The article certainly supports your theory.
It seems that, essentially, you're describing conscientious objection.
edit/ Removed some words that weren't adding value.
When an ordinarily ethical person builds a gun it's still a gun. Once it has been created, the creator give up control. (That's the last stage in the act of creation). The person who creates a weapon is not the same person who decides to use the weapon. Smart people know better than to use a terrible weapon, but that's not how we decide who gets to use weapons. The decision goes to those with power not those best suited to make the decision. Power accumulates with people most willing to misuse power.
Therefore smart people have an obligation to not work on weapons. And the more terrible the weapon the stronger the obligation not to create it.
AI targeted drone systems are terrible. Even if there's a human in the loop for now. We cannot advance that branch of weaponry. It will only fuel an arms race and hasten the arrival of a terrible future.
I used to have a pacifist friend who worked for a local defense contractor. I asked her about the apparent conflict of interest and her answer what that she hadn't quite figured it out, but she hoped that her presence there at least balanced out some of the rampant jingoism.