Second Prize: Coded Conflict: Algorithmic and Drone Warfare in US Security Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines drone and algorithmic warfare and argues that they are an expression of and an indivisible tool for the “never-ending” war that is now propelling US security rhetoric. Recent security strategy discourse implies a trend towards the complete mobilization of society in a new type of war, an algorithmic total war. Both mainstream and critical accounts of modern warfare with respect to the use of drones and algorithms remain limited. Mainstream accounts of drones and algorithms typically focus on the instrumental-technical aspects of their use whereas critical accounts often discuss their legal-normative implications and the construction of certain people as ‘threats’ within new regimes of surveillance and violence. Further, these limitations are compounded by the fact that that both mainstream and critical analyses retain a preoccupation with a post-9/11 framework that understands power confrontations as a thing of the past (pre-Cold War) whereas new conflicts are contoured by intra-state breakdown, asymmetry and terrorism. In sum, with a few notable exceptions, the use of drones and algorithms are rarely considered in a holistic manner and even less so with respect to the evolving rhetoric of US security policy, which once again positions long-term power rivalries as the key imperative shaping American interests. This paper offers a sketch of the broader concerns animated by these changes. Given the significance and further implications of these concerns, this endeavour is important as algorithmic and drone warfare are part of a much larger set of practices that encompass but are not limited to the focus on surveillance and targeted killings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".