OBJ

Jeesh, I really need to work on my communication skills. Tux you have given us a very thoughtful post, and for the small part of it I played a role in... My thoughts were: 1. It's unlikely humans will ever cede all of warfighting to AI 2. If they do, it will be humans intentionally ceding warfighting to AI I think we have consensus, majority agreement, humans have already ceded parts of warfighting to AI, i.e. autonomous AD. My comment was based on my view the trend of handing off decision making and execution to AI will continue in ever more warfighting functions, as in the fields you list of natural sciences, healthcare and economics. That's not to say the entire field will be ceded to AI.

Actually, we (the US) may have excess capacity, or past expiration stock. In the Antal video provided by Hapless, Antal recounts a conversation in which a US General asserted China could never hit Hawaii. At the pace warfare is changing, the majors maybe better suited than major generals.

Aw come on Capt., don't be touchy. It takes character to change opinion, especially in a public forum, especially when you are a recognized thought leader. You appear to have the courage and confidence to have done so. I have yet to get there myself, at least here recently. Third time now, but who's counting, I said, Autonomous AI will be part of systems and platforms, another tool, component, aspect of warfighting. The time when wars are fought exclusively by AI systems is still a ways off, if we ever get there. People will be involved in warfighting for a long time to come. Below are a few references supporting what I think is a shared opinion: Dec 23 - US DoD view, 'Replicator' initiative in August 2022, first iteration fielding thousands of autonomous systems across multiple domains within the next 18-to-24 months. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3604459/defense-officials-report-progress-on-replicator-initiative/#:~:text=Hicks unveiled the Replicator initiative,China's rapid armed forces buildup. Nov 23 - European view, as is, trending, cautions https://cepa.org/article/between-killer-robots-and-flawless-ai-reassessing-the-military-implications-of-autonomy/ Feb 22 - US GO view, target management, close fight, low intensity/ counter insurgency. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2928194/artificial-intelligence-autonomy-will-play-crucial-role-in-warfare-general-says/

As mentioned, I'd be interested in the references that inform your opinion. If they are compelling, I will change mine. Also, please don't misinterpret, I have the utmost respect for you as a military professional, combat veteran, war college instructor. You mention context a number of times and we are what we've been, and if our context is Canadian low intensity conflict, then that's what we are. Previously I said, Autonomous AI will be part of systems and platforms, another tool, component, aspect of warfighting. The time when wars are fought exclusively by AI systems is still a ways off, if we ever get there. People will be involved in warfighting for a long time to come. Did you look at https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2928194/artificial-intelligence-autonomy-will-play-crucial-role-in-warfare-general-says/ Feb 22 - Target management, close fight, low intensity/ counter insurgency?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68163172 As previously mentioned, everybody is worried about first strike. Next major power war has a good chance of starting this way. If any of this interests you, consider adding to your reading list 'The war in 2034.' Fiction positing China-Russia-Iran alliance with some interesting early stage combined operations, and sobering concerns about what happens if China attains Cyber superiority/mastery. On the other hand if you are Indian, you're probably really going to like this. https://www.amazon.com/2034-Novel-Next-World-War/dp/1984881256 Bob and Jane swarm operators getting ready to kickoff the next attack to take the next hill, might never get to theater in time if Mom dies in a subway wreck, or Dad freezes to death because the power went out, and brother Bill couldn't make it to his unit mob site because he first had to go fix the water treatment plant.

Nope, no one at the enemy RSC node is going to be walking around with their hands up waving a white flag. As for the guy in the crapper when the strike comes in, well, s**t happens. In high intensity conflict high capability systems will be assigned to high value targets first. Allegedly the Israeli's already have an autonomous system that looks for, identifies and attacks radiating targets, run by on board AI. The issues you bring up are autonomous AI in the close fight, CM level, not at operational or strategic depth. But in that regard, if machines can be taught to drive in cities, think of the complexity of situations the machine has to get right. If they can drive they will differentiate between a guy with his hands up and a guy taking a squat, or with mud on his face, or with a sun tan, eventually. Refer to @billbindc. Probably sooner than later, war being a great accelerator of technical development, see Ukraine, see Gaza. Also, no one is going to put an orange cone on the hood of an aerial drone or AD system. No major power is going to cede the kinds of military advantage autonomous AI represents to a competitor and potential enemy. Autonomous AI will be part of systems and platforms, another tool, component, aspect of warfighting. It already is part of AD systems, enabling target ID and engagement times humanly impossible. The time when wars are fought exclusively by AI systems is still a ways off, if we ever get there. I would be interested in the sources you have for your opinions. Here are a few I found useful in forming mine: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3604459/defense-officials-report-progress-on-replicator-initiative/#:~:text=Hicks unveiled the Replicator initiative,China's rapid armed forces buildup. Dec 23 - Replicator initiative in August 2022, first iteration fielding thousands of autonomous systems across multiple domains within the next 18-to-24 months. https://cepa.org/article/between-killer-robots-and-flawless-ai-reassessing-the-military-implications-of-autonomy/ Nov 23 - as is, trending, cautions https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2928194/artificial-intelligence-autonomy-will-play-crucial-role-in-warfare-general-says/ Feb 22 - Target management, close fight, low intensity/ counter insurgency.

Pretty cool. What I read said started in 2017, project complete in 2022, so recent. The computer did run the drone into a tree, twice, presumably intentionally As you and others said, autonomous flight control and pathing is already a thing. Will have to trust you here, LLMs maybe, don't know enough about how descriptive language would enable properly networking with other units, prioritize platform survival actions, movement for target acquisition and engagement, in a dynamic battlefield setting in different biomes and weather conditions, EM and ADA environments, etc. to produce useful AI, also how to integrate into AI training multiple target type image variations We'll have to get through the politicians, at least some of them, armed services committee, you know we will. They: 1. Heard Chat GPT lies 2. Heard Chat GPT makes s**t up 3. Heard Geoffrey Hinton and other AI scientific heads say AI could end humanity 3. Went to see Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part 1 and, at least in congress, only 1 in 6 has any military experience let lone the kind of military experience that would be useful in understanding the technology's military applications Trust you here too, lot of sub-steps in ???

Have western militaries decided to do this? I agree machine learning is amazing compared to human, no comparison really, but, fast is too late if implementation comes after need. How long for humans to assemble, vet and configure the data sets to be used to train offensive military AI? If AI creators can't explain how their creations work, how long to build human confidence, at least in the west, in offensive military AI before going beyond proto types? After that, how long for fully integrated fielding? Maybe just simple instantiation but guessing offensive AI will be used on multiple platforms, and uses, i.e. single vs swarm, so need for some platform specific customization - Key Dan and concerns about those perfidious DoD contractors. and I'm sorry, when I said training, I was thinking more of training the initial set of people in the military organizations that will need to perform all the tasks associated with autonomous offensive military AI operations, everything from commanding units employing offensive AI assets, to updating learning data sets, to software versions, to writing operations and support doctrine, to assigning missions, to ISR networking, to BDA, to rearming, to repair and maintenance for the reusable platforms, etc, etc. Did you know in the first naval night battle off Guadalcanal 8-9 Aug 1942, some of the US ships had radar (the Japanese did not but did have superb night training and optics), but the commanders didn't know how to use it and discounted it's value? Many factors but still result, major allied defeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island As late as Nov 1942 US Navy task force commanding admirals placed the ships with the most capable radars at the rear of their formation rather than the van. Many factors but result, major allied defeat. https://usnhistory.navylive.dodlive.mil/Recent/Article-View/Article/3207198/radio-over-radar-night-fighting-chaos-at-guadalcanal-12-13-november-1942/ Fun fact - The US Navy actually had more sailors killed in the naval battles off Guadalcanal than the marines did on Guadalcanal. Realizing the full potential of new military technology takes time, best not to be figuring out how the dang thing works when you're getting shot at.

And I thought you worked for the State Department, jeesh, wiffed that one

Maybe, your thoughts on the comparison between the machine learning data base set for high intensity major power conflict targeting vs that for driverless vehicles?

Other than feeling good about it, not sure what human in the loop capability gets us if our doctrine, training and logistics all say we go autonomous before hostilities. I think all sides are pretty worried about first strike.

Think we're maybe talking past each other low intensity limited war vs high intensity major power conflict. BTW, glad you are here with us to tell the story.

I'm not sure, 'train as you fight.' Maybe low cost to add it, but how long to proof it, train on it, and field it, widely?

Given what we know about machine learning...the machines are apt to do it better than humans. The machine won't be scared, tired, angry, sorrowful, melancholy, vengeful, hungry, or feeling cold or wet either.

Still with the disparity in autonomous AI decision cycle time vs human in the loop decision cycle time. Where they are competing autonomous AI is going to win. If the discussion moves on to both major powers actively engaged in wearing down the others RSC, the side with autonomous systems is going to win.

I understand no human in the loop is already built into the Israeli Iron Dome and US Patriot AD systems. Navy Phoenix system too. So at least from a defensive perspective we're getting there.

Where is LLF when you need him? Come on man, give us a meme on the Robo Cop ED 209!

Can't speak for Dan, but at least one issue is human in the loop, which defeats the AI advantage of decision cycle time.

Really good read, thanks for sharing. Like you said, Russian GS sees everything we've seen. Let's hope our side translates thinking to doing faster than they can. Unfortunately Russia has the pain and benefit of first hand experience, whereas on our side only Ukraine does. What do you think we here in this forum should be looking for as indications of successful Russian LL implementation?

Agree, and the only serious reading I did on it was: https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Civil-War-Hugh-Thomas/dp/B002ADRJB8 It is a heavy read. The one thing that stuck with me was the Luftwaffe's affirmation/refinement of their fighter tactics, finger four flight, two plane elements, lead and wingman, loose formation, shooter and defender, which hurt the Allies when they were still flying in close formation three plane 'Vics' with the wingmen out of necessity focused on not running into the lead. Of course I also read 'For whom the Bell Tolls' but did not take away a lot of tactical insights from that one

Glad you liked it. Gotta agree, although interested in your references, and if you say you have to kill me to tell me... Below is what I got from a quick look. For those that are interested: 1. May 22 Moskva's location provided https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61343044 2. June 23 but the link in this section is to NYTs early war article (Mar-May 22) on providing location of Russian Generals. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-russian-way-of-war-in-ukraine-a-military-approach-nine-decades-in-the-making/ "The Ukrainian Battlefield Although not always portrayed as such, the war in Ukraine is, or at least has become, a peer conflict, largely because of the extent of Western and especially US support, providing Ukraine with significant amounts of advanced weapons systems—not to mention real-time battlefield intelligence to help identify Russian targets for Ukrainian long-range precision strikes. As a result, this is the first war in history in which both sides are capable of striking throughout the opponent’s tactical and operational depth with a high level of accuracy." 3. Oct 23 I can't find anything on current battlefield deep strike support, but CIA ties going back to 2014, direct intell support leading to string of assassinations in Russia, so hard not to believe UA deep strike being assisted, probably by multiple western intelligence agencies https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/23/ukraine-cia-shadow-war-russia/ https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-russian-way-of-war-in-ukraine-a-military-approach-nine-decades-in-the-making/ Same article from 2. above, definitely supports decade of prior trending, actually claims related Russian military thinking from much earlier. Fighting China directly might not be something the Canadian military is worrying about or preparing for. The US military is doing both.

I think it's a great question. Just me but I think fully integrated drone warfare is about where tank and anti-tank development were in 1916 on the western front, or the airplane as @The_Capt pointed out. We also have to account for the limited and unique nature of the war in Ukraine relative to super power conventional war. To me from a future technical and tactical practice perspective, Ukraine is more like Spain 1936-39.

"The US Army should not plan to fight the last war, let alone a war it has not actively fought." Neither should Canada

The world's war colleges are busy analyzing what's going on in Ukraine and writing about practices that will shape future CM level battles. Link to US Army War College https://press.armywarcollege.edu/ USAWC has a Russia-Ukraine War Study Project https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol53/iss3/5/ The first output I could find is linked below, Ukraine War experience relative to Recon-Strike-Complexes (RSCs), integrated AI, distributed ISR, deep strike attrition of enemy RSC to enable effective concentration of mass, and integrating relevant UAS ISR lessons from Ukraine, for near future major power conventional war. Multiple forum members individually have already some of these points. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol53/iss4/9/ 'Implications for the US Army' starts at the bottom of page 31. - The lead para is on what is judged unique to Ukraine "While the Russia-Ukraine War is an illustrative case, it is unique in many respects. Both sides derive their doctrine from similar sources and employ similar or identical weapons. Neither side can break the other’s integrated air defense network—Ukraine for lack of modern airframes, Russia for lack of enough precision-guided munitions—meaning deep strike is primarily a missile-based phenomenon. Russia and Ukraine also field armies with far less overall experience than anticipated before the war, having gone through several rounds of mobilization, making logistical and command centralization all the more appealing and strikes against logistics and C2 nodes more fruitful. Russia has refused to deploy kinetic anti-satellite interceptors, nor is there much available in the open source about satellite jamming, an undeniably relevant factor in future wars. Ukraine and Russia both defend some of the world’s most extensive ground fortifications—in the Ukrainian case, built over years of positional conflict in the Donbas. The US Army should not plan to fight the last war, let alone a war it has not actively fought." The last two sentences are worth a repeat. Presumably the same would apply to US allies, some of whom experienced enemy attacks on their territory in the last super power conflict (WWII), some of which did not. "The United States is unlikely to face an adversary it can defeat absent some consideration of strikes on its territory, at least if it hopes to win on a timescale more closely approximating months or years than a decade. Two equally sophisticated RSCs, then, can increase the likelihood of mutual territorial strikes and the potential for escalation."

All good points and valid. If pulling the curtains/blinds closed and tight keeps the drones out I am sure defenders have already done it. I agree drone proliferation and specialization is present and evolving, capabilities constantly improving. I haven't seen a video or heard of drone or drone assisted building assault and clearing yet but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened yet. On the other hand I am quite certain drones have been used for some time now to provide urban warfare ISR support.