William R. Funches, Jr.
Researcher
The technology explosion in the future will require a multifaceted approach to management—particu-larly when discussing leadership in an environment with ubiquitous autonomous systems and artificial intelligence (AI). Indeed, leadership will be the key competent at managing such a complex environment.
The Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General Mark A.
Milley envisions the Army destroying enemy sensors, air defenses, and land-based anti-ship missiles to open paths for the rest of the joint force. “Land-based forces now are going to have to penetrate denied areas to facilitate air and naval forces,” Milley said. “This is exact opposite of what we have done for the last 70 years, where air and naval forces have enabled ground forces.”1 The U.S. military’s technology and leader-ship is evolving and so should the leaderleader-ship strat-egy. Landpower ultimately provides decision makers the capability for human-to-human interaction, the best and most precise tool to influence and compel on land. However, the ever-changing environment hints that the United States will have to use new elements of strategy when it comes to facing new threats from adversities. As we look to the future, it will require a new 21st-century approach.
The Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) considers that in order to set the Army’s future with robots, it must focus on three main areas, autonomy, AI,
122
and command and control (C2). This means the robots employed by the force need to get better at “function-ing independently from the user and think for itself through the right sensor technology while working on the battlefield with a multitude of other systems.”2 It is essential that the military develop the correct doc-trine and training to connect man and machine, and ultimately establish authorities and permissions for AI and autonomous systems. The technology and capabil-ities that have evolved into robotic systems are increas-ingly becoming more intuitive, lethal, and advanced.
The concern with this trajectory is defining the moral and ethical concerns when mixing man with robots.
Chess Grandmaster Garry Kasparov wrote about human-computer chess collaboration, “Human stra-tegic guidance combined with the tactical acuity of a computer was overwhelming.”3 Tesla and SpaceX’s chief executive officer, Elon Musk, believes that man must merge with machines or become irrelevant in the AI age. Musk stated:
computers can communicate at a trillion bits per second, while humans, whose main communication method is typing with their fingers via a mobile device, can do about 10 bits per second.4
A 2004 survey of military officers on the future of robots in warfare revealed:
the officers identified developing a strategy and doctrine as the third least important aspect to figure out (only ahead of solving inter-service rivalry and allaying allies’
concerns). Meanwhile, the capabilities of these robotic systems continue to advance both in intelligence and lethality.5
There are a number of studies that examine the required attributes and characteristics of military and corporate leaders. Discussions center on what per-sonal qualities are required to be a successful military leader in the 21st century. The current doctrine that focuses on leadership, Army Doctrine Reference Pub-lication (ADRP) 6-22, aims at the human-to-human relationships. The current Army Leader Development Strategy 2013 contains a model that basically consists of three domains of development—operational (train-ing), institutional (education), and self-developmental (experience).6 The Army must begin the discussion on how it will train AI-enabled systems to be smarter and more capable. By its nature, AI learns and gets better with experience—just as humans do. In order to best develop and prepare our force—both human and machine—the Army should begin curricular and ped-agogical experimentation that teaches leader develop-ment across a range of human to machine interaction.
The military can gain valuable insight from the recommendations of Accenture’s AI Institute for High Performance. They recommend training intelli-gent machines in context because they typically arrive with very general capabilities. From a defense stra-tegic management perspective, there would need to be a comprehensive training program that outlines a framework for military commanders to train AI sys-tems. In addition to guidance that will govern how these systems are trained, the Army leaders selected to perform the training would need to have specific attri-butes that align with The Army Leadership Require-ments Model.7
According to Accenture’s AI Institute for High Per-formance, the willingness to trust AI-generated advice hinges on a manager’s understanding at all levels.
124
Involving managers in AI training fosters a sense of ownership in the learning process and provides man-agers’ familiarity with such systems. The result could be a shared belief that AI extends, not eliminates, human potential and a greater willingness to embrace the technology.8
CONCLUSION
The Department of Defense’s (DoD) responsibil-ities are to be prepared to address a broad range of contingencies and unpredictable crises well into the future. It is imperative that we link the Army leader-ship competencies and attributes between humans and machines. Creating a connection between leadership development and machine development will ensure that the human element remains tied to capabilities in the Third Offset Strategy. The military will have to ensure that leadership is:
willing to experiment in an effort to identify AI uses that make the most sense for their organization and teams.
A great way to implement efforts is to create structured experiments with AI to help zero in on the most promising opportunities, including the use of intelligent machines to accelerate human learning.9
This may enable leaders to establish trust, character, values, and warrior ethos between man and machine.