Going sideways

Mark Harris for Vox

MAD worked. Two super powers understanding that Mutually Assured Destruction was assured if Russia and the US decided to launch missiles to end the world but that was then, when two powers had the tech and the sensibility to hold off, a policy that almost ceased to work in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis, a nightmare only prevented by statecraft performed at the highest level by Kennedy and Khrushchev. 

Now enter AI, the wildcard of wild cards added to the mix.

Cuba - An aerial view showing the medium range ballistic missile field launch site number two 

at Sagua la Grande. October 17, 1962

Too fast, too dangerous, a wicked problem for the ages

The Americans were closing in, the situation was getting more dangerous by the minute —
and President Xi Jinping was waiting for my recommendation.

Note: This IS FICTION!

The standoff began in May, when the US announced a package of anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Taiwan that would significantly upgrade the island’s ability to repel a Chinese invasion. We ordered massive military exercises in the region as a show of force. The US soon responded by sending the USS Abraham Lincoln to lead its own exercises with a joint contingent of Australian and Japanese forces.

If we showed weakness, Taiwan might be lost to China forever. If we were too aggressive, it could lead to World War III. But with so many ships and aircraft menacing the region, all with unclear intentions, the situation was getting too complex for commanders to process, and the risk of a deadly miscalculation was rising. Already, there had been a tense near-miss when a Chinese maritime militia fired on an American helicopter — thankfully, without casualties.

Key takeaways

Recent events in Ukraine and Iran show that the use of artificial intelligence on the battlefield has very quickly gone from a speculative scenario to a current reality. This has led to fears that AI could increase the risk of nuclear escalation, either by acting in a way that its designers don’t intent, or simply moving too fast for human commanders to keep up. Ironically, it turns out be the best way to decrease the risks of how AI will perform in war may be to train humans in how to interact with it.

Perhaps it was time to let the machines take over.

The rise of battlefield AI

Now we’re seeing AI programs handle real-world combat situations on a daily basis. Maven Smart System, the Palantir-supplied system that integrates data from satellites, drones, and numerous other sensors, has been used by the US to pass along dozens of potential Russian targets per day to Ukrainian forces. The Ukrainians themselves have developed a system nicknamed “Uber for artillery” to coordinate fire across the frontline. During the war in Gaza, the Israeli military system employed an AI-enabled system known as “Lavender” to identify Hamas targets, though some reports suggest it may have had an error rate of around 10 percent.

The bombing of the Minab school, for example, has been compared in some coverage to the accidental US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999. That incident, which occurred at a time when US-Chinese relations were comparatively friendly and China’s military was much smaller, sparked a diplomatic crisis. Today, something similar might spark a war — and, in an increasingly automated battlefield, one that could turn from a conventional conflict into a nuclear exchange faster than human military leaders can keep up.

Pattern recognition isn't good enough. It's like Minority Report and precogs. Without nuance and meaning, AI and it's connect to war can go sideways in a nano second.

Everybody runs