Tag Archives: Pentagon

AI framework

AI framework


Artificial Stupidity: Learning To Trust Artificial Intelligence (Sometimes)


on July 05, 2017 at 2:26 PM

In science fiction and real life alike, there are plenty of horror stories where humans trust artificial intelligence too much. They range from letting the fictional SkyNet control our nuclear weapons to letting Patriots shoot down friendly planes or letting Tesla Autopilot crash into a truck. At the same time, though, there’s also a danger of not trusting AI enough.

As conflict on earth, in space, and in cyberspace becomes increasingly fast-paced and complex, the Pentagon’s Third Offset initiative is counting on artificial intelligence to help commanders, combatants, and analysts chart a course through chaos — what we’ve dubbed the War Algorithm (click here for the full series).

But if the software itself is too complex, too opaque, or too unpredictable for its users to understand, they’ll just turn it off and do things manually. At least, they’ll try: What worked for Luke Skywalker against the first Death Star probably won’t work in real life. Humans can’t respond to cyberattacks in microseconds or coordinate defense against a massive missile strike in real time. With Russia and China both investing in AI systems, deactivating our own AI may amount to unilateral disarmament.

Abandoning AI is not an option. Never is abandoning human input. The challenge is to create an artificial intelligence that can earn the human’s trust, a AI that seems transparent or even human.

“Clausewitz had a term called coup d’oeil,” a great commander’s intuitive grasp of opportunity and danger on the battlefield, said Robert Work, the outgoing Deputy Secretary of Defense and father of the Third Offset, at a Johns Hopkins AI conference in May. “Learning machines are going to give more and more commanders coup d’oeil.”

Conversely, AI can speak the ugly truths that human subordinates may not. “There are not many captains that are going to tell a four-star COCOM (combatant commander) ‘that idea sucks,’” Work said, “(but) the machine will say, ‘you are an idiot, there is a 99 percent probability that you are going to get your ass handed to you.’”

Before commanders will take an AI’s insights as useful, however, Work emphasized, they need to trust and understand how it works. That requires intensive “operational test and evaluation, where you convince yourself that the machines will do exactly what you expect them to, reliably and repeatedly,” he said. “This goes back to trust.”

Trust is so important, in fact, that two experts we heard from said they were willing to accept some tradeoffs in performance in order to get it: A less advanced and versatile AI, even a less capable one, is better than a brilliant machine you can’t trust.

More here:  http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/artificial-stupidity-learning-to-trust-the-machine/ 

source of featured graphic:








Music and Artificial Intelligence (1993)

by Chris Dobrian







“… it’s safe to conclude that AI will be a mandatory part of every new technology start-up within the next two years. It’s also safe to conclude that there won’t be a sector of economy untouched by AI…..”

https://medium.com/@johnrobb/how-the-ai-revolution-creates-new-work-b523986a0886 [this is the framework, by John Robb: a very good read]

arts war

arts war


“The [next] national military strategy will be a classified document,” said Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a March 29 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.


Posted by Michele Kearney at 12:59 PM 




The folks at the Pentagon obviously think that those who do not have clearances necessary to access the inner circles of US military thought have never read or considered any of the works that are still being cranked out by advanced minds and have been for millennia

They obviously think that they and only they are crafty enough to come up with an approach that no one has ever thought of, considered, simulated, gamed out, or researched from a technological perspective. 

Despite incredible amounts of historical evidence — as well as several cases that are fresh enough to still be making their way through the legal system — the folks at the Pentagon think that their thoughts cannot be stolen, compromised or betrayed.





According to Ralph D. Sawyer and Mei-chün Sawyer, who created one of the latest translations, the Seven Military Classics include the following texts:[3]

Jiang Ziya (Taigong)‘s Six Secret Teachings (六韜)

The Methods of the Sima (司馬法) (also known as Sima Rangju Art of War)

Sun Tzu‘s The Art of War (孫子兵法)

Wu Qi‘s Wuzi (吳子)

Wei Liaozi (尉繚子)

Three Strategies of Huang Shigong (黃石公三略)

Questions and Replies between Tang Taizong and Li Weigong (唐太宗李衛公問對)

There are no other known variations of the Seven Military Classics anthology with alternating members but the constituent works themselves have had many multiple versions, especially the Art of War, which has had at least several dozen different translations to English in the 20th Century alone.

Despite prominence of military texts in the Yi Zhou shu, none of the anthology chapters was regarded as classics.[4]

Read the Seven Military Classics on Google Books































Or maybe it has to do with aliens?