really doesn\u2019t shake out in this particular context. Rather, what this is more likely to produce is an expansion of violence,\u201d she concluded.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/section>\n

Read More<\/a>
\n Tyisha Serna<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Four Silicon Valley executives have been recruited into a specialist tech-focused unit of the US Army Reserves in a bid to \u201cbridge the commercial-military tech gap\u201d and make the armed forces \u201cmore lethal.\u201d According to an official US Army press release, the tech executives have been instantly appointed to senior officer ranks in Detachment 201:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":858606,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[393,46,394],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-858605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-silicon","category-technology","category-valley"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/858605","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=858605"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/858605\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/858606"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=858605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=858605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=858605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}