Back to news

February 4, 2019 | International, Land, C4ISR

To prepare for the future battlefield, the Army has opened its AI Task Force at CMU

COURTNEY LINDER

To prepare the armed forces for the “future battlefield” of 2028 or 2035, the U.S. Army is setting up shop at Carnegie Mellon University.

On Friday, the Army officially activated its new Artificial Intelligence Task Force at the National Robotics Engineering Center in Lawrenceville before a crowd of politicians and researchers from nearly a dozen universities.

The task force will become a national network of experts in academia and private industry, building out solutions that the Army can use not only on the battlefield but also in rescue missions and in protecting civilians.

CMU is the home base, but the task force will eventually include other partners.

“At the end of the day, I'd rather not fight a war,” said Mark Esper, secretary of the Army. “And so, if we can master AI ... then I think it will just really position us better to make sure we protect the American people.”

He said during the Iraq war, many soldiers died on simple runs from Kuwait City to Baghdad on a daily basis.

“If I could have had fewer soldiers in vehicles and had a convoy led using artificial intelligence ... think of all the lives that could have been saved,” he said.

General John Murray, Commander of the Army Futures Command, which is geared toward modernizing the military, said that in the near-term, he can imagine facial recognition technology could aid in combat.

Other areas of interest include technological advances in AI, robotics, and even hypersonic missiles that travel much faster than the speed of sound.

When adversaries have uniforms on, he said, it's easy to tell who's the enemy. When those enemies are dressed in plain street clothes, it's much harder. With facial recognition, the military can become more precise in selecting targets.

Still, there are ethical considerations to keep in mind when designing technology that could ultimately disarm or kill.

When asked if the university had set up an ethics committee before partnering with the Army, CMU President Farnam Jahanian did not directly answer but offered that academia has a duty to use its knowledge for national defense.

“One of the important benefits of having this task force be based here is that it's going to give us the ability to have discussions about AI and other emerging technologies and ethical applications of these technologies, both in a military context as well as a civilian context,” he said.

Mr. Jahanian was careful to note that faculty members are free to work on only the research that they feel drawn to; they are not told which applications to focus on. If they feel an ethical tug-of-war in their minds, they can opt not to participate.

CMU has a long history of contracting with the Department of Defense and many breakthrough technologies — including autonomous vehicles — have benefited from defense dollars.

Some of these advancements, Mr. Jahanian said, are not geared toward killing at all.

The university has created flexible robots that can maneuver through rubble and send a live feed to recovery specialists to aid in search and rescue missions. They've built statistical and data mining techniques to more accurately predict when military vehicles require maintenance, saving time and money. Machine learning and computer vision can even help diagnose and treat depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Financials between the Army and CMU were not disclosed, but Mr. Jahanian said funding from the Army will not only go to CMU but also to other partners that eventually sign on.

“Winning on the future battlefield requires us to act faster than our enemies while placing our troops and resources at a lower risk,” Mr. Esper said.

“Whoever gets there first will maintain a decisive edge on the battlefield for years to come.”

Courtney Linder: clinder@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1707. Twitter: @LinderPG.

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/tech-news/2019/02/01/army-ai-task-force-cmu-carnegie-mellon-university-robotics-pittsburgh-farnam-jahanian/stories/201902010012

On the same subject

  • Latvia halts $206 million armored vehicle contract amid controversy

    January 23, 2019 | International, Land

    Latvia halts $206 million armored vehicle contract amid controversy

    By: Jarosław Adamowski WARSAW, Poland — Latvia's public procurement watchdog IUB has stopped the defense ministry from signing a contract worth about €181 million ($206 million) to buy four-wheel-drive armored vehicles from Finland's Sisu Auto after two bidders, AM General from the United States and SouthAfrica's Paramount Group, filed complaints on the tender. Auditors have given the the ministry three months to overhaul the procedure of evaluating all vendors' offers. The development follows another round of controversy surrounding the procurement, as state-run broadcaster LSM reported that an adviser to Defense Minister Raimonds Bergmanis had lobbied for Paramount Group. The aide denied the allegations, saying he was not a member of the tender committee and he had not lobbied for the company since the procedure was launched. Bergmanis said he trusted the source-selection committee and had “no doubt about the persons that implemented the tender”. The defence ministry ranked Sisu Auto's offer as first, followed by the bids submitted by AM General, Turkey's Otokar, and Paramount Group, respectively. Sisu Auto offered its GTP 4x4 vehicle, AM General said it would supply the High Mobility Multi-PurposeWheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), Otokar offered the Cobra, while Paramount Group had offered its Marauder. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/01/22/latvia-halts-206-million-armored-vehicle-contract-amid-controversy

  • United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket flies debut mission

    January 8, 2024 | International, Land

    United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket flies debut mission

    The rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in the early morning hours of Jan. 8.

  • Rust Costs the Pentagon $21 Billion Per Year

    November 12, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land

    Rust Costs the Pentagon $21 Billion Per Year

    By Aaron Boyd, The Defense Department isn't doing a good job determining how much to spend to prevent damage from nature's basic chemical reactions. Rust costs the Pentagon more money annually than many of its most expensive weapons systems—up to $21 billion per year, according to a Defense Department-commissioned audit released in March. The report indicates the corrosion of metals that make up modern weapons systems like fighter jets, ships, ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons can sometimes approach one-third of the total operations and maintenance costs of those systems. The problem is so large, in 2002, the department established the Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight to ensure big-dollar weapons systems weren't taken offline by oxidation and to help branches determine how much money ought to be spent on rust prevention. But the data being reported by the military branches has been inconsistent and the office has yet to issue guidance on how funding levels should be categorized, according to a related audit released Thursday by the Government Accountability Office. For example, “In fiscal year 2017, the Army and Navy used direct costs, such as salary and training costs, to identify their funding levels, but the Army also included other associated costs. The Air Force used the prior year's funding level and adjusted it for inflation,” the report states. These different methods led to funding requests based on different criteria, making it difficult for Congress to determine what an appropriate funding level should look like. It has also led to vastly different funding requests. In 2017, the Army requested $2.4 million and the Air Force $3 million, while the Navy only requested $220,000. Similarly, all three branches either failed to accurately report the supporting data or, in the Air Force's case, did not provide any data at all some years. “The Army data GAO received did not reconcile with data presented in the Corrosion Office annual reports to Congress for five of eight fiscal years,” auditors wrote. “The Navy data did not reconcile for two of eight fiscal years, and there was no supporting documentation identifying how these figures were calculated. Air Force officials did not provide any figures or supporting documentation for four fiscal years, stating that these figures were not available.” Army officials told GAO they're not able to accurately report how much is spent preventing or combating corrosion because many of those duties are performed by personnel who do many other things, as well. This includes the Army's lead corrosion executive, who also serves as the aviation logistics and safety officer for the Army G-4 logistics organization. “The corrosion-related costs of conducting the corrosion executive role are not separated from this other function,” they told GAO. The Navy had a similar issue but took a different tack. The Navy merely requested $220,000 for the corrosion executive's salary, despite the fact that “this method does not capture other costs, such as personnel assigned to other offices that provide support to the corrosion executive.” The misreported numbers don't appear to be malfeasance, according to the GAO report, but a natural consequence of a lack of direction from the Corrosion Office on how to identify funding needs and properly report that data. GAO made three recommendations to the Defense Department: Issue guidance for identifying and reviewing funding levels for performing corrosion executive duties. Ensure that the Corrosion Office develops a process to maintain documentation of its reviews of corrosion planning. Ensure that corrosion executives establish guidance on reviewing the adequacy of corrosion planning. Defense officials agreed with all three recommendations. https://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2018/11/rust-costs-pentagon-21-billion-year/152709/

All news