These systems were trained on 4Chan, Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter posts and comments. They weren’t trained on military communication, guidelines, etc.

They know more about Call of Duty than they know about actual warfare. What the fuck do you think they’re gonna recommend?

Honestly, this applies to the entire DOW under Hegseth. The fact that we even have to use a term like "double tap" to describe genocide and war crimes committed by the U.S. and have Marco Rubio tweeting about it with fucking emojis is so fucking disgusting and shameful, but also part of the propaganda they're relying on to sell this back to their base.

It down plays the seriousness of the entire situation, and makes naive people feel much safer than they should. Almost like a stranger in a van offering candy to kids, so that by the time they realize they're in danger it's too late.

Propaganda aside and more to the point of why it's so dangerous, you might find this article posted a while back interesting. You're absolutely right, and the point should really be brought up all the time, but it never is.

We've always know war is good business. If you can create eternal war, you never have to worry about peacetime getting in the way of your profits. So how can you create the world where war never has to end.

Private Tech Companies, the State, and the New Character of War https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/12/ukraine-war-tech-companies

Mass surveillance and social media now generate huge amounts of data during war. At the same time, the widespread availability of the smartphone means civilians carry around advanced sensors that can broadcast data more quickly than the armed forces themselves. This enables civilians to provide intelligence to the armed forces in ways that were not previously possible. Matthew Ford and Andrew Hoskins label this a “new war ecology” that is “weaponizing our attention and making everyone a participant in wars without end . . . [by] collapsing the distinctions between audience and actor, soldier and civilian, media and weapon.” In this ecology, warfare is participatory. Social media platforms such as TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and Telegram are no longer merely tools for consuming war reportage; militaries accessing and processing open-source data from these platforms shapes the battlespace in real time by contributing to wider situational awareness.

As a result of their work in Ukraine, a slew of companies like Palantir have drawn media attention.9 While commercial interests have rarely aligned neatly with geopolitics, circumstances are changing; private technology firms increasingly occupy, manage, and in some cases dominate the digital infrastructure upon which militaries now rely. States themselves have fostered this shift through selective deregulation and outsourcing of technology development. These dynamics are visible in the war in Ukraine and in the wider geopolitical contest over the global digital stack. As we argued in “Virtual Sovereignty,” a paper we published in International Affairs, this influence has major geopolitical consequences for how states use power.

What is at stake, beyond the conflict itself, is the nature of state sovereignty. The ability of states to govern, defend, and act independently is increasingly mediated by private technology firms and global finance. This is not entirely new. States have long relied on private contractors, but the kind of dependency has changed. Unlike traditional arms manufacturers, today’s defense-tech firms control the digital platforms, data flows, and algorithmic systems that underpin military decisionmaking. At the same time, civilian platforms like Telegram and TikTok shape the informational terrain of conflict, influencing how wars are perceived and fought.