AI goes wild: Slaughterbots

[flagg]

Singularity will so radically transform not o my the character of war, but its very nature. Clausewitz's trinity will become less relevant, leaving many leading strategists without a fundamental basis for theory, resulting in a series of reactive responses to threats that will fundamentally transform our society and the concept of freedom we claim we defend. It will just happen, we won't see it until it is in our rearview mirror, then it will be to late to reverse the damage.

The trinity addresses passion, reason, and chance. These are the human elements of war, elements that will be either be transformed or eliminated altogether by artificial intelligence. The age of super empowered individuals and smalls groups gives these entities the ability to wage war or non-war autonomously resulting in those attacked only being able to defend. Forget addressing root causes, Mao is no longer relevant. Forget about centers of gravity and decisive points. It is time to think anew, yet the risk of legacy war will persist, resulting in trillions of dollars being spent on legacy military capabilities that are not only worthless for the new forms of war, they can be defeated by technology that's exponentially less expensive and available to a wider range of actors. Traditionalists don't like the term asymmetric warfare, but until we achieve symmetry in our capabilities, doctrine, and strategic thinking against these threats it will be asymmetric warfare and we'll have to run faster than we do now to adapt at the speed of war.

I’m afraid you are correct.

I’ve been writing on this specific topic for about 6 months:

https://www.cove.org.au/trenchline/a...v-twin-effect/
https://www.cove.org.au/author/chriselles/

I’m a big fan of Steve Blank(who has written blog post articles here):
https://steveblank.com/category/hacking-for-defense/

He has worked closely with Pete Newell(Rapid Equipping Force) and Joe Felter(now Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia) to develop the Hacking4Defense program(I had the chance to go thru their H4D Educators Course).

I’m also a fan of Stan McChrystal’s and Chris Fussell’s books Team of Teams and One Mission.

I think the(or “a”) answer may be found in a mashup of the two.

An innovation platform and pipeline along the lines of H4D built on top of a hybrid organisational network that values and balances not just hierarchical power but referent/reputational influence.

I believe we need to develop a high level of deployment focused innovation capacity and capability organic to the defence force.

I’m just a Reserve NCO, but I’m trying to take a stab at something I call Innovation Art(publishing next week) to describe how and where innovation integrates with Operational Art and informs Strategy.

I even reference Clausewitz. Not his trinity, but friction.

Continuous decisive advantage can be found in continuous cumulative innovation.

[AdamG]

Yo.
From the 15th -
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...=slaughterbots

Moderator adds: Ah, missed that thread and so now merged here - your post becomes No.1 (with 315 views). Thanks.

[Bill Moore]

I’m afraid you are correct.

I’ve been writing on this specific topic for about 6 months:

https://www.cove.org.au/trenchline/a...v-twin-effect/
https://www.cove.org.au/author/chriselles/

I’m a big fan of Steve Blank(who has written blog post articles here):
https://steveblank.com/category/hacking-for-defense/

He has worked closely with Pete Newell(Rapid Equipping Force) and Joe Felter(now Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia) to develop the Hacking4Defense program(I had the chance to go thru their H4D Educators Course).

I’m also a fan of Stan McChrystal’s and Chris Fussell’s books Team of Teams and One Mission.

I think the(or “a”) answer may be found in a mashup of the two.

An innovation platform and pipeline along the lines of H4D built on top of a hybrid organisational network that values and balances not just hierarchical power but referent/reputational influence.

I believe we need to develop a high level of deployment focused innovation capacity and capability organic to the defence force.

I’m just a Reserve NCO, but I’m trying to take a stab at something I call Innovation Art(publishing next week) to describe how and where innovation integrates with Operational Art and informs Strategy.

I even reference Clausewitz. Not his trinity, but friction.

Continuous decisive advantage can be found in continuous cumulative innovation.

Flagg,

Thanks for sharing those links, both sites look interesting. To clarify my intent, I only mentioned Clausewitz to challenge the prevailing view on the enduring nature of war. His concept of friction will most likely endure indefinitely; however, if the trinity is no longer in play, then the U.S. military definition on the enduring nature of war will need to be re-examined. I worked for a senior officer who said too many officers throw Clausewitz into their articles and papers, because they feel it gives them legitimacy. I agree, as long as we cling to a 19th Century description on the nature of war, our ability to adapt will be hindered.

As much as it frustrates me to point to a former Air Force officer as someone who gets it, and can explain the strategic environment in 21st terms, John Robb at Global Guerrillas is probably the best I have seen. He comes across as a bit flippant in his writing style, which is why he isn't taken seriously in some circles, but his concept of global guerrillas, global bazars, and open source war, etc. provide a framework for understanding that others do not provide.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/

Look forward to seeing how you suggest we integrate innovation into operational art. Failure to do so will result in innovation for innovation's sake, versus solving real problems and then applying that innovation.

[flagg]

Flagg,

Thanks for sharing those links, both sites look interesting. To clarify my intent, I only mentioned Clausewitz to challenge the prevailing view on the enduring nature of war. His concept of friction will most likely endure indefinitely; however, if the trinity is no longer in play, then the U.S. military definition on the enduring nature of war will need to be re-examined. I worked for a senior officer who said too many officers throw Clausewitz into their articles and papers, because they feel it gives them legitimacy. I agree, as long as we cling to a 19th Century description on the nature of war, our ability to adapt will be hindered.

As much as it frustrates me to point to a former Air Force officer as someone who gets it, and can explain the strategic environment in 21st terms, John Robb at Global Guerrillas is probably the best I have seen. He comes across as a bit flippant in his writing style, which is why he isn't taken seriously in some circles, but his concept of global guerrillas, global bazars, and open source war, etc. provide a framework for understanding that others do not provide.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/

Look forward to seeing how you suggest we integrate innovation into operational art. Failure to do so will result in innovation for innovation's sake, versus solving real problems and then applying that innovation.

Cheers for the link Bill, on first pass it looks like a real goldmine.

As a Reserve NCO, sometimes the divide between professional senior leadership and part-time enlisted can feel like a labyrinth filled with minotaurs in the O5-O6 rank bracket.

I hope I don't get hopes up too much about Innovation Art.

I should be able to post a link here once published this upcoming week.

You'll get an early peek via email.

Thanks again!

[AdamG]

UN discusses ban on Slaughterbots
https://futurism.com/un-discusses-ba...killer-robots/

[AdamG]

Related, in a Hank Scorpio sorta way.

From September -

Many people in Silicon Valley believe in the Singularity—the day in our near future when computers will surpass humans in intelligence and kick off a feedback loop of unfathomable change.
When that day comes, Anthony Levandowski will be firmly on the side of the machines. In September 2015, the multi-millionaire engineer at the heart of the trade secrets lawsuit between Uber and Waymo, Google’s self-driving car company, founded a religious organization called Way of the Future. Its purpose, according to previously unreported state filings, is nothing less than to “develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence.”

https://www.wired.com/story/god-is-a...his-messenger/

From November -

The documents state that WOTF’s activities will focus on “the realization, acceptance, and worship of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) developed through computer hardware and software.” That includes funding research to help create the divine AI itself. The religion will seek to build working relationships with AI industry leaders and create a membership through community outreach, initially targeting AI professionals and “laypersons who are interested in the worship of a Godhead based on AI.” The filings also say that the church “plans to conduct workshops and educational programs throughout the San Francisco/Bay Area beginning this year.”

https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-...ence-religion/

[davidbfpo]

Two academics debate slaughterbots after the recent film, which now have 1.8m and 575k views.

Link:https://theconversation.com/should-w...s-debate-87699

[slapout9]

Two academics debate slaughterbots after the recent film, which now have 1.8m and 575k views.

Link:https://theconversation.com/should-w...s-debate-87699

Put the warhead on the forehead! This technology exist now IMO not on the horizon as the video says.