6
6
0
One of the key things computers are better at is taking large amounts of information, processing it, and coming to accurate conclusions. An article from War On the Rocks about swarms, drones, and the future of warfare (linked below) got me thinking--the author focuses on drones doing all the fighting with humans in control centers, each person controlling swarms of drones, while I thought of computer decision making augmenting human soldiers in combat. Would interconnected devices spread across drones and individual soldiers with a distributed computing algorithm be better at coordinating soldiers than humans are? I'm thinking of things like a series of sound sensors on each soldier picking up on gunfire and determining where the good guys and bad guys are based off the sounds, plus tracking when magazines are being changed by whom, how much combat power each side has, and then automatically coordinating teams to win the fight? Could the platoon, company and even battalion become obsolete as computers provide better guidance for operations and logistics?
http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/between-a-roomba-and-a-terminator-what-is-autonomy/
http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/between-a-roomba-and-a-terminator-what-is-autonomy/
Drones
Computers
Future
Leadership
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 9
6
6
0
Seriously? Did you see Alien? Or (late add) 2001 Space Odyssey and the HAL 9000? I think the human dimension leaders (you) bring are what makes us different from other countries and machines. I can't imagine an Army or weapon without a "man in the loop" but I am also now retired...
(6)
(0)
SGT Guillermo Vega
Everything has its place. As we know by now computers lack all the functions a human i capable of, so keep them in place by supporting decisions, no making them. Let humans control automated systems, not be control by them. Otherwise, why would anyone fight for Capitalism if one prefers a command based society. The military has its place, computers too. Besides, algorithms belong under methods, strategy, and humans, not the other way around. I would not even like to salute a computer anyways :-) In a perfect controlled environment they may be great, but in our world of uncertainty they should not lead only support.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
We need to educate our personnel to use technological advancements as enhancers to their decision-making and not replace it. It takes losing the "gee whiz" response and asking what these new capabilities really give us.
(4)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Good point, sir. What if command and control was done largely before the fight began? That is, if those decisions are made and captured in a computer to execute in the heat of battle immediately as contingencies arise. No chance for a commander to freeze up or make a silly mistake because of pressure.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I feel like I can weigh in on this, being a Software Engineer of many years. First, semantics; An algorithm is a procedure or formula for solving a problem. An algorithm's job is to solve a specific problem, and should be built with the objective of meeting certain performance criteria. When it comes time to solve a logistical problem, or perhaps calculate the optimal spread of Combat Air Patrols based on statistical analysis of hostile activity, an algorithm may be your best friend. Algorithms tend to work best when tackling large problems like this, as most possible outcomes will be predictable within a certain margin of error. When you view the issues of an individual or a small team, an algorithm is probably not going to be the most useful. While these are very useful pieces of information, there are still countless situations where an algorithm is just not going to be able to understand the issues they face.
I would estimate that algorithm use may be able to streamline the chain of command, but it won't eliminate it. It would allow for faster flow of information in order to inform the decision makers, and allow for consistent results. Of course, that is assuming the algorithms are well designed and engineered in the first place.
I would estimate that algorithm use may be able to streamline the chain of command, but it won't eliminate it. It would allow for faster flow of information in order to inform the decision makers, and allow for consistent results. Of course, that is assuming the algorithms are well designed and engineered in the first place.
(2)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
I think your description is what I have in mind of an algorithm. The fire team, including TL are human, but the question of how to place 100 fire teams and assigning them targets (thereby controlling direction of fire and allowing formations far more intricate than the L-shape) could be ascertained rapidly by a distributed computing system across multiple drones and phone-sized devices on each soldier where it would take 50 SLs, 25 PSGs and PLs, 4 CO CDrs and 1SGs, and a BC and his staff to communicate, understand, and decide more slowly.
To your point, the algorithm would have to be very robust to be used in such a way. It might look something like the movie The Edge of Tomorrow, where officers exist, but you don't really see them because tooth-to-tail ratio has been improved.
To your point, the algorithm would have to be very robust to be used in such a way. It might look something like the movie The Edge of Tomorrow, where officers exist, but you don't really see them because tooth-to-tail ratio has been improved.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Eventually synthetic intelligences will replace biologics in all things. The progress of technology is inevitable.
The near term is a drone that doesn't need a man in the loop to make kill choices (because of the vulnerabilities of EM or cyber etc.). Ultimately machine intelligences are capable of more rapid computations, and can indeed learn. If our nation doesn't do it first, someone else will.
Most thinkers on this topic limit themselves by taking a short term and a retroactive view of history, where a more forward looking view is very illuminating. A cloud of micro-drones in a swarm of 500m^3 with 1-4 drones every cubic meter could neutralize an aircraft carrier.
The near term is a drone that doesn't need a man in the loop to make kill choices (because of the vulnerabilities of EM or cyber etc.). Ultimately machine intelligences are capable of more rapid computations, and can indeed learn. If our nation doesn't do it first, someone else will.
Most thinkers on this topic limit themselves by taking a short term and a retroactive view of history, where a more forward looking view is very illuminating. A cloud of micro-drones in a swarm of 500m^3 with 1-4 drones every cubic meter could neutralize an aircraft carrier.
(2)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Hijacking the enemy's cloud of mini-drones will become a huge objective. Kind of makes sense that cyber/EW is a combat arms branch now
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Absolutely agreed. "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run" (Amara's Law).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Very interesting topic, CPT(P) (Join to see). I think it's great that machines (computers) can process information faster and better than humans, but I would never want to take the human out of the equation. As long as humans are ultimately in control, I say use the technology to the max ... Just don't ever give up the decision making to machines. Here's a TED talk on the (or at least a related) topic:
http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_suarez_the_kill_decision_shouldn_t_belong_to_a_robot?language=en
http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_suarez_the_kill_decision_shouldn_t_belong_to_a_robot?language=en
The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot
As a novelist, Daniel Suarez spins dystopian tales of the future. But on the TEDGlobal stage, he talks us through a real-life scenario we all need to know more about: the rise of autonomous robotic weapons of war. Advanced drones, automated weapons and AI-powered intelligence-gathering tools, he suggests, could take the decision to make war out of the hands of humans.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Until the "Terminator" scenario when they become self aware and turn on us. Interesting article.
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
SFC Mark Merino can't wait I saw the trailer, its going to be a blast from a past.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm reminded of the book Friday by R. Heinlein. In it, there is a pilot (minor character) and he talks about his inability to actually do anything if something goes wrong. The main character comments "then why do they have you if everything is automated for the most part [sic]." His response is both chilling and pertinent:
"Because I'd try. I'd do everything I could thing of." The limitations of computers is that they don't have free thought. They can only do what they have been programmed to do. They don't "learn," they may "absorb" information, but they don't learn.
Using a troop as an example. If we run out of ammo, we switch to a bayonet, then to hands, then to anything available. We're "hardwired" for survival, and we will use anything as a tool whether that item was intended for that purpose or not.
As an extreme example, no computer would have ever been able to anticipate using an aircraft as a missile, because no programmer (up until that point) would have thought to do it.
Now, going to the article, it specifically speaks to autonomy, and how much function is farmed out from the human operator. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Humans are great at doing a variety of things, but we're really good at doing a SINGLE thing at a time. If the goal is to allow "focus" where the commander is able to remove extraneous data that he doesn't need that moment (and his staff can do the same below him), then an (semi) autonomous system is great.
"Because I'd try. I'd do everything I could thing of." The limitations of computers is that they don't have free thought. They can only do what they have been programmed to do. They don't "learn," they may "absorb" information, but they don't learn.
Using a troop as an example. If we run out of ammo, we switch to a bayonet, then to hands, then to anything available. We're "hardwired" for survival, and we will use anything as a tool whether that item was intended for that purpose or not.
As an extreme example, no computer would have ever been able to anticipate using an aircraft as a missile, because no programmer (up until that point) would have thought to do it.
Now, going to the article, it specifically speaks to autonomy, and how much function is farmed out from the human operator. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Humans are great at doing a variety of things, but we're really good at doing a SINGLE thing at a time. If the goal is to allow "focus" where the commander is able to remove extraneous data that he doesn't need that moment (and his staff can do the same below him), then an (semi) autonomous system is great.
(1)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
Good points! I agree that humans are certainly better at some things than computers (watch the Big Dog robot climb over uneven terrain to see the difference), and one of those things is fighting due to the complex nature of the world at large. That's why in my mind it would be Infantrymen enabled by a computer determining the firepower of the enemy, exact locations, and the optimal locations to kill the enemy without getting killed yourself.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Technology is a tool. Nothing replaces human judgement. Also technology could be vulnerable to cyber-attacks.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
