Information and Data Management in a Military Enterprise

 1. Transformation Journey Towards Data-driven Military

The Military has been following their societies in digitisation, digitalisation, digital transformation and, recently, the "datization"  of reality. As the world's biggest companies (MAMAA)  are creating revenues from data, the military also creates value from increasing amounts of data. The old wisdom of "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles" (Sun Tzu) is still valid. The journey has taken longer for military enterprises because of their size and cultures, but, for example, open-source data has revolutionised the transparency of the battlefield in Ukraine.  Therefore, data has become capital  even for the Military.

Figure 1 illustrates a view of a military roadmap  towards data-driven affairs and operations. Here are some snapshots along the journey:

• - 1990:  The Commander was briefed in the afternoon, and situational review was provided in the morning. Briefings used paper maps hanging from walls with graphs and symbols on transparent plastic sheets. All documentation was managed on paper, although it was written with computers but printed for distribution and presentation.
• 1990 – 2000: The Commander was briefed twice daily on the situation. Branches provided their part of the awareness, each with their specific information system. Some were graphical presentations, but most information was summarised in presentations, consuming staff time. There were hardly any inter-branch estimations, and the Commander composed the bigger picture himself. Plans and orders were stored as files and transferred over email.
• 2000 – 2025 Commander has a real-time battlefield model through his battle management system. Intelligence provides him with an estimated deployment of the adversary, and logistics provides their estimation of friendly forces' sustainment if the combat continues at the current rate. He reflects on his thoughts with the planning staff. They draft the Commander's intent and share it in a planning collaboration platform to initiate parallel planning among the subordinate commands.
• 2025 - Immersive user interface and visual effects created by Military Companion (artificial intelligence bot) hosts the Commander in digital twin Enterprise or Battlespace, where she is constantly aware of the situation, gains insights from vast amounts of data prepared by the Companion, runs war games to estimate outcomes from options, or ask her Companion to create possible courses of action analysed from structured data, unstructured information, history records, doctrinal knowledgebase, and real-time data flows.

Figure 1: A View to roadmap towards Data-driven Military enterprise

The timely sequence does not apply linearly as some militaries have all the above behaviour within their large enterprise, some forerunners are already in immersive reality, and others are journeying somewhere on the roads of evolution. There is a difference in outcome when the military governs data usage and development (preadaptation) compared to the technology driven floating along the stream (adaptation).  The following sections provide a framework for data governance and describe arrangements for data management.

2. Data Governance Approaches in Military Organizations

2.1 Common Data Governance Model

While the value the Military can gain from available data is increasing, the information and data assets become resources that need governance, management, and operation to enable the optimum outcome. The data are different assets to manage compared to paper documents. Hence, the previous material item-based management culture  needs to be transformed. Figure 2 provides a common Data Governance structure for line command and an example of arranging the data governance transformation program.

 

Figure 2: A General Data Governance Framework

2.2. Benchmarking some Military Organizations

Table 1 provides a view of various military organisations' ways of governing their data and transforming towards data-driven enterprise. The following tendencies emerge from comparison:

• Defence Forces of Finland data governance follows their line command because of their readiness requirements. Emphasis is on capability owner, their ownership of data and their responsibility to develop new capabilities. ICT is an enabler, and X6s act as data stewards in their area/organisation of responsibility.
• US DoD also follows the line command as their Services are independent and strong. DoD level focuses on policies, strategies, and compliance measuring but extends their governance deep towards the defence industry and partners. 
• UK MoD has data governance similar to Finland; only their titles differ. The capability owner is the data policy owner, and an organisation has an executive data steward.
• Australian Defence Forces also follow line command in their data governance. Still, their strategic level board focuses beyond the borders of the organisation (partners and providers) and nation (5 eyes).

Table 1: Benchmarking some military ways of data governance

Level/Country	FIN	USA[1]	UK[2]	AUS[3]
Strategic	Chief Digital Officer reports to Chief of Strategy; Defence Board resolves issues over the extended FINDEF enterprise.	Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer, CDAO/DoD[4] reports to the Deputy Secretary and governs efforts over the DoD, sets the policy and oversees the implementation of DoD data strategy.	Defence CIO reports to the Secretary and has a subordinate Director of Digital Enablement who chairs the data governance board (main customers represented) overseeing the implementation of strategy and policy compliance.	Chief Data Integration Officer reports to the Chief of Force Integration[5] and develops and releases policies and guidance. CDIO chairs the Defence Data Management Board, which oversees the extended enterprise data governance.
Joint	J6 coordinates over capability owners. Capability owners own their data. Process owners as Stewards develop data usage.	Chief Information Officer/DoD ensures data integration and development. JADC2 cross-functional team, Joint artificial intelligence centre and CIO for C3 provides the coordination. DoD Comptroller/CMO empowers the application of business intelligence.	Data policy owners are setting priorities and developing policies in each business area.	Appointed Data Custodians implement the strategy within their fields of responsibility.
Service	X6 of each force/command is the Steward of the data in use.	CIO/X6 of each service act as Data Stewards of their organisation. Roles of Stewards and responsibilities for Custodians are assigned to line organisation.[6]	Executive data stewards are responsible for improvements. Domain data stewards improve business processes.	Appointed Data Custodians implement strategy and comply with policies in their areas of responsibility.
Transformation	CDO coordinates transformation with the data governance office, impacting each capability development program and measuring annual performance indicators.	CDO Council identifies and prioritises data challenges, develops solutions, and oversees compliance with policy and standards. The council uses working groups to create plans and implement them.[7]	The CIO's arm of the Data Centre of Expertise maintains the data catalogue. It accelerates transformation and strategy implementation through data domain working groups.	Data Management Body of Knowledge supports transformation.

---

[1] https://media.defense.gov/2020/Oct/08/2002514180/-1/-1/0/DOD-DATA-STRATEGY.PDF

[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877705/Defence_Data_Management_Strategy_2020_FINAL_FINAL.pdf

[3] https://www.defence.gov.au/about/strategic-planning/defence-data-strategy-2021-2023

[4] https://www.ai.mil/index.html

[5] https://www.defence.gov.au/about/who-we-are/organisation-structure/australian-defence-force-headquarters

[6] https://www.dcma.mil/Portals/31/Documents/Policy/MAN_4502-15_(20220401).pdf

[7] https://www.ai.mil/blog_04_30_20-jaic-leaders-establish-data-governance-council.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benchmarks define the following good practices:

1. Line of command is followed to enforce ownership and responsibilities like in other resources (people, finance, facilities, platforms, and systems)
2. Data governance must reach outside the military organisation as more data resides in other government entities, the defence industry and alliances.
3. Data is nothing by itself but an essential component in platforms and processes. Moreover, the use of data for decision-making needs an innovative and empowering incubator, a Centre of Excellence, where data science, architecture, and engineering meet and create knowledge tools for commanders.

The following Section describes a concept that combines the governance framework with flavours from the good practices.

3. A Concept for Data Governance in a Military Enterprise 

In a military enterprise, the usual information/data management-related roles are as follows:

• Capability Owner  is accountable for the life cycle, combat readiness, sustainability force structure, and performance of a military capability. Since the information is a valuable asset within any military capability, the owner needs at least to govern the data.  Typical Capability Owners are, for example, Commander Land Forces, who owns Land Combat capabilities; J2, who owns Joint Intelligence capabilities; J6, who owns Joint C5I capabilities; and J4, who owns Joint Logistics capabilities. The capability Owner is usually the Data Owner of the information assets.
• The process Owner is responsible for designing an effective and efficient process, using the right people and financial and technical resources to run the process, and delivering quality outcomes as required within the organisation.  The process owner reports to the Capability Owner, develops how the process utilises information and data for performance and output, governs the end-to-end processes, and is usually a Data Steward.
• Organisational Data Steward governs the creation, utilisation, processing and storing of data and information in particular organisations.  Usually, the Chief Information Officer , CIO, is the Data Steward in military organisations .
• Operation centres, Centres of Excellence and process development hubs act as process managers, are responsible for the end-to-end execution of processes, have operational control, facilitate daily activities, and provide insight into where improvement is needed to enhance performance. 
• Users and information creators are the customers of the data. Data users can be individuals or other organisations. The chief responsibility of the data users is to ensure that they store, process, and securely handle the data and work to maintain integrity.  Users and creators are also Data Custodians.
• ICT Service Providers produce ICT services by transmitting, storing, retrieving, or processing information using network and information systems.  Service Provider owns, operates, manages, or provides any ICT service.  Software as a Service (SaaS) or Platform as a Service (PaaS) Providers usually act as Data Custodians. Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) Provider may have some data backup-related responsibilities but is typically not a Data Custodian.

Man versus Machine at Combat Tactical Level Decision Making

The human ability to collect information, make sense of a situation, optimise action, and learn while executing has been challenged recently in games, simulators, diagnoses, and real-time analysis. How may this development reflect to future tactical combat level decision-making? Is the machine going to win the man in combat?

"This requires not only substantial investment in resources but also an open-minded and exploratory approach, in contrast to the common but sometimes exaggerated perception of military organisations as conservative entities." Meir Finkel (Finkel 2023)

"Fifth-generation warfare shifts the focus from kinetic force in physical dimension to the impact information dimension, where narratives and perceptions take centre stage, enabled by emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, automation, and robotics." Daniel Abbott (Abbott 2010)

The article reviews some recent achievements in artificial intelligence, sets the situation for the combat technical level functions, digs deeper into decision-making under stressful conditions and illustrates a possible vision for the future state. The aim is to shake the historically conservative concepts of land battle to consider future possibilities.

Artificial Intelligence Improvements in Decision Making

A view to the evolution of machine learning improvements in various strategic-tactical games and competitions in Table 1 shows that machines are catching up and dominating men in table, card and video games and creativity competitions. Furthermore, fast-learning general-purpose algorithms are beating dedicated algorithms in those same games. 

Table 1: A sample of improvements in Machine learning applications in gaming and creativity

Year	Confrontation	Improvement
1997	Chess: DeepMind against Garry Kasparov	It took IBM 11 years to build and use customised chips to execute parallel searches. DeepMind was able to evaluate 200 million positions per second.
2016	Go: AlphaGo against Lee Sedol	A neural network-based algorithm first learned from game data, then played against itself, and finally, improved based on made mistakes. AlphaGo was able to create an unseen move during the game.
2017	Chess: AlphaZero against Stockfish (2016 top chess engine)	General purpose reinforcement learning algorithm that learned Chess after playing 4 hrs against itself. AlphaZero was able to assess 80 000 positions per second.
	Shogi: AlphaZero against Elmo (2017 world champion Shogi engine)	The algorithm learned the game after playing 2 hrs by itself. AlphaZero was able to assess 40 000 positions per second on a board that has more options than Chess.
	Go: AlphaZero against AlphaGo Lee (advanced Go engine)	Deep neural network with tabula rasa reinforcement learning algorithm. The algorithm learned the game within three days while playing itself.
	Poker: Liberatus against four champion poker players	The algorithm used a game theoretic approach for reasoning in an imperfect information environment while playing simultaneously against four human players with the following abilities: ·        Managing the whole poker competition in advance ·        Solving each game during the contest ·        Self-improvement after each day of the three-week competition
2019	Dota 2: Open AI Five against a Team of 5 esport players	The algorithm used proximal policy optimisation. The algorithm used 800 petaflops/s to gain about 45 000 years of experience within ten months. The short-term average decision time was 80ms.
2020	AlphaFold2 doubled the score of human competitors in Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction.[1]	The algorithm predicted 3D structures based on complicated rules faster and more holistic than a human.
2022	AI model that uses tens of terabytes of Earth system data and can predict the next two weeks of weather tens of thousands of times faster and more accurately than contemporary forecasting methods.[2]	With enormous amounts of data, ML algorithms can create forecasts of very complex phenomena.

---

[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/02/23/1045016/ai-deepmind-demis-hassabis-alphafold/

[2] https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/05/1075865/eric-schmidt-ai-will-transform-science

-----------------------------------------

In conclusion and, in theory, a machine combined with the above features could:

1. Starts from zero knowledge and trains within months to master given battle scenario's technical, tactical, and possibly operational level features for victory.
2. Anticipates adversary moves ahead, creates picture of potential scenarios, and predicts adversary manoeuvring in 3-D space better than humans.
3. Makes short-term decisions within 80 milliseconds and optimises decisions simultaneously at technical and tactical levels.
4. Identifies lessons from the events and gains 150 years of theoretical combat experience teaching itself overnight.

 

Technical Level of Ground Combat is a Complex Military Decision-Making Environment

Probability and chance are well-recognised (Clausewitz 1984) (Fuller 2012) (Oliviero 2021) factors of battle environment. Tactics-technical level combat capability is a sum of surprise, manoeuvre, mass, firepower, and tempo (to name some essential tenets) orchestrated in variety of combinations with Command and Control to disrupt the adversary's socio-technical military system and exhaust its fighting ability. (Friedman 2017) The tactical tenets are in transformation to address the foreseeable changes on the battlefield. First, let's review the most likely changes in land warfare and, second, see what they will require from tactical tenets.

RUSI Land Warfare Conference (RUSI 2023) promoted the following tendencies of change in land warfare, which will challenge the contemporary tactics:

1. Transparent battlefield

• Civilian and military LEO satellite-based sensors provide a continuous feed of information from above the battlefield. The data can be acquired from commercial sources and fused with algorithms trained to identify especially military action on the ground.
• Unattended ground sensors improve details and add reliability to real-time event pictures.
• Cover and concealment become harder since sensors can fuse detection data from different parts of spectrum.
• Adversary will know the location and movement of blue forces as quickly as the information flows in the blue battle management system.

2. The concentration of effects vs protection

• Standoff weapons, lethal autonomous weapon systems, and precision warheads make it challenging to survive with contemporary armour. Adding armour thickness slows tactical mobility.
• Concentrated armoured units create a lucrative target for conventional artillery, attack helicopters, or massing of anti-tank UASs.
• Platforms and actors need to become more expendable and distributed but able for coordinated manoeuvres and fires.

3. Sustainment

• Logistics enables the tempo of fighting and is essential for offensive operations. Supplying distributed units require new delivery methods.
• Movement and mass of material expose logistics for continuous, wide-spectrum surveillance, so protection and endurance of logistics become a challenge.

4. Situational awareness

• An increasing amount of data and information challenges sense-making as human cognition overburdens from large amounts of information, loses focus in the stimulus-rich environment, and makes a biased conclusion.
• The organisational culture may prevent the distribution of information (need-to-know vs need-to-share; air-gap security vs zero-trust security), so situational awareness does not meet the requirements of distributed tactics. (Mansoor and Murray 2019)

5. Boundless, urban battlespaces

• People reside primarily in urban environments, and military strategies aim to "capture the will of the people and their leaders, and thereby win the trial of strength." (Smith 2005)
• Participating actors in urban battlespace may include, for example, civilians, communal authorities, law and rescue institutes, local corporates, international corporates, non-governmental organisations, insurgents, commercial military companies, interest groups, militias, criminal organisations, adversary regular forces and adversary coalition units. (Waterman 2019)
• The urban environment is more complex as these actors do not carry clear signs for identification, their intentions may transfer from day to night, and they do not follow agreements on war crimes.

In conclusion, the following Table 2 reflects the above tendencies to classical tenets of tactics and illustrates the possible impact in battle techniques and tactics and, therefore, change of tactical sense- and decision making.

Table 2: How do visible tendencies of change in land warfare affect tactical tenets of ground combat?

Tenet / Tendency	Surprise	Manoeuvre	Massing of force	Firepower	Tempo
Transparency	Surprise in land domain may be gained through other domains and dimensions.	Swarming manoeuvre of smaller, less detectable platforms.	Concentration becomes lethal, but dispersion rules.	Target acquisition is more lethal if situational awareness is achieved.	The advantage is harder to gain in a transparent battlefield.
Effect	Systems effect creates surprise and disrupts force cohesion.	A large, moving, hot, and radiating platform is an easy target.	Calls for a mass of nimble, small, and mobile warheads	The 4IR produces software-defined effectors.	Dispersed effectors will increase friction and entropy.
Sustainment	N/A	Higher mobility and wider distribution obscures logistics.	Dispersed troops increase the logistical challenge.	Smart warheads require software maintenance.	Besides live supplies, the force needs technical maintenance.
Situational awareness	Digitalised C2 creates more cognitive bottlenecks.	Becomes a core enabler and vulnerability for the swarming of distributed effectors.	Becomes a core enabler and vulnerability.	Becomes a core enabler and vulnerability.	Becomes a core enabler and vulnerability .
Urbanisation	Provides concealment in the physical dimension.	Slows manoeuvre and promotes smaller, autonomous, and agile platforms.	Constraints massing of units, but prefers small, swarming effectors.	Favours defence but constraints offence.	Slows down units and increases their entropy.

Art of Military Sense- and Decision-making

A Concept for Sense- and Decision-making

The classical military decision-making framework defined by John Boyd is simplified as Observe, Orient, Decision, and Action (OODA) (Osinga 2007). Based on this framework, Figure 2 illustrates a concept for sense- and decision-making. In this context, sense-making consisting of observation and orientation, which interprets the equivocal data. (Mattila 2016) Furthermore, decision-making is searching and selecting alternatives optimising between projected results, capabilities, and constraints. (Mattila 2016) The concept has three different situational pictures: real-time events per domain, composed operational picture, and forecasted possible/intended situations, which are referred to existing information and, finally, shared and agreed upon at the socio-cognitive level.

Figure 2: Concept for Observe, Orient and Decide at the Military tactical level

The above Command and Control (C2) concept may be established with an emphasis on creative leadership or policy compliance. These emphases are founded in the culture from which armed forces are generated. For example, German culture from 1871 – 1945 promoted officers' autonomous and aggressive action on the battlefield. (Mansoor and Murray 2019) Conversely, after the forceful manipulation of Bolshevik government, Russian culture produced obedient younger officers and relied on experienced and resourceful commanders at the operational level. (Freedman 2022)

A Team of Military Officers in Decision-making

A successful military command should be a mixture of compliance with institutional management culture and creative operational art. (Kuronen 2015) German culture before WW II reflected the war as "an art, a free and creative activity founded on scientific principles." (Condell and Zabecki 2008) The US FM 5-0 requires adaptive leaders"…who do not think linearly, but  who instead seek to understand the complexity of problems before seeking to solve them…" (Cojocar 2011) On the other hand, NATO assesses military success with five measures of merit and only one of them, measures of performance (MoP), includes some personal leadership features. (CCRP 2002) The other four enforce doctrinal and process compliance. (NATO RTO 2002) The 1/5 ratio in expectations does not indicate innovative tactical decision-making from NATO officers.

At the tactical commitment level, all efforts should focus on gaining the initiative and, eventually, victory over the adversary (reduction of adversary combat power by more than 30%). (Oliviero 2021, 51) In reality, this is not necessarily evident for all officers: 

• Training enforces drills and tactical forms, so officers prefer to use familiar concepts to solve battlefield challenges in decision-making. 
• Viewpoints may be constrained by their basic training and arms. An infantry officer aims to gain ground, an armoured forces officer aims to gain distance, or an artillery officer assesses ranges, amount of ammunition and supplies to impose a particular effect. 
• The Red Force doctrine, officers are training against, remains linear, predictable, and unimaginative adversary. 
• Since live exercises are expensive, officers train their tactical decision-making in war games, which often neglect friction, fog, chaos, and cognitive stress present on the battlefield.

Studies (Henaker 2022) (Scott and Bruce 1995) (Loo 2000) have concluded that there are five different decision-making styles categorising individuals when making important decisions: Rational, Intuitive, Dependent, Avoidant and Spontaneous.

1. Rational seeks information systematically and prefers logical assessment. However, rational has challenges in creativity and implementation of decided intent.
2. Intuitive recognises details from the information flow and matches patterns that feel right. Intuitive relates positively to creativity and difficulty-solving. 
3. Dependent seeks social conformance from others before decision-making. The decision-making process may be distracted and in need of social support.
4. Avoidant tries to postpone decision-making because of their low self-esteem. Still, avoidant is compliant with policies, doctrines, and orders. Avoidant is not suitable for creativity and tends to have high stress levels.
5. Spontaneous tries to accomplish decision-making as soon as possible. Spontaneous does not like conflict situations but perform well in rash decision and high-risk situations.

Human vs Machine Decision-making in Future Battlefield

The section fuses the tenets of tactical combat with visible transformations and tries to reflect these new situations in human-centric and machine-centric decision-making as featured in previous sections. Table 3 illustrates the outcome of the fusion from the view of two champions:

• Human is assumed as an average decision-making officer with 3-4 years of military education and about five years of professional experience with, possibly, one year of experience gained in live tactical action. 
• Machine is assumed to be a high-performance computer running a combination of continuously learning algorithms, expert algorithms, and pre-trained algorithms with real-life or synthetic data. Digital connectivity is supposed to be at combat cloud level . 

Table 3: Human vs Machine decision-making in transforming tactical combat environment

Transforming tenets of tactical combat feature decision-making challenges	Human	Machine
Transparency increases information and requires more computing power to make sense of collected data. Tactics prefer smaller, profoundly dispersed, manoeuvrable effectors, which swarm for effect, and retreat quickly.	Available data and information may overburden the cognitive ability to comprehend the situation.	A machine can recognise images, find patterns from large data mass, and forecast complicated, interdependent behaviour.
Effect calls systems understanding for system-wide impact. Dispersed effectors are harder to control and coordinate. Software-defined precision requires better target acquisition and configuration.	The adversary must be understood as multi-dimensional actor-network (Inglis and Thorpe 2019). Dispersed effectors require coordination of larger volume of details.	A machine can map the COA spectrum, model complicated, interdependent systems, and optimise the action of small effectors.
Sustainment of distributed, cyber-physical platforms requires more flexible and expert maintenance.	Rising complexity of critical paths on availability or sustainment may overwhelm cognitive capacity under stress.	With a digital-twin model and scenario-based simulation, a machine creates an overall logistics picture and can optimise sustainment.
Awareness is achieved by delegating sense-making to lower cooperative level or improving the information management ability of a steeper, hierarchical command structure.	Socio-cultural structures and beliefs handicap the application of the optimum C2 method.	Socio-cultural structures do not constrain a machine, and it can act even with partial information environment.
Urbanisation increases entropy, slows the tactical pace, increases casualties, raises the need for sustainment, and makes the environment and situation harder to understand.	The urban environment increases entropy and requires more innovative decision-making.	A machine makes sense of complicated situation even with partial information, recognises faster volatile behaviour, and optimises effort and sustainment.

A Company Commander Meets an Ex-Machina Battle Captain

When a Human Commander meets an Ex-Machina Captain within a tactical scenario on a future battlefield, the parties of combat may have the different abilities for decision-making. In situation with equal forces, linear doctrines, and a reasonably stable battlefield, the company commander does not have a chance against Ex-Machina. A creative human commander may gain an advantage in more chaotic conditions and with innovative tactics. Are our military institutes educating agile officers? Still, higher man-machine teaming performance indications are positive in Dota 2 strategic game, but it remains to be studied in future articles.

 

Figure 3: Man vs machine in tactical decision making

The Promise and Peril of Generative Artificial Intelligence (especially ChatGPT4.0) from a Military Viewpoint

 

Figure 1: Will ChatGPT provide world dominance? (Composed using Canva)

There is an Ongoing Global Competition for Disruption and Gaining a Strategic Advantage

There is an ongoing competition to use Artificial Intelligence and related technologies to gain a strategic advantage between the three military superpowers or wannabes.

• "Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere [of Artificial Intelligence] will become the ruler of the world." Putin 2017 
• "Chinese official documents and their enunciation of military doctrine indicate that the country's leaders see massive promise in AI's utility and are working to leverage this emerging technology into their force posture." (Bommakanti, 2020)
• "Emerging technologies are transforming warfare. The technological innovations expected to play increasingly important roles on future battlefields include artificial intelligence, sensors, unmanned air and ground systems, and cyber capabilities." (Weissmann & Nilsson, 2023)

Did we see one of these disruptions happening before our eyes at the beginning of 2023? The OpenAI product Chat GPT conquered the Internet with the speed of one million users in 5 days (Gartner, 2023) and 100 million monthly active users within two months after launch , and Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, testimonies to US Congress that "AI could be as big as "the printing press" but acknowledged its potential dangers." 

Possibly – but not the way you may first think!

Generative AI Meets the Lower Levels of Bureaucratic Creativity

Since 2015, OpenAI has been delivering breakthroughs in AI algorithms, competing successfully in human games and creating human-like content. Their release of ChatGPT 4.0 has impressed the world with abilities for conversation and logical text generation. For some of the users, ChatGPT 4.0 has appeared as an artificial general intelligence (AGI)  with human-like consciousness to some of the users. Fortunately, that is not the case.

Figure 2: An extract from a discussion with ChatGPT

Generative AI can create content from given data. This content can be delivered in multiple modalities, like text (articles or answers to questions), images (photos or paintings), videos, and 3-D representations (scenes and landscapes for video games). Generated content has been winning digital-art awards and scoring among or close to the top 10 per cent of test takers in numerous tests, including the US exam for lawyers and the math, reading, and writing portions of the SATs, a college entrance exam used in the United States. 

The ChatGPT is a combination of three functions:

1. The user interface in the application defines Chatbot. So easy to use it can create an illusion of chatting with a human counterpart. 
2. Fine-tuned and continuously learning discussion engine. Fine-tuning adjusts the weights of the neural network or adds layers to help the model better understand the nuances of the task. 
3. The GPT model has a complex machine learning algorithm of a deep neural network with 96 layers managing around one trillion parameters . The statistic large language model (LLM) has been taught with more than 45 terabytes of human-produced text acquired from the Internet (over 300 km of bookshelf space, beyond any human to read through).  The LLM has identified test patterns from this vast data and chooses the following word using the learned values and probabilities. 

In summary, people use ChatGPT because it is convenient, replies fast and mostly rationally, and is available 24/7, unlike most human counterparts. (Based on ChatGPT answer through Bearly.ai interface 03. June 2023) Besides the convenient and funny private discussions, organisations are seeking several ways to benefit from the NLP and LLM. Financial services giant Morgan Stanley is testing the technology to help its financial advisers better leverage insights from the firm's more than 100,000 research reports. The government of Iceland has partnered with OpenAI in its efforts to preserve the endangered Icelandic language. Salesforce has integrated the technology into its popular customer-relationship-management (CRM) platform. 

Military opportunities with generative AI

Can the ChatGPT provide an advantage in the assessment of the situation? 

"The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand." Sun Tzu 

No, but if military culture enforces rules, then the GPT model may be fine-tuned with digitised military rules, policies, doctrines, tactics, techniques and procedures, and an Officers Companion application can warn if an officer is going to deviate from the authorities when deciding.

Can the ChatGPT master adversary at the strategic or operational level?

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Sun Tzu 

No, statistical algorithms of large language models do not understand war at its different levels. Even though, if one trains a model with a large variety of tactical plans, there may be possible to generate combinations of these plans as graphs. Other AI algorithms are more proficient in strategy, gaming, and tactical confrontation than LLM. 

Where may the military use the ChatGPT like generative artificial intelligence, then?

Suppose we use the Figure 3 military impact model which illustrated the evolution of the cyber environment. In that case, there are several apparent points where the military may benefit from generative AI:

• Man-Machine Interface (MMI) may be improved using Chatbot and LLM for translation of text and speech, free soldiers' hands from the keyboard of the battle management system, provide a dutiful companion for a lonely soldier in a trench to ease the anxiety or trauma, or act as a virtual instructor/trainer in the military metaverse.

• Generating content and establishing virtual relationships for information operations. For example, 

"Russia has operationalised the concept of perpetual adversarial competition in the information environment by encouraging the development of a disinformation and propaganda ecosystem."  

Generative AI provides affordable means to generate disinformation, and misinformation, and manipulate people through social media as the furthest-reaching weapon after intercontinental missiles.   Furthermore, Cyber attackers may adopt new means to create more believable phishing emails, generate cyber-attacks, and craft new malware. 

• Writing computer program code.  Since computer application programming uses very abstract languages, Generative AI may translate applications from one programming language to another, create programs to solve coding problems, simplify code, write documentation, or test code to find failures. 

"For many developers, generative AI will become the most valuable coding partner they will ever know." 

As the military is becoming more software-defined, the generative AI may provide an edge for Armed Forces to establish their code factories. 

• Generative AI can generate synthetic data based on patterns and relationships learned from actual data.  Synthetic data may accelerate the learning of other AI algorithms, for example, to counter swarming drones, see faster the adversary behavioural pattern from clutter, or provide optimisation advice  from a smaller amount of data points.

• Generative AI may enable the military to see a wider variety of options in the tactical situation through "machine hallucinations".  Moreover, as generative models can use statistics from large amounts of data points, they may illustrate historical battleground schemas on the current tactical situation and expand these with other variations  providing a broader foresight for tactical planners.

• Generative AI may be used for 3D object generation  to accelerate military metaverse development, wargaming and simulation. The acceleration may create the next wave of revolution in military education (Chatman, 2009) and training, making the force generation able to execute continuous training more affordable and evolve the training content faster than currently. Furthermore, the ChatGPT may finally move the 2nd industrial teaching methods forward and have instructors focusing on critical-­thinking and problem-solving skills rather than copying textbooks for answers. 

Figure 3: Levels of Military Impact and Evolution of Cyber Environment (Mattila, 2022)

The above, possibly surprising, impacts are not easy to achieve, however!

Military Challenges with Generative AI

The adoption of generative AI proliferates in commercial and open-source segments ; organisations must address several critical challenges to ensure the success of their Generative AI initiatives. These challenges may include:

1. Data Management: Effective data management is critical to the success of generative AI, as models rely on high-quality, well-labelled data. Organisations must ensure that their data is accurate, consistent, correctly labelled, managed securely, and in compliance with relevant regulations.
2. Model Complexity: Generative AI models can be complex and resource-intensive, requiring significant computing power and technical expertise. Creators must ensure they have the resources and skills to develop and deploy these models effectively. In addition, the acquisition may need to verify the function of algorithms before deployment. 
3. Like any analytical model, Generative AI has proven vulnerable to deliberate manipulation by sophisticated adversaries.  For example, data poisoning - the data used to train the models may be manipulated, and adversarial attacks — feeding algorithms malicious inputs, may be used to counter AI-enhanced features.
4. Ethical Considerations: As mentioned earlier, ethical considerations, such as bias and privacy, are becoming increasingly important in the development and deployment of generative AI.  Creators must ensure their models are fair and transparent and respect user privacy in peacetime use. 

Nevertheless, US DoD states that the U.S. public and private sectors cannot afford to pause their artificial intelligence pursuits amid an international race for technological supremacy.  

Fear is relative!

Credit: Colin Anderson Getty Images and The Conversation

A human composed this article using AI enhanced Google and Bing searches to find sources, Bearly to summarize found articles, provide different wording and have discussions along the writing process, Word writing assistant to guess the next word, Canvas to create graphics, and Grammarly to proof-read the text.

Link to original article in Adobe https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:a62996a1-24a6-3cfc-b69c-c7b5fde8088e