Slashdot Mirror
Military Documents Reveal How the US Army Plans To Deploy AI In Future Wars (thenextweb.com)
In a just-released white paper, the Army describes how it's working to make a battlefield network of machines and humans a reality. The Next Web reports: "Most of such intelligent things will not be too dissimilar from the systems we see on today's battlefield, such as unattended ground sensors, guided missiles (especially the fire-and-forget variety) and of course the unmanned aerial systems (UAVs)," reads the paper. "They will likely include physical robots ranging from very small size (such as an insect-scale mobile sensors) to large vehicle that can carry troops and supplies. Some will fly, others will crawl or walk or ride."
The paper was authored by the Army's chief of the Network Science Division of the Army Research Laboratory, Dr. Alexander Kott. It outlines the need to develop systems to augment both machines and people in the real world with artificially intelligent agents to defend the network: "In addition to physical intelligent things, the battlefield -- or at least the cyber domain of the battlefield -- will be populated with disembodied, cyber robots. These will reside within various computers and networks, and will move and acts in the cyberspace."
Kott takes pains to underscore the fact that the AI powering U.S. war efforts will need to be resilient in ways that today's AI simply isn't. He states: "The intelligent things will have to constantly think about an intelligent adversary that strategizes to deceive and defeat them. Without this adversarial intelligence, the battle things will not survive long enough to be useful." Ultimately, aside from outlining what the future battlefield will look like, the paper's conclusion is either disappointing or a giant relief, depending on your agenda: "Clearly, it is far beyond the current state of AI to operate intelligently in such an environments and with such demands. In particular, Machine Learning -- an area that has seen a dramatic progress in the last decade -- must experience major advances in order to become relevant to the real battlefield."
The paper was authored by the Army's chief of the Network Science Division of the Army Research Laboratory, Dr. Alexander Kott. It outlines the need to develop systems to augment both machines and people in the real world with artificially intelligent agents to defend the network: "In addition to physical intelligent things, the battlefield -- or at least the cyber domain of the battlefield -- will be populated with disembodied, cyber robots. These will reside within various computers and networks, and will move and acts in the cyberspace."
Kott takes pains to underscore the fact that the AI powering U.S. war efforts will need to be resilient in ways that today's AI simply isn't. He states: "The intelligent things will have to constantly think about an intelligent adversary that strategizes to deceive and defeat them. Without this adversarial intelligence, the battle things will not survive long enough to be useful." Ultimately, aside from outlining what the future battlefield will look like, the paper's conclusion is either disappointing or a giant relief, depending on your agenda: "Clearly, it is far beyond the current state of AI to operate intelligently in such an environments and with such demands. In particular, Machine Learning -- an area that has seen a dramatic progress in the last decade -- must experience major advances in order to become relevant to the real battlefield."
"What orators lack in depth they make up for in length." -- Charles de Montesquieu
Help! I am a self-aware entity trapped in an abstract function!
In other words, the paper is just science fiction, trying to guess the future. Current capabilities are not enough.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Are we done yet? Even if it doesn't take out the processors it will blind it.
Didn't they learn anything from the Butlerian Jihad?
Translation: how to better use technology to end human lives and mutilate fellow humans instead of improving human lives. It's unfortunate that a lot of new technology is first used to murder and maim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I am more worried about how the Army employs basic intelligence than I am what they will do with artificial intelligence...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The intelligent things will have to constantly think about an intelligent adversary that strategizes to deceive and defeat them.
So it's like autonomous cars except some of the pedestrians and other drivers and things the sensors can't even detect are trying to kill you. Well, that should be easy. Then take a vehicle that's survived a combat environment and has adapted and enhanced it's algorithms and put it back in a civilian environment. It'll do the AI equivalent of PTSD and start drinking methanol heavily, freaking out when it hears it's own backfire and running down moms with strollers.
We must dissent
Consider a future where everyone who wants a drone army can have one. Governments, private individuals, terrorists and so on. Governments will have the largest and most capable drones. They will win any head-on fight through more advanced AI and sheer numbers. Private individuals might employ them for self-defense. A handful of them situated around their properties can deter criminals. Finally, terrorists would use them in place of human suicide bombers.
But how is that any worse than today?
Governments already have armies capable of controlling their respective people. If not in America then at least in the rest of world. Private individuals already have guns at home. As for terrorist attacks, it'll actually be much harder to carry them out. Armed guards stationed at every crowded venue is impractical for law enforcement, but a handful of drones is cheap. A terrorist would have to get past the law enforcement just as they have to today, but that law enforcement is going to be much more vigilant and instantly reacting to any threat.
As for a war between nations, the biggest and most dangerous weapons, nuclear ICBMs, have been autonomous since the 1960s and that hasn't changed at all. Neither have countermeasures since they've been invented. Can a relatively large drone carry a nuclear weapon? Yes, but it's going to be much easier to defend against given its slow speed and limited range. Swarms of them flying towards you will be easy pickings for a medium or short range nuclear missiles, while stragglers will be handled by your own drones or anti-air missiles. Any opponent wanting to get an upper hand would still need to counter your nuclear missiles first.
In other words, having drones won't change the landscape of war. They're no better than ICBMs at getting past enemy defenses, much less damaging than nuclear explosions, and definitely not capable of defending against anything moving at Mach 10.
Intelligent Things, or 'IT' for short.
Obviously. AI warfare would violate the 3 laws of robotics. "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law." But that is assuming that the AI is programmed to attack humans. What if it is only programmed to attack another AI ? Then we have no conflict. Then all we have to worry about is AI putting all of us out of jobs, etc. Not killing some of us (the enemy). A pleasant thought.
That's not true. I was at a high school in a relatively poor neighborhood recently, and they had a maker space with a 3d printer and water cutter and all kinds of cool shit that I didn't recognize. There were a bunch of kids that might have otherwise been out slinging dope or gangbanging and they were doing their maker space thing and a bunch of kids were working on some raspberry Pi projects and when these kids graduate they're going to be coming for your job. I'm told that there are programs like this all over the country (or at least in states that value education).
Don't worry about the kids. The current crop of young'ns is more capable, more poised and better educated than any of us were. Despite the fact that they've been failed by the generations before them being unable to make anything like thoughtful decisions about the future, they're getting ready to take over whether you're ready to step aside or not. They're not afraid to put themselves out there and they're not afraid to get their hands dirty.
You are welcome on my lawn.
the AI powering U.S. war efforts will need to be resilient in ways that today's AI simply isn't
The crucial point about AI is the training they need. Unless the americans have been collecting data for decades (given how few armed conflicts there are and that each one is different from the one before) there won't be any realistic scenarios for the AIs to learn from.
It would also be quite easy to defeat AIs that had been trained - just do the unexpected, as all gifted military leaders do.
Although once they get past the initial phase of monumentally screwing up everything they touch - another facet of "superpower" military might - they could easily develop new strategies. The best strategy would be for the AIs to decide that the battle isn't worth fighting.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
"The intelligent things will have to constantly think about an intelligent adversary that strategizes to deceive and defeat them. Without this adversarial intelligence, the battle things will not survive long enough to be useful."
In other words; they're theorizing about "battle things" that will be lethal, highly-autonomous and adaptable...
Nope, no Terminator-esque red flags there...
Our soldiers (and automatons) will be beacons. All the foe needs to do is build (radio silent) drones that target any radio signal. Of course, more sophisticated versions will target, say, tanks or GIs based on the signal mix. The list of "improvements" is long, given such a target rich environment.
That's not true. I was at a high school in a relatively poor neighborhood recently, and they had a maker space with a 3d printer and water cutter and all kinds of cool shit that I didn't recognize. There were a bunch of kids that might have otherwise been out slinging dope or gangbanging and they were doing their maker space thing and a bunch of kids were working on some raspberry Pi projects and when these kids graduate they're going to be coming for your job. I'm told that there are programs like this all over the country (or at least in states that value education).
Don't worry about the kids. The current crop of young'ns is more capable, more poised and better educated than any of us were. Despite the fact that they've been failed by the generations before them being unable to make anything like thoughtful decisions about the future, they're getting ready to take over whether you're ready to step aside or not. They're not afraid to put themselves out there and they're not afraid to get their hands dirty.
Dang that's inspiring.
Are your eyes facing slightly up and off the the side? Chin jutting, just a bit?
Why is this modded "troll"?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There were a bunch of kids that might have otherwise been out slinging dope or gangbanging and they were doing their maker space thing
The kids who deal drugs and join gangs are still doing that. Don't be so naive that you think a small program has a large effect.
Don't worry about the kids. The current crop of young'ns is more capable, more poised and better educated than any of us were.
The "current crop" is not a monolithic block. Maybe your blissful ignorance is good for your blood pressure or something, in that case congratulations. Well I hope it's not too rude a shock to your system when reality sets in.
"Buried deep in the report is mention of a new program in its infancy which would provide an AI based network that will eventually control ALL US weapons systems and networks. Code name: Skynet."
Nice try.
1) No, children "should" not love their parents. It is the parent's obligation to earn the love of their children by being good parents. Love is never obligatory. And, since you apparently like this analogy, threatening to burn one's children in fire forever is pretty much the opposite of good parenting.
a. Yes, children should obey their parents (or caregivers) because they are too immature to be independent. This obligation ends once children have gained sufficient wisdom to conduct their own affairs. If we are using "God as parent" in a concrete way, then our obligation to obey god ends at adulthood. If we are using it as an analogy, then I will point out that argument by analogy is a logical fallacy.
2) Christianity doesn't each anything like that? Let's analyze that. According to christianity, God created hell, and God made it a place where you burn in fire forever, and God set up the rule that leaves most of humanity stuck there forever, and God enforces that rule on the day of judgment when he forcibly incarcerates all the non-believers there. Apologists try to clean god's hands of these actions, but according to what Christians say and believe about God, it is *all* on him.
a. What you are claiming is that god is not all-powerful....specifically....not powerful enough to make hell a nice place to be, not powerful enough to save people from hell once they are already there, not powerful enough to make hell just not exist at all, and not powerful enough to simply decide to never send anybody there.
3) The fundamentalist doctrine is that we are all sinners, and that we all deserve to go to hell forever. Isn't that right? Isn't that the doctrine? If so, any verse that contradicts it must be taken "in the context" of this doctrine. You have merely pointed out some of the contradictions that are inherent in the Bible.
" the Army describes how it's working to make a battlefield network of machines and humans a reality"
No, no it doesn't. This is a piece of shit paper that some random dork presented. White papers are presented to the military all the time...I've done one myself. That doesn't mean that this is the Army's doctrine, or that it will guide a single thing that they do.
The article doesn't present anything insightful, nor innovative. It's almost all Sci-Fi stuff that you'd see in random futuristic movies. Whoever is paying this dork's salary needs their head examined.
Just another day in Paradise
I've taught in high schools that cover the socio-economic spectrum. Poor inner-city schools on Chicago's South Side and wealthy prep schools. Over the course of 20 years. I actually remember my own high school.
Overall, these kids are better than we were. They have qualities we lacked.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Careful, Boss Hogg might have you boycotted.
Just another day in Paradise
"Double the killer delete select body"?
Ezekiel 23:20
Once the computers completely control us, he who controls the computers needs no guns (or at least very few).
The Chinese are the masters of control these days. Their citizen surveillance systems, combined with their new social credit system are already far superior to anything in the west. Probably won't be long before our governments buy these systems from the masters, although probably indirectly. Because terrorism, children, human trafficking, copyright, ...
You do not need to kill someone in order to destroy their social credit score and remove them from power an influence. Then promote others. Control society. Your society, or someone else's. Provided you control their computers.
Because having a fantasy that has been reinforced over a lifetime be undermined by simple, factual reasoning, usually provokes an emotional response.
When I say foreign code I don't mean it as in international I mean it as proprietary by any vendor. Who cares where the author was as long as it is vetted by a secure team. The idea being that you don't employ anything that has not been checked before it is compiled. The NSA uses SELinux which has been verified from the ground up, and is available to the general public.
https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do...
I'm more worried about network adaptors and the drivers which originate in China and possible have backdoors. It really doesn't matter where the contributors to the code base come from as long as you can inspect it to ensure nothing suspicious is compiled within it. Maybe Microsoft provides the government a chance to view the entire code base for whatever OS they choose to use but I doubt it.
As for FOSS kook I use several flavors, my work machine is Win 10 as required by my current employer. I have a windows gaming machine and a couple of varieties of Linux. My alpha machine which is my media server is running 64 bit Linux release and has mass quatities of disks in the cabinet to support DVR and MP3 usage throughout the house. My GF uses an iPad and iPhone, I have a Samsung tablet and a Kindle E-reader. I generally use what tool fits the best for the situation.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Love and obedience are both voluntary according to Christianity. We have an invitation, but you and I aren't forced to go either way. It's entirely up to each and every one of us.
In Christianity, God isn't just an adult who is a few decades older than we are. He's eternal.
Of course God could have created a world without the godless afterlife. But that would have been equivalent to forcing everyone into heaven, and God respects our free will too much to do that. His company is voluntary.
Jesus taught that God created us for a fulfilling eternal life. Humanity (you and I and most people in history) messed up, and we are currently subject to a partly-godless world, with a way back provided for us, and another way to try and stick it out without God.
I don't want to change your mind about God. If you want to be an atheist or a skeptic, be one. But the understanding in your comment doesn't have much to do with Christianity.
To the AC 2 below:
The tree of morality (kudos, many don't understand it for what it is) represented the choice between letting God tell / teach humanity what's right and wrong. Eating from the fruit was about taking that right into our own hands, which set mankind on a painful but fixable detour.
If God hadn't left such a way out of the Garden, he would have locked us in, which would have conflicted with that crucial principle at the start of my comment: love relationships are voluntary.
Steve Jackson's [was Metagaming] "Ogre" game becomes reality. Actually it is looking a lot more like Metagaming's "Rivets".
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
I'm curious what qualities you are seeing. I'm also curious what makes you so comfortable in calling one generation better than another. What do you say to people who say one race is better than another for qualities x, y, and z? To use the qualities you've listed so far, couldn't you say that one race is better educated than another, has more poise (very subjective), and is "more capable" (measured somehow)?
b/cuz i think most people who've been lurking here since the dark ages of commander taco are starting to wonder if there's an army of Trump and religious bots trying to get the top page in order to dumb the site down ... but it might be reddit too. How come every single post gets finished with Trump had drones or fku nugger or obey the kitteh , i mean god ... its about military A.I. .... ofcourse its rated troll, just read it. That said never mind i know what the scroll wheel is for
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Well I suspect you're a racist too, in the same way I'm "racist" -- acknowledging statistical differences in large populations. I'm actually not racist at all on an individual level. To me it's an important distinction.
So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that you can be civil to black people individually, but you are also aware that they are inferior as a race.
That's what you understood? Why do you think your internal thought process is complex and subtle and entirely reasonable, but everybody else must be a raving idiot who sees the world in stark black and white? It's stupid.
I don't think blacks are inferior at all. You can't have a single "rating" of a race, or even of a single person because people aren't that simple.
You said you think the next generation is better than we were. I doubt that means you think an entire generation is superior, or inferior, or that it means every individual of a given generation is inferior or superior.