Andrew Hill and Steve Gerras return to the studio with host Tom Spahr to further explore the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in national defense. This episode delves into the critical question of human oversight in lethal force decisions with AI assistance. Join the debate as they dissect the potential consequences of over-reliance on human intuition and the bottlenecks human intervention can create in the process. They emphasize the need for transparency and open dialogue about AI’s role in warfare. Steve and Andrew urge listeners to confront their own assumptions and engage in this crucial conversation. It’s a great wrap-up to the topic and companion to their compelling three-part article.
If we slow the AI to human speed, we’re going to lose.
Podcast: Download
Andrew Hill is Professor of Strategic Management in the Department of Command, Leadership, and Management (DCLM) at the U.S. Army War College. Prior to rejoining the War College in 2023, Dr. Hill was the inaugural director of Lehigh Ventures Lab, a startup incubator and accelerator at Lehigh University. From 2011-2019, Dr. Hill was a member of the faculty at the U.S. Army War College. In 2017, he was appointed as the inaugural U.S. Army War College Foundation Chair of Strategic Leadership. Dr. Hill is also the founder and former Director of the Carlisle Scholars Program, and the founder and former Editor-in-Chief of WAR ROOM.
Stephen Gerras is Professor of Behavioral Science at the U.S. Army War College. Colonel (Retired) Gerras served in the Army for over 25 years, including commanding a light infantry company and a transportation battalion, teaching leadership at West Point, and serving as the Chief of Operations and Agreements for the Office of Defense Cooperation in Ankara, Turkey during Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. He holds a B.S. from the U.S. Military Academy and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Penn State University.
Thomas W. Spahr is the DeSerio Chair of Theater and Strategic Intelligence at the U.S. Army War College. He is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army and holds a Ph.D. in History from The Ohio State University. He teaches courses at the Army War College on Military Campaigning and Intelligence.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense.
Photo Credit: Gemini
While “speed” is important to military (etc.) decision-making, is not the quality of the decision — and the outcome achieved by the decision — are these not of equal to, and/or of greater, importance than “speed?”
Thus the question: Can an AI not only beat a human as relates to — not only matters of speed in decision-making — but also as relates to matters of the quality of outcomes achieved by such decision-making?
Possibly stated another way: Re: decision-making:
a. While “If we slow the AI to human speed, we’re going to lose,”
b. Likewise are likely to lose; this, if we choose (a) speed of decision-making over (b) the quality of decision-making outcomes?
(Herein, can we “war-game”/test this type of stuff, to get answers to my questions immediately above, for example, by using cases like that of the Cuban Missile Crisis?)
Speed is a measure of performance, not effectiveness. Speed and quality are not mutually inclusive.