It is very interesting to see your analysis here because as mentioned above it ties very neatly into a very longstanding debate on automation versus augmentation. Look up works of Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglou (2024) and colleagues. Their points against automation is that it always substitutes one (maybe more) tasks not all of the work. If you use a dishwasher you still have to put the dishes into and out of the dishwasher. But even if you do not automate everything you can gain in the process. The various drones are of course very good examples. And as the new technology automates some tasks they also create new. After all the drones must be repaired, powered up, protected when they are not on mission, controlled etc etc. even suicide drones needs people to launch and guide them. And for the infantry man/woman there is new tasks, aside from the age old core task of controlling an area.
you are writing what he says, but without any math no Nobel prize in Sweden. (we Norwegians dropped that criterium for our Nobel price, but the Economy prize has it)
This: «They’re remotely operated, like a long-range RC car.» Important point, people seems to miss that point. Drones of all sorts are remotely controlled, not independent. Ukraines unmanned forces are more than 30 thousand men/woman strong. Yes, AI is in large scale use, but not autonomous. A in AI is for Artificial… nothing wrong with that, the results are really impressive. But in the old automation/augmentation discussion of technology all these are augmentations. Needing the humans.
Excellent article. When I was a new, young infantry lieutenant (back when Washington was a general and not a city), my father (himself a WW2 combat veteran of the Pacific) said regardless of all the fire you bring to bear, you can’t claim to hold ground until you have a man with a bayonet standing on it.
Good post, Wes! Boots on the ground! When it comes right down to it, that's really the icing on the cake! I guess I hadn't been paying attention completely but I didn't realize you were both an Army and an Air Force veteran. I can't think of anyone more qualified to talk about weapon systems that affect both, and the intimate interaction thereof! In my time in the infantry, I remember clearly that there were only two types of missions: destroy the enemy, or assault and hold territory. No UGV can hold territory yet without boots on the ground, but maybe that day is coming! Who knows! Five years ago I would've never thought that this would be the situation, that Ukraine would be handing Russia its ballsacks with drones. TIME marches on, but the infantry remains eternal! Please keep up the good work Wes!
Your insights on this topic are excellent. Large groups and politicos tend to want to settle on one simple answer. Your comment make clear that won’t work here.
It definitely goes a long way in removing all the glitz and hype over automation. Truth be told, technology in general and automation in particular will always be a two-edged sword... cutting in both directions. And it's only those users who keep the human dimension at the core of its application that will be able to reap and realize its greatest potential.
It is very interesting to see your analysis here because as mentioned above it ties very neatly into a very longstanding debate on automation versus augmentation. Look up works of Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglou (2024) and colleagues. Their points against automation is that it always substitutes one (maybe more) tasks not all of the work. If you use a dishwasher you still have to put the dishes into and out of the dishwasher. But even if you do not automate everything you can gain in the process. The various drones are of course very good examples. And as the new technology automates some tasks they also create new. After all the drones must be repaired, powered up, protected when they are not on mission, controlled etc etc. even suicide drones needs people to launch and guide them. And for the infantry man/woman there is new tasks, aside from the age old core task of controlling an area.
Thanks Hans, I'll check out Daron Acemoglou
you are writing what he says, but without any math no Nobel prize in Sweden. (we Norwegians dropped that criterium for our Nobel price, but the Economy prize has it)
This: «They’re remotely operated, like a long-range RC car.» Important point, people seems to miss that point. Drones of all sorts are remotely controlled, not independent. Ukraines unmanned forces are more than 30 thousand men/woman strong. Yes, AI is in large scale use, but not autonomous. A in AI is for Artificial… nothing wrong with that, the results are really impressive. But in the old automation/augmentation discussion of technology all these are augmentations. Needing the humans.
Excellent article. When I was a new, young infantry lieutenant (back when Washington was a general and not a city), my father (himself a WW2 combat veteran of the Pacific) said regardless of all the fire you bring to bear, you can’t claim to hold ground until you have a man with a bayonet standing on it.
Great sentiment!
Wes, you say it one sentence. UGV’s removing casualties, the people are still there.
Good post, Wes! Boots on the ground! When it comes right down to it, that's really the icing on the cake! I guess I hadn't been paying attention completely but I didn't realize you were both an Army and an Air Force veteran. I can't think of anyone more qualified to talk about weapon systems that affect both, and the intimate interaction thereof! In my time in the infantry, I remember clearly that there were only two types of missions: destroy the enemy, or assault and hold territory. No UGV can hold territory yet without boots on the ground, but maybe that day is coming! Who knows! Five years ago I would've never thought that this would be the situation, that Ukraine would be handing Russia its ballsacks with drones. TIME marches on, but the infantry remains eternal! Please keep up the good work Wes!
Pete
Thanks Pete!
My pleasure! Always enjoy what you have to say!
Your insights on this topic are excellent. Large groups and politicos tend to want to settle on one simple answer. Your comment make clear that won’t work here.
A fine summation of what 'robots' will never INTUIT
Hey Wes,
Outstandingly well-written article...
It definitely goes a long way in removing all the glitz and hype over automation. Truth be told, technology in general and automation in particular will always be a two-edged sword... cutting in both directions. And it's only those users who keep the human dimension at the core of its application that will be able to reap and realize its greatest potential.