Military Documents Reveal How the US Army Plans To Deploy AI In Future Wars (thenextweb.com) 141
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."
It's just science fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
ie "anyone unidentified is considered an enemy combatant."
ie "a scorched earth policy of destroying Boer farms and moving civilians into concentration camps."
But with robots who always obey. Can a cute robot really do a war crime?
- - --
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The future of ground combat is EM & EMP warfare. Because at some point, someone is going to say "Enough is enough."
Re: (Score:2)
These things are going to have mechanical CPUs, are they? Because if they have electronics the EMP will likely fry them too.
Re: It's just science fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
These things are going to have mechanical CPUs, are they? Because if they have electronics the EMP will likely fry them too.
Just use vacuum-tubes. They're pretty much immune to EMP. :)
Seriously though, protection from EMP is pretty standard stuff. It's not that hard. Pretty much all military electronics from missile guidance packages to fighter-jet avionics to infantry field radios have EMP mitigation built into the design.
In the real world EMP doesn't work like in The Matrix.
In the example of a nuclear/thermonuclear bomb detonating, the effective radius (close enough that EMP could disable minimally-hardened electronics) of the EMP pulse is much smaller than the effective full-destruction radius of the detonation.
In other words, you'd almost certainly need to be close enough to ground-zero so that the blast itself would incinerate the electronics to hot radioactive plasma before the EMP would be strong enough to kill it.
What are truly vulnerable are electrical power grids and civilian radio/cellphone/satellite/cable-TV comm/broadcast systems that lack any serious EMP mitigation.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't EMP hardening require making things bigger and/or adding bulky shielding? I knew a guy who worked on navy stuff, they had EMP proof Z80s the size of bricks.
I was under the impression that nukes can be tuned to give a greater EMP effect, and by detonating them high in the stratosphere they could cover half a continent.
But perhaps if anyone knows they wouldn't tâ|_..%^$
no carrier
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that nukes can be tuned to give a greater EMP effect, and by detonating them high in the stratosphere they could cover half a continent.
Correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't EMP hardening require making things bigger and/or adding bulky shielding? I knew a guy who worked on navy stuff, they had EMP proof Z80s the size of bricks.
In the late-'70s I worked for Harris Semiconductor, Government Services Div. I worked on missile guidance systems including those for Navy weapons systems like ASROC. What you're describing is protection from both EMP and radiation. It's the radiation shielding that adds so much weight. Shielding against inducted voltage spikes takes far less in materials and their required density, therefor weight and volume.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
In the example of a nuclear/thermonuclear bomb detonating, the effective radius (close enough that EMP could disable minimally-hardened electronics) of the EMP pulse is much smaller than the effective full-destruction radius of the detonation.
That is nonsense. The EMP radius is thousands of miles.
In other words, you'd almost certainly need to be close enough to ground-zero so that the blast itself would incinerate the electronics to hot radioactive plasma before the EMP would be strong enough to kill it.
No,
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like doing so would cause you to fry your own equipment if it's not on the other side of a continent or globe.
Re: (Score:2)
A faraday cave prevents it.
But yes, if the Russians would drop an EMP bomb "over Paris" they would fry half of Russia, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have "spider mines" since 30 years as anti tank mines ...
Just saying.
Or, how about a swarm of drones that inject a substance via needle that either debilitates an enemy combatant, or outright paralyzes them to death. That ladies and gentleman is the future of ground combat. ...
That is most likely true
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sure sounded like something from "Starship Troopers" (the book, not the movie - let's not go there today).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is old news, at least 30 years old, probably older. The Armed Forces have been trying to use advanced computation and AI for a long, long time.
EMP EMP (Score:2)
Are we done yet? Even if it doesn't take out the processors it will blind it.
Re:EMP EMP (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If the shit really hits the fan trump will let the nukes fly. My understanding of EMP is just fine.
Dune predicted it (Score:2)
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What i find limiting is that the use of "3 Laws Safe" is not being even considered. Battle should not be about increased KIAs. but about helping those that need help.
That only works if all sides play by that rule. If one side doesn't than the others lose.
Re: (Score:2)
However, consider the Solarian robot military initiative in "The Naked Sun". If Solaria had all-robot ships, and could convince the robots that other warships didn't have humans, they'd get a really big military advantage.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
One of the first uses I see for "AI" (which in this implementation isn't even true, "real" AI) is for semi-autonomous heavy load-bearing equipment. Think back to 2001: US special forces operating in Afghanistan had to use mules to help them move equipment over mountainous terrain. Imagine a 4 or 6 legged robot that can follow a patrol and carry supplies, ammunition, wounded soldiers, etc. With 6 legs and an articulated front segment it should be able to go over just about any terrain a person could reasonably go. Boston Dynamics has tried a few things but the technology is not quite there yet. Also, they seem to keep focusing on making them look like dogs or horses while I picture something more like an armored pickup with legs, with the "cab" holding the computers, sensors, batteries, etc and a bed in the back for the cargo. Of course, it's the military, so if it's big enough you can mount a manned machine gun/Mk 19 grenade launcher on top and you have instant LAV/gun truck support where normally a wheeled vehicle couldn't go.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Which would mean that you're against artillery, ground attack planes, guns, and everything back to and including bows.
Re: (Score:3)
Although this doesn't quite apply to mules, it's close -
"Horses can make other horses, that is a trick that tractors haven't learned yet" - Heinlein
Horses and mules are a hell of a lot cheaper than Boston Dynamics critters and for quite some time will be quieter, more flexible, have more endurance than robots. 'Horses for courses' - use what works.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
How many human lives were saved because the allies won WW2? How many human lives were improved because the US won the cold war?
You, and your mods, are too idealistic to recognize that having the better war technology does improve the lives of their citizens and in many cases the lives of others across the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's go through that list.
Korea was a reasonable war to fight. The Vietnam war was similar, but screwed up by incompetence on the US side (particularly LBJ). We likely could have stopped the Iraqis from invading Kuwait with a little firm diplomacy. I'm OK with the 2001 intervention in Afghanistan, but stopping Saddam's posturing was not worth the results, which had some very bad consequences, including assisting ISIS in getting going.
The US has contributed quite a bit to world suffering as well as
Re: (Score:2)
Pacifism is a legitimate philosophical viewpoint, and I respect pacifists. However, lots of people aren't pacifists.
If you're not a pacifist, you probably agree that we need to have weapons. If we do, we may as well make them good weapons. When we need weapons, it's usually not a good idea to aim for second best. It can be more humane to have highly effective weapons, as they can shorten a war and lessen the suffering. There are weapons that cause suffering out of proportion to their military value,
Re: (Score:1)
(the number of the strip is interesting, BTW)
Use AI, how about just I ? (Score:4, Funny)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I am more worried about how the Army employs basic intelligence than I am what they will do with artificial intelligence...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a perfect example of the lack of I. Our top secret most secure stuff should run on an open source system vetted line by line by the NSA and the compiled with NO foreign code and no tools not produced in the same manner. Including device drivers and any other code that is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
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... [nsa.gov]
I'm more worried about network adaptors and the drivers which originate in China and possible have backdoo
Like autonomous cars, but with guns (Score:2, Funny)
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.
The time is now (Score:1, Insightful)
We must dissent
Nothing to be afraid of (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't a cruise missile a single-use drone?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is, but it is not AI, or do you think it would voluntarily explode if it was intelligent ... reminds me about the movie "Dark Star" ;D
Re: (Score:2)
You ever saw a drone? ... ... you drop them on their faces and let them explode ...
A 2inch one? Can carry an ounce of C4
Suppose a company of 100 soldiers is surrounding your position
You have not read much SF, I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
You have not read much SF, I guess?
I do read SF, but it's science fiction. In real life, the soldiers wouldn't need to be there at all. They'd have drones do that work. Unless you have better tech, you'll be out-droned.
Intelligent Things (Score:2)
Intelligent Things, or 'IT' for short.
AI warfare: 3 laws violation ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Ultimate target of the war, any war, is always you, the civilian, "your ass", your beating heart, your panicky brain, your loved ones, the things you are attached to. When all the battles of the war are done, it is "or else" time. So, don't even dream that future wars will mean only robots' deaths. As soon as you just as much as think "So what? The hell we'll let them have what they fought us for, even though they annihilated all our metal representatives!", you'll find a bright red (well, infra-red is just
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let me know when you get Putin, and Rocket Man to sign up to follow those rules. In the meantime, I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that we'll all be singing Kumbaya.
Re:Exporting American jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, Boss Hogg might have you boycotted.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 lack
Re: (Score:2)
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)?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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 interesting. I'm sure black people are thrilled with you.
https://youtu.be/8wcSSLo9TIs [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
It's not like training your dog (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And how do you think they train real flesh and blood soldiers in teamwork, tactics and so on, without risking their lives for real? Ah, that's right, they use a game [americasarmy.com]. Yeah, ok, that's probably a fairly small part of their training, with a great chunk of the rest being physical training, group bonding, inculcation of muscle memory (think time spent on the firing range) and technical training. Robots don't require any of that stuff because it comes under the guise of engineering, manufacture, and basic algori
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
AI do not need training. ... just saying.
Artificial neural networks need training.
And the result of that usually is not an AI but a "cognitive system". Big difference, well, in case you study computer science. If you just talk about it in a pub there is probably no difference
Re: (Score:2)
We've known how to deal with this for a long time -
Form them into a committee, that will do them in.
Very scary indeed - if they succeed... (Score:3)
"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...
Soldiers will become targets (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, doubtful, at least in our lifetime. The amount of payload that it would require to
1.) identify "any radio signal"...unrealistic as there are radio signals everywhere.
2.) not only direction find that specific signal, but also geo-locate it for targeting...not a simple task requiring complex algorithms and hardware. And that's all assuming a stationary emitter.
3.) target the emitter for destruction in time before it moves.
4.) and let's not forget the payload requirements for said drone. How much does a
Ruh Roh! (Score:1)
"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."
Bullshit Article (Score:3)
" 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.
The next war will be a cyber war. No bullets. (Score:2)
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
Ogre? (Score:1)
Re:The absurdity of claming to be an atheist (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
> "Love me, and obey me, or I will torture you forever."
About the first part: children should love and obey their parents, because they are their parents, and because they know what's best for them. True or false?
Regarding the second part - Christianity doesn't teach anything like that. Pain, suffering and regret will be the *inherent* consequences of the godless afterlife.
> "You are evil and you deserve to suffer, and the only thing good about you is your association with Me."
"I know the plans I have
Re: (Score:1)
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 con
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded "troll"?
Re: (Score:3)
Because having a fantasy that has been reinforced over a lifetime be undermined by simple, factual reasoning, usually provokes an emotional response.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)