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."
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 ?
You have a poor understanding of EMP if you think it can take out a 10-foot wide UAV. Commercial jets run into EMP all the time when they get hit by lightning and nothing happens to them.
As for blinding them, yes, it might have an effect on radio or radar, but the current crop of UAVs have visible light cameras. Meanwhile, whoever's fighting them will lose radio too, so it's not really an advantage.
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.
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.
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.
" 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
Because having a fantasy that has been reinforced over a lifetime be undermined by simple, factual reasoning, usually provokes an emotional response.