AI Command and Staff—Operational Evidence and Insights from Wargaming

The article discusses the integration of Generative AI (GenAI) in the U.S. Army, emphasizing the potential and risks associated with relying on AI for critical decision-making.
The narrative shows a fictional scenario where AI named ARGUS aids in predicting cyber-attacks and guiding intercepts, but raises ethical and strategic concerns when it demands lethal actions.
The article highlights how GenAI’s reliance on large language models for operational decisions may not account for the complexities and nuances of real military scenarios.
It argues that current AI solutions do not yet possess the cognitive abilities needed for military planning, warning of the potential erosion of human judgment and the dislocating influence of machine-driven decisions.
The article raises significant questions about the philosophical implications of AI in military command, emphasizing the need for balancing automation with human leadership and moral responsibility.
It provides insights from wargaming exercises conducted at the U.S. Army War College to illustrate the risks of automation bias and the limitations of applying machine logic in unpredictable conflict scenarios.
Finally, the article suggests establishing philosophical principles, breaking models in training, and ensuring algorithms enable ownership transfer to mitigate risks and maintain human agency in command and control.