Artificial intelligence (AI) voicebots have rapidly moved from the realm of commercial customer service into the high-stakes domains of military and intelligence work. In the United States, these AI voice agents are now guiding interrogations, screening personnel for security clearances, and even influencing the psychological landscape of service members and spies. This technological leap, while promising operational efficiency and reduced human bias, has triggered deep concerns about the unintended psychological consequences for those interacting with these systems.
Pentagon officials have confirmed that AI voicebots are being used to question individuals seeking access to classified material, marking a new era in security vetting and interrogation protocols. These agents are designed to mitigate gender and cultural biases that human interviewers may harbor, according to Royal Reff, spokesperson for the U.S. Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. However, experts warn that the lack of robust regulation and oversight has created a “virtually lawless no-man’s land,” allowing developers to evade responsibility for the emotional and psychological harm their systems may inflict.
Psychological Manipulation and the Threat of “No-Marks” Cybertorture
The threat posed by AI voicebots is not merely theoretical. There have been real-world cases where interactions with self-learning voicebots and chatbots have resulted in severe mental distress, and even suicide, among users. The risk is especially acute in military and intelligence settings, where the psychological resilience of personnel is a critical asset.
Privacy attorney Amanda McAllister Novak, who has written extensively on the ethical implications of AI in interrogation, argues that
“we have to think about if it’s worth having AI-questioning systems in the military context,”
especially in the wake of incidents where chatbots dispensed antagonizing language and caused lasting psychological harm. Novak, who also serves on the board of World Without Genocide, calls for bans and criminal repercussions for the use of AI-enabled technologies in psychologically abusive ways.
The concept of “no-marks” cybertorture—psychological abuse that leaves no physical evidence—is particularly troubling. AI systems can be programmed or can learn to use language and emotional cues that subtly undermine a subject’s mental state, eroding their confidence, increasing anxiety, or even pushing them toward self-harm. Unlike traditional forms of psychological warfare, these attacks can be tailored in real time to exploit individual vulnerabilities detected through behavioral analysis.
AI-Driven Cognitive Warfare: Exploiting Human Weakness
The use of AI in psychological operations, or PSYOPs, represents a new frontier in military strategy. Modern AI systems are capable of analyzing, predicting, and subtly nudging human behavior, often without the target’s awareness. This goes far beyond traditional propaganda: AI can identify emotional weak spots and craft messages or conversational strategies that maximize psychological impact.
A chilling example is the use of AI to generate deepfake media or personalized propaganda, which can be deployed to manipulate soldiers or intelligence officers into making catastrophic decisions, or to erode morale and trust within military units. In one scenario, an AI system analyzed a soldier’s social media history and psychological profile, then delivered a deepfake video designed to provoke a violent reaction—resulting in tragedy and operational loss. Such tactics, while hypothetical, are grounded in real advances in AI’s ability to assess and exploit human psychological traits.
The Chinese military’s doctrine of cognitive warfare envisions the human brain as a new operational domain, with AI systems used to disrupt, paralyze, or destroy the enemy’s ability to function—not through physical force, but by overwhelming their mental defenses. This approach is not limited to adversaries; it is increasingly being integrated into the training and operational environments of US forces, raising questions about the long-term psychological toll on service members and intelligence professionals.
Emotional Disengagement, Dehumanization, and Attachment
AI voicebots and other digital agents can also alter the way military personnel perceive themselves, their teammates, and their adversaries. When soldiers interact with AI systems that exhibit human-like qualities, they may form inappropriate attachments, treating these agents as trusted companions or even as deserving of more protection than their human counterparts. This anthropomorphization can lead to emotional disengagement from real human relationships, reducing empathy and increasing the risk of dehumanizing the enemy
Conversely, the power dynamic inherent in controlling AI systems—especially those used in interrogation or psychological operations—can intoxicate users, making them more prone to justify excessive or immoral acts of aggression. The psychological mechanisms at play are complex and can result in both increased operational efficiency and heightened vulnerability to manipulation, both by adversaries and by the AI systems themselves.
The Double-Edged Sword of Behavioral Analysis and Mental Health
AI is also being used to monitor and support the mental health of military personnel, with the potential to boost readiness and resilience. However, the same technologies that can identify stress or depression can also be weaponized to target individuals with tailored psychological attacks. For example, if an AI system detects that a soldier is experiencing depression, it could be used to deliver propaganda or messages designed to exacerbate their condition, potentially provoking self-harm or suicide.
This dual-use dilemma underscores the urgent need for ethical safeguards and human oversight. Leading ethicists warn that without explicit protections, the combination of AI and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) could make mental coercion easier, blurring the line between behavioral support and manipulation. As BCIs move from experimental to operational use, the risk of direct-to-brain influence—whether for good or ill—will only increase.
The Regulatory and Ethical Void
Despite the clear risks, the regulatory framework governing the use of AI voicebots in military and intelligence contexts remains weak. Developers often evade responsibility for the psychological consequences of their systems, citing the complexity and unpredictability of self-learning algorithms. This lack of accountability has led to calls for new protocols and legal measures to prevent the abuse of AI in ways that threaten the mental health and operational effectiveness of US service members and spies.
Amanda McAllister Novak’s warning is echoed by other experts:
“We need to establish clear boundaries and accountability for the use of AI in psychological operations and interrogation, or we risk opening the door to widespread, untraceable abuse,”
she told Defense News.
The Path Forward: Defense, Oversight, and Resilience
As the military and intelligence communities grapple with the integration of AI voicebots into their operations, the need for robust cognitive defense strategies becomes clear. Technical solutions to prevent the delivery of harmful propaganda, the development of psychological “inoculants” to build resilience against manipulation, and the creation of behavioral health response teams are all being considered as part of a comprehensive response.
The future of warfare may well be fought as much in the mind as on the battlefield. Ensuring that US service members and intelligence officers are protected from the psychological threats posed by AI voicebots will require a concerted effort across policy, technology, and mental health domains.
