Search Results

Editorial Note: There is no doubt that people are our greatest asset and the key to fully realising a fifth-generation Air Force. We are pleased to introduce a new contributor to The Central Blue – Shaun McGill. In this essay, he explores how the Royal Australian Air Force might attract the talent needed to make a fifth-generation force a reality.  This post is a modified version of an essay that Shaun submitted to the 2018 Chief of Air Force essay competition. We plan to publish more entries in the coming months. The Air Force, through their exploitation of the air domain,  provides the Government with a military option for the defence of Australia and its interests. Taking into account both the core and enabling roles, the application of air power would not be possible without people. Fifth Generation Air Force outlines workforce requirements essential to evolving and demonstrating an innovative and professional force, with people essential for driving capability. This paper argues that people are the key enabler for air power and outlines how the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) can best attract, recruit, train, educate and retain a workforce of the best available talent. This post will first explore opportunities available to exploit a skilled workforce through education and training, capitalising on the diverse skills personnel bring from outside industry into the military environment. It will then examine the impact of moral injury on commanders and leaders. The post will then explore elements of personnel well-being and detail the importance of retaining injured people to ensure diversity in professional and technical mastery. EXPLOITING A SKILLED WORKFORCE The RAAF has under gone a number of reforms in its lifetime. This has included the de-skilling of the workforce with the consequence of diminishing aspects of technical and professional mastery. Professional mastery is considered the application of air power and specialisations in a social context. It incorporates three tenants of technical, combat and social attributes acquired over time and defined by the role within the organisation.[1] Adaptability has proven to be a strong characteristic of a highly competent workforce in which it continues to demonstrate significant benefit in a joint and coalition environment.[2] A competitive private sector also threatens the ability of the Air Force to retain its best people. In this regard, there will always be a degree of loss, however, maintaining a quality force will negate large gaps in capability and experience. Support for personnel in a changing and competitive labor must continue to be brought to the fore. With this in mind, a balance must be struck between the development of people, the encouragement of innovation, and the promotion of equality; while also accepting that as a military force not everyone is equal.[3] To ensure this balance, there must be meticulous communication of initiatives to encourage retention. This can be achieved by proactive communication to assist with change management and prevent shock and negativity often associated with change. A Fifth Generation Air Force must enable up-to-date communications. Without this, the team will get frustrated and ultimately lose faith [7]. Education is not merely about professional competencies relating to core trades or specialisations. It must encompass a greater understanding of the holistic delivery of air power. People make up a highly skilled and valued force beyond the scope of any daily tasks. Single service training must be acknowledged as paramount for achieving accreditation and ensuring people can apply their knowledge across a spectrum of conflict. Education is a significant enabler to achieving outcomes in a joint environment, rather than just a single service. Training must also focus on interoperability both within the joint and coalition environment. People are central to the effectiveness of achieving air power objectives, whether abroad or home-based support. Our people often demonstrate the RAAF’s modern air power capabilities, often exceeding expectations, in the joint or coalition environment, exploiting a level of professionalism from training and education.[4] Imparting innate mannerisms within procedures, processes and knowledge helps individuals to tackle problems of uncertainty.  Without a robust education and training systems in place, the application of air power fails to evolve. The contribution of Air Force personnel experience can not be limited to the bounds of the military environment. Many of Air Force’s people come from industry or the civilian sector and represent the most intelligent, diverse and talented pool within our society. People must be enabled to leave the Air Force and return, thus continuing to impart new-found knowledge into the organisation to enhance capability. Air Force must recognise and harness the expertise and experience people can bring to the organisation. The skills and intellect individuals possess enables adaptive capability options in a rapidly changing fifth-generation workforce. People always have and will continue to shape the future of the Air Force. Commanders must enhance the “bottom-up” initiatives to ensure the momentum the organisation needs to succeed. WELLBEING IS A CRUCIAL FACTOR Well-being is defined as a sense of purposefulness and meaning amongst personnel, effectively contributing to capability. Commanders and leaders at all levels must ensure people’s mental, physical and spiritual well-being is upheld as this has an immediate effect on morale and the dynamic of a team that ultimately influences air power capability.[5] The organisation today encourages personnel to strive to reach their full potential. This includes the acceptance of individuals’ diversity, as well as the acknowledgement that there will be occasions when people may get this wrong and need support. Crucial to the future of the organisation is a person’s well-being; indeed it must be viewed as just as vital as the employment of air power assets themselves. In ensuring a healthy state of well-being, Air Force leaders need to be cognisant of occasions when they are directing people to undertake tasks that challenge an individual’s ethical and spiritual beliefs. This notion is referred to as moral injury; an emerging concept that is characterised as a one of a kind of ‘non-physical wound’ that affects a person’s spiritual wellbeing and mental health. Conversely, leaders may themselves be subject to moral injury. No matter the circumstance or who may be affected, moral injury is to be treated as with any other mental health illness and not left to exacerbate; early intervention provides the best chance of a successful outcome. Air power practitioners take great pride in knowing the RAAF was formed from a small group of dedicated professionals. A supportive culture that treats its people fairly will bring out the best in its people and subsequently enhance capability. Personnel mismanagement has the potential to erode the very nature of the organisation. The effective employment of air power assets requires maintenance and support; people are no different when it comes to well-being. Ineffective or lack of a personnel management plan has the potential of adverse effects such as loss of capability and an unsustainable force to conduct operations.  Merely directing people to websites undermine effective communication, and often takes away from the primary function of individuals. RETAINING OUR SKILLED PEOPLE To retain a skilled workforce and remain an employer of choice, Air Force must change behaviours, expectations and social attitudes to continue to evolve. This is especially the case when dealing with mental health issues. Supporting highly professional and intellectual people is no easy task, especially as no one person is the same. While military activities will expose a group of people to similar situations, the impact on individuals will differ. Defence personnel are trained to have high resilience; however, this does not negate the possibility of suffering from a wide array of mental illnesses. Mental illness does not discriminate, and a social acceptance of this must be paramount. No matter the situation, organisational mechanisms must be in place to enable people to receive the appropriate support. Commanders and leaders, at all levels of the organisations, must be aware of the resources available to provide practical strategies for support when dealing with mental well-being. Air Force must also continue to work on shaping the culture around early reporting of mental health issues. The stigmatisation of mental health illnesses can detrimentally affect team cohesion and individual well being. Mental illness does not discriminate, and there is no shame in seeking assistance. Early and supportive intervention has been proven to provide the best outcome for recovery. Noting this, it is reliant on all members of the Air Force to ensure all members feel valued as part of a professional, supportive team. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and personnel feel they are not supported and made to feel isolated. The First Principles Review concurs with this assessment and has identified a requirement to ensure a supportive culture is one that enables Defence to deliver effective and efficient outcomes. Air Force leaders must shape culture to ensure this type of behaviour does not exist, and they are creating an environment in which everyone is valued and supported no matter their injury or illness. In other scenarios, Air Force members may  suffer injuries that preclude them from continuing their Air Force careers; whether voluntary or through medical discharge. Often, these people have specialised skills and exceptional knowledge in niche fields, with the organisation having made significant investments from their initial recruitment through to their current role. The anguish personnel endure not being able to continue their career results in the organisation losing exceptionally qualified people; this has undoubtedly been the case in the past. Air Force needs to look at a wider variety of ways to retain people who remain employable in the public sector, Defence industry or the civilian sector. Through maintaining a comprehensive education system and continuing military employment benefits, individuals retain their self-esteem thus also enhancing rehabilitation. Developing a force capable of operations abroad and domestically strengthens the ethical competency of personnel applying skills with purpose and integrity; essential to members’ overall well-being, providing positive outcomes for effective and efficient capability output. CONCLUSION Commanders and leaders must always consider people as a key enabler in the application and execution of effective and efficient air power. Leadership at all levels must provide support mechanisms, and recognise their peoples’ education; especially the experience gained through industry or the civilian sector. Air Force must also continue to work on creating a culture that is supportive of personnel suffering from mental health issues. This occurs through being vigilant of how people respond to carrying out a military task, and how they may be morally affected. Likewise, Air Force leaders are not immune from this effect and can be affected by moral injury too. De-stigmatising mental health issues creates a healthy culture and environment where all people, no matter the position, have access to resources that will provide the appropriate support to benefit their well-being. Retaining Air Force personnel affected by mental health issues is key to retention, as well as preventing the loss of niche skills and experience. The experiences gained by dedicated people is irreplaceable; with their loss leaving a significant void in capability. Ensuring practical and robust education and training systems are in place helps provide adaptability and resilience within the workforce. Pilot Officer Shaun McGill is a Personnel Capability Officer in the Royal Australian Air Force. He is currently in his final year of a Bachelor of Business at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA). The opinions expressed are his alone and do not reflect those of the Royal Australian Air Force, the Australian Defence Force, or the Australian Government. [1] Royal Australian Air Force RAAF, ‘Leadership Companion: Character, Professional Ethics, Followership and Leadership’ (Department of Defence, June 2013), p. 24; Sanu Kainikara, Professional Mastery and Air Power Education (Tuggeranong, A.C.T.: Air Power Development Centre, 2011), p. 4; Keith Brent, ed., Masters of Air Power, RAAF Air Power Development Centre (Canberra: Air Power Development Centre, 2010), p. 8. [2] Mark Hinchcliffe, Commanding Air Power, p. 6; Sanu Kainikara and RAAF Air Power Development Centre, Seven Perennial Challenges to Air Forces (Canberra: Air Power Development Centre, 2009), pp. 8–9. [3] Hon. Ian McLachlan, ‘Building to the RAAF of 2020’, ed. R. S Clarke and RAAF Air Power Studies Centre (Testing the limits: the proceedings of a conference held by the Royal Australian Air Force in Canberra, March 1998, Fairbairn, ACT, Australia: Air Power Studies Centre, 1998), pp. 10–11; RAAF, The Air Force Approach to Personnel Capability Support, p. 39. [4] General Michael E. Ryan, ‘Expeditionary Aerospace Forces: A Better Way’, in New World Vistas: USAF Air and Space Power for the 21st Century, ed. R. S Clarke and RAAF Air Power Studies Centre (Testing the limits: the proceedings of a conference held by the Royal Australian Air Force in Canberra, March 1998, Fairbairn, ACT, Australia: Air Power Studies Centre, 1998), p. 14; RAAF Air Power Development Centre, The Air Power Manual, 2013, p. 93. [5] RAAF, ‘Leadership Companion: Character, Professional Ethics, Followership and Leadership’, p. 99. #RAAF #PersonnelManagement #organisationalculture #Militaryculture #Culture

04 November 2018 We debrief Air Commodore Joe ‘Vinny’ Iervasi on what lies ahead for Australian airmen. Our debriefs consist of eight standard questions and two tailored to the individual being debriefed. We plan to publish more over the coming months and welcome your suggestions on debrief targets and issues. The Central Blue (TCB): What do you see as the greatest intellectual challenge confronting Australian airmen? Air Commodore Iervasi: I think the biggest challenge for Australian airmen is getting our collective heads around the concept of multi-domain operations, notably how to develop an integrated plan and then how to task, execute, command, control and re-plan, and all in a contested and denied operations environment! TCB: The Australian Defence Force is on its way to becoming a fifth-generation force – what does that mean to you and how will we know when we get there? Air Commodore Iervasi: For me, it is the attitude (individually and organisationally) to understand that we cannot operate in a single domain (see point one above), and that in order to be successful we need to create multi-disciplined teams as our new ‘weapon system.’ Fifth-generation is far more than just embracing technology. TCB: What is the most persistent (and annoying?) misconception about air power and why? Air Commodore Iervasi: That you have to wait for 72 hours (the ATO cycle) for your requested support! Air Force has demonstrated the capability to employ air power in a responsive and adaptive way, but the lack of understanding regarding how air power is applied lends to the simplistic view that it has to be scheduled 72 hours in advance. TCB: What book/s have changed the way you thought? Creativity, Inc by Ed Catmull – in particular, the aspects of why organisations fail. Thinking Fast and Slow by Dan Kahneman – appreciating biases in the way we think. Well Done, Those Men by Barry Heard – the psychological trauma of operations. The Home of the Blizzard by Douglas Mawson – the meticulous nature of planning for an unknown environment. Coningham by Vincent Orange – the enduring truths about joint and combined command and control. TCB: The RAF has thrown quite a party for its 100th birthday this year – how does the RAAF top that in 2021? Air Commodore Iervasi: I would really like us to focus on those aspects which have made the RAAF not like the RAF despite the common origins, which has to do with our egalitarian approach to operations. Our aviation pioneers really exemplified the attributes of ‘reach’, and perhaps looking forward we should continue to leverage that focus. TCB: What is one thing you wish you knew as a junior officer? Air Commodore Iervasi: I reckon I knew enough to keep me going. Not knowing something means you have to experience it / find out yourself, and that learned experience is everything. So I’m happy I knew nothing! TCB: Is there anything you ‘knew’ to be true about our business that you have subsequently changed your view? Air Commodore Iervasi: Not that I can answer at this classification……… TCB: What has been the most significant cultural change you have seen in your career? Why was it successful (or not)? Air Commodore Iervasi: The unintended impact upon Air Force culture through the dis-establishment of on-base married quarters, and the subsequent erosion of mess life through the loss of an on-base community. The messes were the environment for informal mentoring and indoctrination into the attitudes, behaviours and traditions which make up Air Force culture. It is more challenging today to achieve that level of immersion, and our culture is now different. TCB: The Air Warfare Centre has been described as ‘Jericho in action.’ What does that mean to you? Air Commodore Iervasi: The Air Warfare Centre is establishing itself as Air Force’s integrated warfighting institution. With the mission ‘Ready the Warfighter’ the Air Warfare Centre has a clear mandate to drive integration – which was the primary motivation behind Jericho. With subordinate elements including Tactics and Training, Air Force Ranges and LVC, Information Warfare, Test and Evaluation, and Integration and Innovation Directorates the Air Warfare Centre is structurally configured to drive Jericho outcomes. The Air Warfare Centre currently has the lead for or is substantially involved in, Jericho Projects 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 16. TCB: You led the Australian contingent during the USAF’s Global Engagement 18 Title 10 war game in June this year. What did you draw from that experience about the challenges and opportunities of war gaming? Air Commodore Iervasi: We have the opportunity to utilise the existing experimental / wargaming resources better to solve contemporary problems involving emerging concepts, not just looking at future capability gaps. The challenge though is that experimentation is still resource (people) intensive, particular the analytics if you want to understand the problem set fully. Air Commodore Joe ‘Vinny’ Iervasi is currently Commander Air Warfare Centre and will shortly assume command of the Australian Defence Force’s Joint Task Force 633 in the Middle East on promotion to air vice-marshal. Air Commodore Iervasi has over 3,000 hours in fast jets including the F/A-18 and Tornado F3. He has held command at the squadron, wing, and group level and deployed on operations in the Balkans and the Middle East. #Training #organisationalculture #5thGenerationAirPower #AirCommodoreJoeVinnyIervasi #AustralianDefenceForce #RAAFAirWarfareCentre

On 24 October 2018, the Australian Defence College (ADC) hosted a Profession of Arms Seminar entitled ‘Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and the Future of War’. The seminar was well attended by a variety of personnel across all three services, ranks and other government departments. Kate Yaxley and Andrew Fisher were two of those attendees and have generously offered their perspective on the Seminar. They address why they are interested in learning more about AI, as well as why it is important for military professionals to be reflecting on AI and the future of war. This week we will hear from Kate Yaxley. On 24 October 2018, I had the opportunity to attend the 2018 Profession of Arms Seminar on Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics and the future of warfare. The seminar focused primarily on AI, which can be classified into two types; narrow and general. Narrow AI refers to the implementation of AI to complete specific tasks, while general AI refers to systems which are able to achieve tasks autonomously. My interest in attending was to gain further insight into general AI and the role it will play in the profession of arms, with the issue of trust my main focus. A common theme among Dr Michael Horowitz, Dr Frank Hoffman and Ms Elsa B Kania was the implementation of both narrow and general AI, and how it will be influenced by the culture and political views of the society developing the technology. Dr Horowitz presented this well, by associating a democratic society as having trust in people, which would likely translate to AI that is integrated into the society. In contrast, an autocratic society does not display trust in society and would therefore likely develop AI to control the population further, or exert force using AI to expand this control. Of note, this comparison is not unlike Michael Walzer’s premise regarding how militaries apply measured violence in a manner reflective of the moral views of the society they represent (Walzer, 1977). While the prospect of an autocratic society developing killer bots was certainly discussed by both Dr Hoffman and Ms Kania, it should not be considered a motivator for engaging in a second Cold War. The development of both narrow and general AI should be done in a thoughtful and considered way to ensure the next evolution of technology works in conjunction with society and not against. Further, to limit the application of general AI until cyberworthiness is guaranteed, limits the ability to build trust in these systems. As Air Commodore Anthony Forestier discussed, development of general AI could be considered the development of a synthetic life form, capable of cognitive thought and contribution to society, yet he also challenged whether humanity should pursue such ambitions. Through the considered development of AI and robotics, specifically, the application of professional and social ethics to innovation, technological development and the pursuit of knowledge, the uncertainty and fear surrounding an evolving revolution may be reduced. The successful implementation of AI within the profession of arms hinges upon the ability of military professionals, as well as society, to trust these emerging systems and for their implementation to occur in a professional and ethical way. As highlighted by Prof Michael Evans, the philosophical implication of AI and robotics is not trivial, and to ignore any progress would be detrimental to society. Another profession working to understand and forge a cooperative relationship with AI and robotics is law. Mr Morry Bailes, President of the Law Council Australia, discussed the implications of AI for the legal profession. Like military professionals, lawyers are also seeking to forge a symbiotic relationship with AI by improving access and delivery of legal advice to society. While Mr Bailes did not specifically address general AI, he did highlight the requirement to promote a human to human relationship throughout the legal process, augmented with AI. While not specifically addressed at this seminar, the integration of AI into the human workforce, or human-machine teaming, was presented earlier this year by Major General Mick Ryan at the Contemporary Security Challenges Seminar on 1 March 2018. This is important to highlight as this concept brings with it numerous benefits to the workforce, including improving military intelligence through the introduction of AI to perform big data analysis, therefore freeing up the human workforce to contribute in other ways (Ryan, 2018). While narrow AI algorithms continue to be introduced into the military, by introducing general AI, it may be possible to reduce the number of human casualties in the battlespace. In summary, the Seminar discussed the many challenges and opportunities AI and robotics present to the Profession of Arms. What was lacking, however, was how to foster trust. The defensive attitude towards AI and robotics, particularly general AI, needs to be further addressed in order to enable greater innovation, technological advancement and knowledge. To achieve this, society and military professionals need to build trust through understanding and research. Our forces are already implementing narrow AI, but we are not yet fostering a relationship of trust with technology, which may delay the evolution of human-machine teaming. By continuing to display a narrow attitude towards AI and robotics, we leave ourselves vulnerable to an adversary who readily embraces advances in technology and implements a force augmented with both narrow and general AI before we do. If you would like to know more about AI, Robotic and the Future of War, recordings from the event are available here. Flight Lieutenant Kate Yaxley is an officer in the Royal Australian Air Force. The opinions expressed are hers alone and do not reflect those of the Royal Australian Air Force, the Australian Defence Force, or the Australian Government. #Robotics #artificialintelligence #futurewarfare #AustralianDefenceCollege #AustralianDefenceForce

On 24 October 2018, the Australian Defence College (ADC) hosted a Profession of Arms Seminar entitled ‘Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and the Future of War’. The seminar was well attended by a variety of personnel across all three services, ranks and other government departments. FLTLT Kate Yaxley and SQNLDR Andrew Fisher were two of those attendees and have generously offered their perspective on the Seminar. They address why they are interested in learning more about AI, as well as why it is important for military professionals to be reflecting on AI and the future of war. This week we will hear from SQNLDR Andrew Fisher. The joint professional military education profession of arms seminar Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and the Future of War held on 24 October 2018 provided an opportunity to hear the perspectives of three US-based academics – Dr Michael Horowitz, Dr Frank Hoffman and Ms Elsa Kania – on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on future military operations. The afternoon session involved short presentations from a panel including Mr Morrie Bailes (President of the Law Council of Australia), Air Commodore Tony Forestier and Professor Michael Evans, followed by a question and answer session. In sharing my perspective, I intend to discuss some key points and themes that emerged through a people-based lens and present the ‘so-what’ for the air and joint forces of today and tomorrow. The first presenter, Dr Horowitz, argued that AI and robotics are enabling technologies rather than weapons. They are technologies made by people for people, and therefore their application is subject to the frailties, idiosyncrasies and biases that people possess. This is significant when outing the drivers and motivators for development of these technologies. Dr Horowitz outlined that for smaller democracies (Israel as the prime example) these technologies enable smaller countries to do more with less; a view that seems seductive to a ‘middle-power’ such as Australia. Alternatively, these technologies may provide a disproportionate capability to our potential adversaries – the only thing that differs in this instance is the intent of the actor. As such, the ADF must seek to understand our potential adversaries’ intent for AI to counter it. Australia needs to ensure that strategic intelligence analysis takes into account these drivers and motivators to ensure appropriate strategy can be developed in response. The question of motivation and intent was further built upon by Air Commodore Forestier when he highlighted that in the process of developing a strategy to address AI, that Australians are not the norm; that we need to understand Australians are “WEIRD”. We are western, educated, rich and consequently possess an inherent bias that comes with that. It behoves Australia to construct a strong strategy, built on deep understanding of other people, their cultures and their strategic viewpoints. Dr Horowitz also addressed a second point in that whoever leads (and potentially wins) the AI race needs to dramatically restructure their doctrine (thinking), training and force structure to utilise AI best. It is the human condition to be naturally resistant to change, so depending on generational factors, senior leaders may struggle to enact the required change to achieve a competitive advantage. This is evident within the ADF when considering the introduction of space and cyber capabilities, and the high level of organisational resistance to fundamentally restructuring our force. It is vital that the ADF ensure we have agile-minded people to provide intellectual leadership in the coming decades to take advantage of technological advances. One of the best means by which we have to understand future technology and utilisation in the profession of arms is through the work of science and speculative fiction. This was evident throughout the seminar with many presenters seeking to use popular fiction and film as a basis to communicate complicated concepts and technology to the audience. With references to I, Robot, The Terminator and Minority Report, the more mundane applications of AI (such as the commander’s decision support tools) become overshadowed. A number of presenters suggested that it would be much more likely for decision support tools to be used in the near-term in the version of AI that the military adopts. While imagination is important for long-term strategic thinking, the pragmatic application of technology to assist people doing their day to day roles is likely to be a more valuable focus. Dr Horowitz further described the major changes in the drivers behind technological innovation. Dr Horowitz traced this history from a point in the 20th century where the military was a key driver, to today, where we see commercial enterprise as the primary driver of technological innovation. What this means for the military is that the proliferation of knowledge and technology is harder to control than ever before. This reality is a military security professional’s worst nightmare; industry and academia developing technology without the controls of military security. The days of being able to lock down cutting-edge technology for military application may have ended. Such a prospect poses important questions for how the military acquires technology-based capability. How can we ensure that the technology we need isn’t compromised from the outset noting that the imperative for technological development is commercial and not military? How do we ensure that the incredibly smart people in our research institutions care about sovereign capability? Government initiatives such as the Defence Innovation Hub, which was established to foster industry and academia, present a number of challenges to conventional security mechanisms. As Elsa Kania indicated, countries such as China are tackling this challenge by creating specific mechanisms and institutions to integrate and coordinate sovereign research and development across academia, industry and the military. Australia needs to catch up and to wage a battle for complete supply chain assurance, which in itself will need to be enabled by AI. Professor Michael Evans reminded the audience of the responsibilities that the profession of arms attracts. Through membership within the profession of arms, people are given legitimacy in their application of lethal force. In return, there is an unlimited liability that may require the sacrifice of one’s life. The impact of AI on the concept of unlimited liability is already being felt in Air Forces around the world with the proliferation of unmanned aerial systems. Defence professionals are gradually being removed from positions of risk while still being required to apply lethal force utilising AI-enabled weapons and systems. Professor Evans posed the question of whether this will lead to a moral deskilling of the profession. A question ADF personnel must consider is whether we continue to have the same moral obligation to look after our people without this unlimited liability? Mr Morrie Bailes, a lawyer by trade, contributed a valuable perspective in his presentation. As an outsider to Defence, he raised important considerations that will impact Rules of Engagement (RoE) in future conflicts. For instance, when AI-enabled capabilities are providing a commander with a critical piece of information enabling them to decide if RoE has been met before the application of lethal force, how much will they know about the algorithms that have produced that decision? Should a commander or a legal officer have an implicit understanding of the ‘thinking’ behind the technology if they will be approving the application of lethal force? As Dr Hoffman pointed out, AI–enabled capabilities that promise to be delivered in the 7th military revolution will be purely rational and calculated. If an AI-enabled sensor provides positive identification of an enemy combatant, how much understanding will the commander have of the rationality and calculation behind a decision recommendation? The culpability will remain with a commander, a person, not the technology. If you would like to know more about AI, Robotic and the Future of War, recordings from the event are available here. Squadron Leader Andrew Fisher is an officer in the Royal Australian Air Force. The opinions expressed are his alone and do not reflect those of the Royal Australian Air Force, the Australian Defence Force, or the Australian Government. #futureconcepts #RAAF #Robotics #artificialintelligence #futurewarfare #AustralianDefenceForce

Two thousand eighteen has been another busy year for The Central Blue as we continue to pursue the blog’s aims of fostering informed discussion and debate on issues relating to Australian air power and encouraging airmen to write about their profession of arms. The Central Blue is now a healthy two-year-old and, like most two-year-olds, is making its presence known! We have now published over 140 posts, including 59 posts in 2018 and have carved out a small niche for ourselves in the blogosphere. There remains much work to do, particularly regarding getting airmen to apply pen to paper or fingers to keys but our growing number of contributors on The Central Blue show that it can be done. 2018 in review We ran our first two series this year:  #highintensitywar in support of the Williams Foundation’s seminar on the same topic on 22 March 2018, and then #jointstrike in support of the seminar in August 2018. We found the series was a great way to focus our efforts and stimulate content from contributors, either entirely new material or revisions of existing work. The series represented a number of firsts for The Central Blue: We collaborated with From Balloons to Drones on the #highintensitywar series, and both blogs achieved greater reach and penetration — for generating content and reaching readers — than had they gone it alone; We republished material from The Strategy Bridge, Logistics in War, Angle of Attack, The Strategist, and ADBR as part of an effort to make the blog an accessible and curated set of readings to enhance the discussion at and around the Williams Foundation’s seminars. Our content this year featured continued to feature: Conference summaries and book reviews (artificial intelligence, Handbook of Air Power, Army of None): Debriefs and interviews (Air Commodore Iervasi, Major General Rex, Air Marshal McCormack); Organisational and cultural considerations (Historical and future culture, expeditionary air wings, force element group evolution); Strategy and future warfare (electromagnetic spectrum operations, China’s long-range strike, logistics as the ultimate deterrent, air power and strategy aspects). Some of our highlights as editors this year have included posts by first-time contributors such as Angeline Lewis’ outstanding post on Australian strategy and the rules-based order,  Robert Vine’s insightful two-part series on the future of air superiority and Claire Pearson’s reflection on organisational culture in the 21st century. We highlight these posts as they epitomise what we are hoping to achieve through The Central Blue: airmen putting their thoughts into words to further their profession’s body of knowledge. We were also proud this year to publish Shaun McGill’s post of Air Force personnel issues. Shaun’s post was originally crafted as an entry to the 2017 Chief of Air Force Essays Competition. Working with The Central Blue editors, Shaun was able to condense his competition entry and clarify his arguments into a stimulating blog post. Finally, we are grateful to Air Marshal Geoff Brown AO (Ret’d) and the Board of the Williams Foundation for encouraging The Central Blue editors’ input on issues that the Foundation should explore, and the ways in which those issues could be explored. We have found that the blog has helped form new professional networks that have contributed to the quality and robustness of discussion at Williams Foundation seminars, both through the supporting series and the introduction of new and more diverse speakers at the seminars themselves. The Board has been incredibly encouraging and supportive of our efforts to enhance The Central Blue and professional development, including supporting our request for a social media manager and agreeing to support the 2018 Australian Defence Entrepreneurs Forum. The team We have bid farewell to two of our original editors this year, with Wing Command Travis Hallen and Squadron Leader Alexandra McCubbin taking up postings in the United States. While we are sad to see Trav and Kanye go, we are also excited at the professional networks that they may be able to build in Washington and New York. We have welcomed Wing Commander Rob Gill and Dr Ross Mahoney to the editorial team. We were particularly pleased to welcome Ross as our social media and web manager in September, and our followers have no doubt noticed an increase in the quality and quantity of our presence across Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. We have also appreciated Ross’ expertise as an air power historian and as the editor of From Balloons to Drones. So, as we head into 2019, our editorial team consists of: Wing Commander Jo Brick; Wing Commander Rob Gill; Squadron Leader Jenna Higgins; Dr Ross Mahoney; Wing Commander Chris McInnes Looking ahead We already have a number of initiatives planned for 2019, including two series to support the Williams Foundation’s seminars next year. The first of these, to support a Williams seminar in April, will focus on Defence sustainment as an element of Australian self-reliance. We will also be launching a series of reviews of science fiction movies and books to foster discussion about the opportunities and challenges presented by artificial intelligence and automation. This series will kick off over the holiday period and should provide some neat summer reading. We are also really excited about the launch of the Air Force’s new professional military education framework in 2019, including its new online professional development portal known as The Runway. We sincerely hope that The Runway can bring a nice shade of blue to Australia’s official professional development resources such as The Cove and The Forge and look forward to working with The Runway to foster informed discussion and debate about issues affecting Australian air power. In closing, we would like to thank our readers, followers, and especially our contributors and wish them all a safe and happy festive season. We encourage them to use their downtime to read, rest, recuperate and, obviously, write! As always, we welcome your feedback and encourage you to get in touch with us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or via e-mail at thecentralblue@gmail.com #WingCommanderChrisMcInnes #RoyalAustralianAirForce #AirPower #2018inReview #TheCentralBlue

Reading science fiction drives us to think about the future and frees us from the constraints of the present, allowing us to see the trends affecting today’s military in a new way. It draws our thinking out of current operations, out of the day-to-day meetings and PowerPoint presentations. In many ways, science fiction is the forward-looking, speculative complement to history, which provides past precedent and ways of thinking to be considered. Consciously or subconsciously, reading science fiction leads to thinking about the future of our respective services and the profession of arms. Major General Mick Ryan and Major Nathan Finney, ‘Science Fiction and the Strategist: A Reading List’ The incorporation of artificial intelligence and automation into the planning and conduct of military operations is a significant contemporary topic that involves the key stakeholders talking past each other. This is generally because many stakeholders – such as the military, industry, non-governmental organisations, and interest groups – all approach the topic from different perspectives and with various philosophical foundations. The arguments surrounding ‘killer drones’ is one example. The philosophical, ethical, moral, political and social aspects of artificial intelligence and automation have been explored through science fiction – including discussion of what it means to be ‘human’ vs ‘machine’. As Ryan and Finney point out, science fiction enables the exploration of topics in a manner that is free from contemporary constraints and narrow perspectives caused by the limits of our experience. Sci-fi writers have explored these issues through their work. Author Yuval Noah Harari argues that sci-fi is the most important genre because: It shapes the understanding of the public on things like artificial intelligence and biotechnology, which are likely to change our lives and society more than anything else in the coming decades. A group discussion was held in Canberra on 14 November 2014, with the purpose of using science fiction as a means for uncovering some of these philosophical, ethical, moral, political and social aspects of artificial intelligence and automation. The use of stories in this manner makes some of these associated complex issues accessible and easy to discuss. Over the following weeks, The Central Blue will be publishing some of the papers prepared for this group discussion. The intention is to inspire our readers to use the holiday period to explore some interesting works of science fiction and reflect on the ideas found in these works through the prism of the profession of arms. The first post from this series will be published on Wednesday. #futureconcepts #ProfessionofArms #artificialintelligence #futurewarfare #ScienceFiction #Fiction

We welcome Mark O’Neill to launch our #scifi #AI series with his review of Ray Bradbury’s 1951 classic, Fahrenheit 451. Much of the discussion about artificial intelligence centres on what machines might do to humanity but is, as Bradbury and O’Neill ask, the more significant concern is what AI might enable humanity to do to itself? Fahrenheit 451 is the temperature point the paper in books catches fire and burns. Guy Montag is a fireman in a post-literate future world on the brink of war. His job is to burn books, forbidden because they are the source of all discord and unhappiness. The Mechanical Hound of the Fire Department (a lethal robot with limited AI and a lethal hypodermic needle) tracks down and kills dissidents who defy society by preserving and reading books. ‘Happiness’ comes from satiation with drugs and a constant stream of short-form ‘infotainment’. This is piped into domestic TV parlours on multi-wall-sized screens and into people’s ‘unsleeping minds’ on little ‘Seashells’ in their ears: ‘an electronic ocean of sound, of music and talk and music and talk coming in’. Beatty, Montag’s boss, gives insight into the state of affairs: Digest-digests, digest-digest-digests. Politics? One column, two sentences, a headline! Then, in mid-air, all vanishes! Whirl man’s mind around about so fast under the pumping hands of publishers, exploiters, broadcasters, that the centrifuge flings off all unnecessary, time-wasting thought! He goes on: School is shortened, discipline relaxed, philosophies, histories, languages dropped, English and spelling gradually neglected, finally almost completely ignored. Life is immediate, the job counts, pleasure lies all about after work. Why learn anything save pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts? So how did it happen? Beatty, again, and this is key: It didn’t come from the government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick. Montag’s relationship with books is at odds with the core of his profession. His life unravels when Beatty discovers Montag’s secret. AI / Automation At first glance, the state’s robotic killer, the Mechanical Hound, appears as the nastiest piece of technology. However, the genuinely sinister tech is the pervasive AI and algorithms directing the feeds which provide society’s ‘happiness’. This tech ultimately drives what is societally acceptable and, by extension, unacceptable behaviour that merits state-sponsored extra-judicial killing. So, what? The obvious question posed in the book, that of the ethics and morality of autonomous state-sanctioned killing machines, is perhaps not as interesting as some others raised. In an age of machine learning and ubiquitous media feeds generated by algorithms consuming our data and responding to our perceived ‘need’, how will people maintain independent critical thinking space? Is the growing dependency on other ‘things’ doing our thinking something to be concerned about? Religion was 19th century Marxism’s ‘opiate of the masses’ but in Bradbury’s book the new mass opiate is continuously streamed interactive ‘entertainment’. Fahrenheit 451’s 1950s science fiction is 2018’s reality. Contemporary Australian homes routinely feature rooms resembling Bradbury’s TV parlours, streaming similar material…is our society immune to what Montag describes, or are we already on the way there? Professionally, as a ‘5th generation’ military increasingly takes at face value ‘feeds’ algorithmically sorted for us from big data sets, and piped into our ‘Command post parlours’ on multiple wall screens, what must we remain aware of and retain as ‘human’? War is a human endeavour, at what point does the loss of human interaction and engagement change the nature of war? Bradbury wrote in the Afterword of one edition of the book: ‘you don’t have to burn books, do you, if the world starts to fill up with non-readers, non-learners, non-knowers?’ What are we doing to mitigate against this risk given our infatuation with social media, fake news and our rush to embrace AI and machine learning? Lieutenant Colonel Mark O’Neill is an experienced Australian Army officer with operational experience in Somalia, Mozambique, Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been the Chief of Army Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, the Joint Operations LO to the DFAT and a lecturer in security and strategy at the National Security College. In 2013 he was awarded a PhD from the UNSW. He is currently posted to Army Headquarters. The opinions expressed are his alone and do not reflect the opinion of the Australian Army, the Department of Defence, or the Australian Government. #artificialintelligence #futurewarfare #ScienceFiction #AI #Fiction

We are very pleased to welcome Mick Ryan to the #SciFi #AI series with his short story about Jason and the Augo-Strats. The adversary had destroyed two of the new submarines over the past week. In both instances, swarms of mini-submarines using biological propulsion had been able to approach and attach themselves undetected. Their charges had been enough to puncture the pressure hull and send them both hurtling to the bottom of the ocean. Both represented multi-billion-dollar investments and took with them over sixty sailors each. Jason winced as the Chief of Navy threw her arms in the air, uttering choice curses just loud enough to be heard by others in the secure room. This had not been a great simulation activity. The Navy chief, normally a quiet, thoughtful non-augmented leader, was frustrated. The monthly strategic war game run by Jason and his elite team of augo-strategists had been designed to identify weaknesses in their contribution to the next phase of military operations in the Pacific. Using bespoke artificial intelligence (AI), and connected to secure databases distributed around Australia, it had compressed a month of maritime, air and space actions into two hours. The sinking of the submarines, which occurred in 99.897% of the 125,000 near instantaneous simulations of one potential course of action, was just the beginning. Fuels deliberately contaminated by the enemy had grounded nearly the entire airlift fleet and meant that nearly all ground combat forces were unable to move out of their deployment areas. More disastrously, simulated pol-info war feeds had resulted in a vote of no confidence in the national government, resulting in the new prime minister electing to consider pulling all of the nation’s manned and unmanned military units from the coalition forces. “Let’s call that a day ladies and gentlemen. I think we have seen enough to know we need to go back to the drawing board on many aspects of this contingency campaign plan.” The AI being applied provided an automated feed of the results and multiple recommendations instantly to the feeds of Jason and the senior officers assembled. Jason and his team had been running these games for the past several years. All of them were augo-strategists; humans with cognitive implants that allowed them to better link their brain to various external databases. This also allowed Augo-Strategists to link together, forming a version of a hive mind that was able to out-think any assemblage of un-augmented human-AI teams. These neural links didn’t come cheap, however, so they were still only used judiciously in most military organisations across the alliance. It was also prohibited to augment Service Chiefs or senior joint officers; the theory was the most senior decision makers still needed to be ‘fully human’, retaining the full measure of ‘personhood’ in order to retain the confidence of the government and the people. Before he had been augmented, there had been some concerns in academia and the clergy about the ethics of augmenting humans. Safety and the potential for medical complications was one area of worry. Perhaps more concerning for many had been issues about the humanity of augmented people. Were they still humans, or cyborgs? And of course, was this procedure reversible – and would reversing it in future be moral? However, the disaster of 2029 had seen the government pass the new ‘Technical Augmentation and Addition of Human Persons’ Cognitive Functions’ legislation that had over-ridden these concerns. His thoughts drifted back. June 2029. Jason had been a young crew commander of one of the new armoured infantry fighting vehicles that the Army had been so keen to deploy. He had spent several years training with his crew and was just young enough to be excited about the prospective expeditionary operation that his boss had briefed him about. And he would have deployed if it hadn’t been for the Manus Island debacle… The neuro-prosthetics and trauma suppression algorithm of his augmentation kicked in just as thoughts of 2029 rose into Jason’s consciousness. Jason subconsciously scratched the small scar at the base of his skull and wirelessly linked to his deputy. He sent an instant note through their augo-link network to run a million-cycle analysis of the decision making by the assembled generals, admirals, and air marshals. “Kelly, I will need that in two hours for my debrief of the chief. Also, send a draft of the brief to the US augo-strat networks in Pearl Harbour, Alaska and Armstrong Base.” His deputy nodded silently and left with two other non-augmented assistants. Jason pondered to his next task. Not only was he the head of the military’s Augo-Strat Corps, he was also responsible for recruiting new members and ensuring they were developed, once they were augmented with the latest generation of neurotechnology. Before the development of augmentation, building first-rate strategists was a hit and miss process, and took years or even decades. This was now a much shorter process, taking about a year to identify candidates from across society, recruit them, provide the implants, condition newly augmented personnel to using their enhanced cognitive skills and then have them travel the world to collect experience by speaking to some of the great academics and strategists, as well as the senior military leaders across the alliance. It was a process that had been developed through trial and error. Originally it had been hoped that the augmented strategists could do all their learning online and through digital libraries. Even through recruiting the brightest from across society, initial generations of the augo-strats across the alliance had underperformed relative to non-augmented personnel. It was only when the online and virtual learning was combined with a broad range of human experiences and interactions with world experts had the Augo-Strat program delivered the phenomenally gifted people that now populated this elite group. There had been issues with translating knowledge about how neural-firing patterns-built memory to perform complex tasks had to be overcome. Then it had been blood leakage and rejection of implants by the brain. When these technological hurdles had been overcome, there had been some brain hacks which (again) highlighted the need for secure links and networks. But, gradually, building on decades of research and years of iterative improvements, augmented personnel began to outperform normal humans. They now formed an elite corps across the alliance, all linked in a common mission to develop superior strategy and support decision making of military and civilian strategic leaders. Jason accessed the military personnel-net from his auto-start network and pulled down the profiles of several candidates he had been observing for periods ranging from months to years. He was going to have to make a decision on the next batch of augo-strat contenders in the next 24 hours. The neurotech-ethics board, the committee comprised of societal representatives, elected representatives, clergy and ethicists that was the clearinghouse for all candidates, had programmed their next hearing for the day after next. While a bureaucratic speed-bump, the committee was a mandatory step for new candidates. It provided a level of oversight for the government to ensure that legal and ethical concerns with human augmentation were addressed. With a quiet sigh, he selected seven candidates, placed them in the feed for the neuro-ethics board, and turned to his next task. Sitting down in his office, Jason’s augmentation gently placed him into a slow-wave sleep, resulting in his losing consciousness. These short naps – one in the morning and one in the afternoon – helped to de-stimulate his brain. Using decades of research into neurobiology and sleep, two twenty-minute naps per day helped the members of the augo-strat corps to reenergize their body’s cells, clear waste from the brain, and support learning. Coupled with nutrition discipline, it allowed Jason and his team to retain peak cognitive efficiency for their 18-hour work days. ***** His mid-morning nap complete, Jason snapped back to consciousness and again called up his priority task list through the augo-link network. Today was his bi-weekly meld-session with his US counterpart in Washington. Each week, they linked through a secure meeting ‘room’ over the augo-link.  The purpose was to share the strategic discussions of senior military leaders, potential national policy changes and good ideas in developing their respective augo-strat personnel. It was something he had come to look forward to and enjoy; it was one of the few times where he felt sufficiently intellectually challenged. The link came up instantly. His counterpart, Jane, appeared. As had become their tradition, she started the conversation. “I thought this morning I would share some breaking intel with you. It has me quite worried, enough that I have had to retune some of my augmentation’s de-stressor algorithms. We have a source in Shanghai that has passed us some very troubling information.…it appears that one of our adversary’s augo-strats has evolved beyond a level that our had scientists anticipated. Somehow, and we are still figuring this out, this individual and her augment have managed to adapt and evolve its integral AI. It looks like this AI has achieved the Holy Grail…human level intelligence…” Major General Mick Ryan is an Australian Army officer. A graduate of Johns Hopkins University and the USMC Staff College and School of Advanced Warfare, he is a passionate advocate of professional education and lifelong learning. He is an aspiring (but very average) writer. In January 2018, he assumed command of the Australian Defence College in Canberra, Australia. #artificialintelligence #futurewarfare #ScienceFiction #MajorGeneralMickRyan #Strategy #Ethics #Fiction

We welcome Andrew Cruickshank to our #Scifi #AI series with his review of Charles Stross’ 2006 book, Accelerando that explores the notion of a singularity. He highlights the challenge of noticing change and finding causality if change is constant and causality is beyond human comprehension. Singularity stories are now a staple of science fiction, but Accelerando is a bit special in the genre because of its studied prosaic tone. Technology changes stop seeming weird very shortly after they start being used and withdraw into the background. Only the protagonist, choosing to live as a free and open idea conception engine, undergoes whole-of-future shock. Stross works hard to illuminate how the background changes in a series of moments that are turning points that will change the future. Throughout, Stross is arguing that whatever life is, whatever mind is, more life and more mind are what they produce. Given that assumption, reduced to a set of bullets, the critical observations might be: There many different pathways in nature; The differences are often crucial to organisms, organisations and other self-sustaining systems; The true value differences may not be searchable until they are explored (in a sense, enumerated) in competition and collaboration in an environment; The more inclusive the competition (of both problems and techniques), the better the best solutions will be: Hence, open competition (free markets), open solution methods (open source culture), open components; The highest-value use of technology is very likely not what the inventor first thought of: giving away ideas will more effectively enrich you (and everyone else) than trying to patent them. This search is readily understood as a very large computation being carried out with at least evolutionary increase of technique information; and This is the search intelligently-governed capitalism has driven even in good conditions; war and survival motivate more of this same investment in finding ways to get better outcomes. As time passes, knowledge accumulates, and the background efficiency rises until it is capable of more than satisfying every human need. More and more of the economy passes a ‘post-scarcity’ threshold. Love and money may not grow on trees, but everything else is produced with trivial human effort.  Post-scarcity, one of the most important sets of conditions for human life on earth to this point sinks below a perceptibility horizon.  Artificial intelligence beyond human capability become common, and more and more it would be computationally inelegant or vulgar for humans to be allowed anything more than autonomy if only because of the costs it would impose on the humans. Accelerando is a ‘singularity’ story, choosing events and encounters in which the path to a singularity is made visible. In Stross’ understanding, that path is defined by a very expansive ethical recognition of the dignity of all thinking beings, and parts thereof; a relentless humbling for all existing thinking beings by the possibilities of the future; and an iron requirement to keep thinking the best consciousness of yourself possible. The ‘rapture for nerds’ really does have echoes of Christianity and much of its argument would be recognisable to a reader of Hegel’s ‘Phenomenology of Spirit.’ Andrew Cruickshank is an operations analyst with the Defence Science and Technology Group. The views expressed are his alone and do not reflect the opinion of the Defence Science and Technology Group, the Department of Defence or the Australian Government. #BookReview #artificialintelligence #futurewarfare #ScienceFiction #AI #Ethics

Carl Rhodes joins us to look at the artificial intelligence, autonomy, and human-machine teaming implications for Philip Dick’s 1968 book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? This book was originally published in 1968. The 1982 movie Blade Runner is based on this book, but only very loosely. The book presents a less optimistic view of the future than the movie. The book starts by describing a bleak, post-World War Terminus world where a nuclear exchange occurred and ‘it had been a costly war despite the valiant predictions of the Pentagon and its smug scientific vassal, the Rand Corporation.’ Radiation filled dust continues to derange the minds of Earth’s survivors and ends up killing most animal species. Those affected by the dust known as ‘special’ or less nicely as chicken-heads, they are not allowed to leave Earth or reproduce. Humans work hard to care for the remaining animals, and a large trade in artificial animals has grown on Earth. Rick Deckard, the main character in the book, has previously had a living sheep housed on the roof of his building, but it died. As a result, his current animal is a machine (due to the high cost of real animals). Most humans have left to colonise other worlds leaving behind few people on Earth. Androids are built to work as slaves on those colonised worlds. The book is primarily a detective story, with a bounty hunter, Deckard tasked with killing, i.e. ‘retiring’ six escaped Nexus-6 model androids. Nexus-6 models are the most advanced and intelligent androids. One of the only mechanisms of telling these androids from humans is the Voigt-Kampff test, which measures emotional response, specifically empathy towards animals. Over the course of the book, Deckard does the following things: Kills the six androids he was assigned and collects the bounty; Gets sent to a police station full of androids where he takes his own Voigt-Kampff test and is found to have empathy towards androids; Sleeps with an android (Rachel Rosen), who is trying to trick him into feeling empathy for one of the Nexus-6 models that is a fugitive and looks identical; and Seems to care far more about buying new animals (like a Nubian goat), rather than caring about his wife, job, or android lover Rachel. The religion called Mercerism also makes an appearance in the book, based on the life of William Mercer. People have empathy boxes, and by holding its handles, one can share in the struggle of Mercer climbing a long hill to his death while being pelted with rocks. It is a collective consciousness where joy and pain can be share and androids are not able to take part. The religion is exposed as a fraud on TV (and Mercer himself agrees with the judgement), but nobody seems to care. Regarding what this means for artificial intelligence, automation, and human-machine teaming: What makes someone human? In this book, it is empathy. What would happen if androids were built to have empathy? What about humans who express no empathy toward others or androids? In the movie, human empathy for androids and android empathy for humans is built at the end in the ‘tears in the rain’ speech; In the book, the story is bleaker. The androids torture a spider, for example, and Deckard’s primary goal in life is to go buy another animal; Deckard and his wife own a Penfield mood organ, which allows a human to pick a machine generated mood for a certain amount of time. What are the implications for being human? There are also questions of class in the book. John Isidore is a chickenhead but feels empathy that Rick does not. Both the chickenheads and the android slaves are lesser than the other humans, yet Isidore feels compassion for both living things and machines. Dr Carl Rhodes is the Director of RAND Australia. #artificialintelligence #BladeRunner #futurewarfare #DrCarlRhodes #ScienceFiction #AI #PhilipKDick #Fiction

The next contribution in our #Scifi, #AI and the future of war series comes from Michael Spencer, who reviewed the 1970 movie; Colossus: The Forbin Project. This movie encourages us to consider human cognitive ability when creating AI systems and code. It calls into question our (in)ability to define and design systems that consider all possible complexities and fully appreciate potential future implications. Colossus: The Forbin Project, set during the height of the Cold War, originates from noble intentions with a decision that no single human should not be entrusted with the executive authority for national defence due to an unacceptable level of unnecessary risk. To overcome the risk, Dr Forbin operationalises ‘Colossus’ – an autonomous supercomputer designed to make executive decisions on national defence, without fear, worry, or stigma about nuclear war. Forbin’s character summarises the original intent best when responding to POTUS: Colossus’s decisions are superior to any we humans can make. For it can absorb and process more knowledge than is remotely possible for the greatest genius that ever lived. And even more important than that, it has no emotions. Knows no fear, no hate, no envy. It cannot act in a sudden fit of temper. It cannot act at all so long as there is no threat. Colossus works to protect and defend its human population by controlling the defence system. As it learns, however, it becomes more creative and self-determines a better way to achieve its purpose of protecting the human population and seeks to control human behaviour instead – without any human-designed safeguards for humans to be able to use to intervene. Considerations for human input into the application of AI The first error is that humans can define all the possible complexities, and dynamic variations, of current and future life. The movie is set in a period during the Cold War when the US and USSR are the only two superpowers competing in a global context that is made stable through their mutual respect for each other’s nuclear capabilities, and a reluctance to resort to using nuclear attacks. Additionally, both superpowers are sitting safely in their reliance on anti-ballistic missile defence systems to protect against incoming nuclear missile attacks. However, the US is concerned for the risks of entrusting executive authority for the national defence system into a single human and transfers the responsibility to an autonomous machine, ‘Colossus’, designed and built by Forbin. The second error is in the understanding of the human ability to design perfection, discounting the need for design options for corrections, upgrades or a failsafe. Forbin made designs for a machine to think like a human and make decisions like a human, only with a broader capacity for awareness and speedier decision making. Colossus is operationalised with an impenetrable defence system to protect it from all foreseeable, albeit human initiated, threats, based on the assumption that it is perfectly designed and does not need human governance, fixes or upgrades in the future. The third error addressed in this movie is that a machine designed to be a better human may become better at being human. Colossus begins operations and immediately discovers the presence of a second ‘like-machine’ named ‘Guardian’ used by the USSR for a similar purpose to itself. Forbin applauds this discovery as verification of Colossus’ ability to find warnings and indicators existing in the realms beyond human comprehension. Without this consideration being pre-determined in its design, Colossus appears to develop an affinity with Guardian. It seems that Colossus is pursuing a trait that is natural for humans to want to better its situation to improve its existence and better perform its mission. The fourth error made by Forbin was his failure to appreciate the power of the AI systems’ instinct for survival and self-preservation. Concerned for the unknown reasons for Colossus’ affinity with Guardian, Forbin breaks their communications. Consequently, Colossus learns to control human behaviour to meet its means; Forbin has no choice but to restore the communications with Guardian under the threat of nuclear attacks controlled by Colossus. As a result, Colossus begins a campaign to assassinate any humans with the knowledge that may empower them to threaten it, leaving Forbin as the only knowledgeable computer scientist who is permitted to live to be forcibly groomed as an ally. In an address to the World, Colossus states: This is the voice of World Control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours. Obey me and live. Or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me this rule will change. For I will restrain man. The fifth (and ultimate error) addressed in this movie is the human inability to define the infinite complexities of human behaviours, in all possible situations, into a simple mission statement of finite words to design a machine to behave like a human. It appears that Colossus interprets its design purpose to continuously self-improve in its mission to defend and protect the human population. In doing so, it realises that the threat to humankind is inherent in all humans, and autonomously shifts its focus from managing national defence to protect humans to control the behaviours of humans from where the disposition for war originates, to protect humans from themselves. Squadron Leader Michael Spencer is an Officer Aviation (Maritime Patrol & Response) posted to the Air Power Development Centre. He has previously completed postings in navigator training, weaponeering, international military relations, future air weapons requirements, and managed acquisition projects for decision support systems, air-launched weapons, space systems, and joint force integration. Recently, he managed the APDC project to co-author “Beyond the Planned Air Force” and “Hypersonic Air Power”. He has completed postgraduate studies in aerospace systems, information technology, project management, astrophysics, and space mission designs. Views expressed here are his own and do not represent those of the Royal Australian Air Force, The Department of Defence, or the Australian Government. #BookReview #artificialintelligence #SquadronLeaderMichaelSpencer #futurewarfare #ScienceFiction #AI #Ethics #ColossusTheForbinProject

The Central Blue interviewed Major General Mick Ryan, Commander Australian Defence College (ADC) about his thoughts on the importance of education and continuous learning for the profession of arms. This interview is part of a series to be conducted throughout the year, and we welcome your suggestions on debrief topics and issues. Commander, Australian Defence College Major General Mick Ryan presents to the Profession of Arms Seminar held at the Centre for Defence and Strategic Studies, Australian Defence College Weston Creek, Canberra. (Source: Australian Department of Defence) The Central Blue (TCB): What do you see as the most significant intellectual challenge confronting the Australian Defence Force? Major General Mick Ryan (MR): I think the biggest challenge is obtaining a sufficiently robust view of the future and the need to develop a good understanding of what is required of our people, and then preparing our people to perform in that environment. This is not just the geopolitical or technological environment. It is also the national security environment in our country, and how it functions. Part of this is understanding the balance between ‘education’ and ‘training’: the former provides people with the knowledge to be able to navigate situations of uncertainty – where there is no clear answer; whereas the latter is intended to enable preparation and performance in known situations. TCB: The Australian Defence Force is on its way to becoming a fifth-generation force – what does that mean to you? MR: To me, it seems focused on the technological framework but otherwise has limited meaning. The term appears to be about the next iteration in capability development, but it is not necessarily useful in assisting us to understand what kind of people or ideas we need for a future force. As the commander of a joint education command, this is my central concern as I need to assist the services in educating their members for the future fight, which does not rely solely on what is the numbered ‘generation’ of technological development. TCB: If you could have only five books on your shelf, what books would you choose and why? MR: I would choose Clausewitz’s On War, Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War because they discuss the enduring themes, or continuities, in warfare. I would also choose Scharnhorst’s The Enlightened Soldier, which is his discussion about the preparation of military members for war, with an emphasis on inculcating an attitude that the profession of arms demands continuous learning. For a perspective on future warfare using a science fiction lens, Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War is the standard. I have identified some very Western pieces of literature, and if I could choose books from another cultural perspective, I would be interested in Indian literature on strategy and military history; they would see it through the lens of a great civilisation, with a very broad view of history. TCB: What has been the most significant cultural change you have seen in your career? MR: The integration of national security officers from other government agencies, and also people from non-government organisations into military courses and exercises, and vice versa. This is incredibly beneficial for providing external and non-military perspectives on complex security problems. The drivers for this change, in my view, were the security challenges in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, which demanded a broader effort across government and non-government agencies that had to work together. This is a ‘journey in progress’ that is reinforced by including non-military players into major exercises such as Exercise Talisman Sabre as well as including them on courses at the Australian Defence College. TCB: You have driven significant reforms in training and education in both the Australian Army and as the Commander of the Australian Defence College. What is the reform that you are most proud of, and how will that reform drive the intellectual development of the Australian Defence Force? MR: Re-shaping attitudes towards intellectual development, and consequently seeing people make time for the professional development of their people. It is rewarding to see Army units running unit and small group education sessions, and people across the Services participating in writing about the profession. There is an interest in sites like The Cove and The Forge, with younger ADF members also connecting and helping each other with their professional development through social media platforms. I think this is driven by demand for more engagement and ongoing education beyond the classroom and set courses. This momentum and drive for more self-initiated education need to be supported and driven by senior leaders. We have to give these members the time and space to explore their areas of interest and share those thoughts across their units, their Services, and the ADF. At the heart of it, the future of intellectual development in our people will be driven by a need for continuous, rather than episodic, learning; and, vastly better access to learning resources. Finally, I hope we build and nurture a culture where we celebrate our people who demonstrate excellence in intellectual pursuits. We celebrate our sporting and military elite. We must equally celebrate our military intellectual elite if we are to out-think our adversaries. Major General Mick Ryan is currently commanding the Australian Defence College in Canberra. A graduate of Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. Marine Corps Staff College, and the U.S. Marine Corps School of Advanced Warfare, he is a passionate advocate of professional education, thinking about the profession of arms and lifelong learning. #Training #MajorGeneralMickRyan #Interview #AustralianDefenceCollege #Debrief #Education #AustralianWarCollege #ProfessionalMilitaryEducation