The US Military Desperately Wants To Weaponize AI (technologyreview.com)

Artificial intelligence is a transformative technology, and US generals already see it as the next big weapon in their arsenal. From a report: War-machine learning: Michael Griffin, Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, signaled how keen the military is to make use of AI at the Future of War 2018 conference held in Washington, DC, yesterday. Saber rattling: "There might be an artificial intelligence arms race, but we're not yet in it," Griffin said. In reference to China and Russia, he added, "I think our adversaries -- and they are our adversaries -- understand very well the possible future utility of machine learning, and I think it's time we did as well."

Comments

stupid headline

[cascadingstylesheet]

I knew even before I looked that I would find reasoned discussion of the need to deal with enemy capabilities, not "desperately wants to weaponize".

Sigh ...

Re:stupid headline

[myth24601]

I take most issue with the use of the term "desperately" when there doesn't seem to be any hint of desperation. That term was put in to put bias in the mind of the reader against the military.

Re: Defense department needs enemies

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, the $700B-$1T "defense" spending is the number one threat to the US existence.

Keep a human behind every shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very important a human is put behind every possible weapon, it leave some MINOR wiggle room for disobeying orders that can save the day. Imagine a dictator/president waging war from his office computer.. No-one to stop the command to launch nukes or destroy a nation... At least with a pilot/target'r they can use a judgement call, this looks like a school.. or no, I'm not going to shoot all these humans standing in a row, or can identify a child walking across a no-go zone vs an automated(anything that moves drop weapon)... Sure most soldiers throughout history follow orders anyway, but at least it should make a mark on their souls(to be a speaker of wisdom when they are aged perhaps). Machines taking over the trigger... Theres nothing to feel, to know just what is taking place.

imo.

Re:Defense department needs enemies

[mi]

Russia can lose 300+ people and go on like nothing happened. America would pull out after losing fewer than that... To prevent the mission from failing due to public opinion turning American generals want to keep losses to absolute minimums — and that's why they want machines to do the fighting.

Re:Defense department needs enemies

[ShanghaiBill]

America has overwhelming military superiority today. But what about a decade from now? China is investing heavily in AI, and doing so without the moral hand wringing occurring in the West.

We need to invest in AI, and stop wasting money on manned weapons like the F-35 and CVNs. We also need to prepare diplomatically for living in a world of military parity. China wants all the rocks in the South China Sea. Should we be willing to go to war to stop them? I don't think so.

Re:Defense department needs enemies

[farble1670]

You mean by actually getting more of NATO to kick in $$ to the pot?

That's one way to look at it. Another is that NATO countries are allowing the US to stage weapons and troops on their soil... knowing that they will be first strike targets, not the US. Now let's get them to pay for the privilege.

Re:Defense department needs enemies

[AlanBDee]

In other words, weaponizing AI is going to happen one way or another. Then the real question is do we want to live in a world where Russia or China has the military dominance in the world? The U.S. definitely has it's problems but of the large countries that can have a large military I can't think of any that I would trust more to have military dominance over the world.

They used mercenaries

[rsilvergun]

which is why nobody cared. We have a mercenary army too now. It's run by Betsy DeVos' husband. And neither of us know how many have been killed off the books.

But even if we ignore that our government learned from 'Nam. How much coverage of dead Americans overseas have you seen? A: Almost none. They used to take pictures and run video whenever their coffin's came off the plane. That's not allowed anymore.

Re:They used mercenaries

[mi]

They used mercenaries, which is why nobody cared.

The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. Russians did seem to use mercenaries in Syria's most recent engagement, but they used regular troops in the past few years too — with major losses. Also, in Syria they've lost several aircraft (with pilots) to merely a whimper back home. It is also a common practice for Russian military to produce backdated discharge documents, whenever a service member is killed or captured — to present him as a "contractor" or "volunteer", who quit regular military a few days before the event. They've done this so much, nobody cares for it any more.

Moreover, the very profession of "military contractor" is highly illegal by Russian criminal code — and no one cares for that either. These people are described as "contractors" to the West, where such thing is legal, but back home the heavy losses are simply officially denied. Most citizens know the truth, but don't care.

We have a mercenary army too now.

Whether we do or not, TFA is about American military — and their desire to use machines.

And neither of us know how many have been killed off the books.

Whatever it is we know about ours, Russians certainly know too about theirs. They just don't care — not as much. The level of disapproval hundreds of dead Americans would cause here, requires thousands deaths in Russia.

How much coverage of dead Americans overseas have you seen? A: Almost none. They used to take pictures and run video whenever their coffin's came off the plane. That's not allowed anymore.

I am not aware of any law banning it. Are you?

Anyway, the point was, Americans are a lot more sensitive to losing people, than Russians are — and this sensitivity causes American generals to reject weapons, tactics, and strategies Russia would find perfectly acceptable.

If you disagree, please, state your disagreement and substantiate any facts. If you don't disagree — then stop ranting.