Argumentative Essay on AI in the Battlefield

Introduction

In the imminent future, the reliance of soldiers on the battlefield may shift towards artificial intelligence (AI) rather than their human counterparts. Envisioning a scenario where soldiers no longer have to physically be present on the battlefield, the prospect arises for them to operate advanced, intelligent, and sensor-equipped weapons remotely. These weapons possess inherent problem-solving capabilities, transforming the nature of warfare into a radically different paradigm. Some experts suggest that this transformative shift could occur within 15 years or even sooner. While the essay argues that the current likelihood of AI entirely replacing soldiers on the battlefield is low, it emphasizes the substantial benefits that such a development could bring.

The Limitations of AI in the Battlefield

While military leaders emphasize the imperative of maintaining human involvement in critical combat situations, they are equally committed to leveraging the advancements in science and innovation to ensure U.S. supremacy in future warfare. Acknowledging the anticipated severity of future battlefields and the escalating lethality of weapons, the concept of a battlefield devoid of human soldiers becomes increasingly appealing. Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy emphasized the unique ability of human beings to provide context to decision-making during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in November. Despite the acknowledgment of the challenging times ahead, there is a recognition that technological maturity integrated into weapons systems poses significant considerations (Benitz, 2020).

Machines currently encounter limitations in their capacity to learn new things comparable to humans, as mentioned. Consequently, AI systems are employed in conjunction with human capabilities. Scharre highlights the impracticality of the notion that an AI system could operate autonomously without any checks from a person. He clarifies that the Department of Defense (DoD) is exploring a “centaur model” of human-machine collaboration, where specific tasks are delegated to machines, similar to the functioning of airline autopilot and cruise control in cars. In this model, humans oversee and retain ultimate responsibility for task completion, but there may be scenarios where delegating controlled-specific tasks to machines is deemed sensible (Benitz, 2020). The challenge lies in identifying areas where AI can be advantageous and determining the optimal approach for its integration.

Be Prepared

Advancements in technology have transformed business operations, paralleling historical instances of disruptive change in warfare strategies. The primary challenge in implementing AI, akin to any emerging technology, lies in comprehending its capabilities and determining optimal military applications. Scharre emphasizes that a comprehensive AI system with the versatility of human-like general-purpose intelligence is yet to be developed. Current AI systems lack the adaptive flexibility to respond dynamically to novel circumstances, contrasting with human cognitive abilities. Consequently, AI is envisioned to be deployed in more specialized capacities to enhance the capabilities of human warfighters. While the Army presently relies on humans to operate or assist AI capabilities, future aspirations include the development of optionally manned AI systems. This vision opens the door to soldier-robot collaboration on the battlefield, providing flexibility and adaptability in military operations. Brig. Gen. Matthew Easley, Director of the Army Artificial Intelligence Task Force at the U.S. Army Futures Command, underscores AI’s role as an enabling technology across various modernization priorities, encompassing Future Vertical Lift, long-range precision fires, and enhancing soldier lethality (Benitz, 2020).

It is of paramount importance that we augment our existing capabilities with AI. Currently, unmanned aerial vehicles operating alongside attack helicopters possess limited autonomous capabilities, requiring focused efforts to enhance their user-friendliness. The objective is to advance these systems, enabling soldiers to allocate their time to tasks beyond remote piloting. As part of a decade-long research initiative led by the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory and collaborative partners, the “RoMan” robot was designed with arms and hands to assist in removing heavy objects and clearing road debris from military vehicles’ paths. Recent testing demonstrated RoMan’s ability to clear debris, drag heavy objects, and open containers, with soldiers providing verbal commands using natural language. Stuart Young, a division chief at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), noted that this development marks a significant achievement, allowing robots to contribute to obstacle reduction in ways not previously possible. The ultimate adoption of these models hinges on their combat effectiveness. Regardless, the growth of AI and automation will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of human combatants. While robots won’t replace all soldiers, their efficacy may be “enhanced” by integrating artificial appliances and implants. Likely assuming the most perilous roles in missions, such as initial incursions into high-fatality areas, robots will reshape the ethos of the human soldier. Being physically distant from extreme violence will alter expectations, expanding the definition of heroism. Soldiers will no longer solely be celebrated for their moral strength in confronting the brutality of war; equipped with advanced technology, their heroism will also be defined by their adept control of violence, using the appropriate level of force based on circumstances (Noël, 2018).

Building Trust

Establishing trust between soldiers and machines proves to be an intricate challenge, given the prevailing us-versus-them mindset towards AI capabilities—trust being particularly sensitive to a robot’s transparency and predictability. Recent research conducted by the Army indicates that confidence in a robot diminishes after it makes a mistake, even if it can elucidate its reasoning process; however, maintaining transparency can mitigate this impact. In a study scenario, a compact ground robot, typically interacting with an infantry squad, navigated a training course alongside a human counterpart. While the human consistently acted correctly, the robot made occasional errors. Ethan Stump, a robotics scientist at ARL, advocates for joint training sessions involving robots and soldiers as a means to foster trust. Envisioning a future where robots become more integral assets, Stump suggests that, while not every soldier may be equipped with a robot, every squad could possess one. Soldiers would engage in training not only to understand the robot’s reactions but also to learn how to respond to and comprehend the robot (Benitz, 2020). As squads evolve their unique operating tactics, the robot adapts, learning from the squad’s behavior and refining its operations accordingly. This approach implies that a robot not only learns to integrate with the squad but also understands how to optimize its performance within the specific squad dynamics.

Conclusion

While AI plays a crucial role in aiding the Army in saving lives, enhancing soldier performance, and maintaining a competitive edge globally, its transformative impact on the future may extend beyond the current preparedness of Americans. The specific strategies the Army intends to employ for integrating robots into its formations and addressing inevitable challenges—such as soldiers navigating glitches in combat zones, safeguarding systems from cyberattacks, and managing the consequences of diminished soldier trust in robotic companions—remain undisclosed at present. The study highlighted that errors made by robots significantly impacted human trust, perceptions, and the robot’s overall reliability. Even if the robot corrected its mistakes, the human’s confidence in its reliability did not fully recover. The prevailing us-versus-them mindset in human-robot collaboration can influence soldiers’ approach to these systems in real-life scenarios, potentially leading to reduced cooperation between humans and robots.

References

Benitz, J. (2020). Changing the way soldiers fight and survive: AI on the battlefield. https://www.ausa.org/articles/changing-way-soldiers-fight-and-survive-ai-battlefield#

Noël, J. (2018). Will artificial intelligence revolutionize the art of war? Politique étrangère, I, 159-170. https://www.cairn-int.info/journal–2018-4-page-159.htm.