Army of None Read online

  If our competitors go to Terminators . . . and it turns out the Terminators are able to make decisions faster, even if they’re bad, how would we respond?

  Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva has termed this dilemma “The Terminator Conundrum.” The stakes are high: AI is emerging as a powerful technology. Used the right way, intelligent machines could save lives by making war more precise and humane. Used the wrong way, autonomous weapons could lead to more killing and even greater civilian casualties. Nations will not make these choices in a vacuum. It will depend on what other countries do, as well as on the collective choices of scientists, engineers, lawyers, human rights activists, and others participating in this debate. Artificial intelligence is coming and it will be used in war. How it is used, however, is an open question. In the words of John Connor, hero of the Terminator movies and leader of the human resistance against the machines, “The future’s not set. There’s no fate but what we make for ourselves.” The fight to ban autonomous weapons cuts to the core of humanity’s ages-old conflicted relationship with technology: do we control our creations or do they control us?

  PART I

  Robopocalypse Now

  1

  THE COMING SWARM

  THE MILITARY ROBOTICS REVOLUTION

  On a sunny afternoon in the hills of central California, a swarm takes flight. One by one, a launcher flings the slim Styrofoam-winged drones into the air. The drones let off a high-pitched buzz, which fades as they climb into the crystal blue California sky.

  The drones carve the air with sharp, precise movements. I look at the drone pilot standing next to me and realize with some surprise that his hands aren’t touching the controls; the drones are flying fully autonomously. It’s a silly realization—after all, autonomous drone swarms are what I’ve come here to see—yet somehow the experience of watching the drones fly with such agility without any human controlling them is different than I’d imagined. Their nimble movements seem purposeful, and it’s hard not to imbue them with intention. It’s both impressive and discomfiting, this idea of the drones operating “off leash.”

  I’ve traveled to Camp Roberts, California, to see researchers from the Naval Postgraduate School investigate something no one else in the world has ever done before: swarm warfare. Unlike Predator drones, which are individually remotely piloted by human controllers on the ground, these researchers’ drones are controlled en masse. Today’s experiment will feature twenty drones flying simultaneously in a ten-against-ten swarm-on-swarm mock dogfight. The shooting is simulated, but the maneuvering and flying are all real.

  Each drone comes off the launcher with its autopilot already switched on. Without any human direction, they climb to their assigned altitudes and form two teams, reporting back when they are “swarm ready.” The Red and Blue swarms wait in their respective corners of the aerial combat arena, circling like a flock of hungry buzzards.

  The pilot commanding Red Swarm rubs his hands together, anticipating the coming battle—which is funny, because his entire role is just to click the button that tells the swarm to start. After that, he’s as much of a spectator as I am.

  Duane Davis, the retired Navy helicopter pilot turned computer programmer who designed the swarm algorithms, counts down to the fight:

  “Initiating swarm v. swarm . . . 3, 2, 1, shoot!”

  Both the Red and Blue swarm commanders put their swarms into action. The two swarms close in on each other without hesitation. “Fight’s on!” Duane yells enthusiastically. Within seconds, the swarms close the gap and collide. The two swarms blend together into a furball of close air combat. The swarms maneuver and swirl as a single mass. Simulated shots are tallied up at the bottom of the computer screen:

  “UAV 74 fired at UAV 33

  “UAV 59 fired at UAV 25

  “UAV 33 hit

  “UAV 25 hit . . .”

  The swarms’ behavior is driven by a simple algorithm called Greedy Shooter. Each drone will maneuver to get into a kill shot position against an enemy drone. A human must only choose the swarm behavior—wait, follow, attack, or land—and tell the swarm to start. After that, all of the swarm’s actions are totally autonomous.

  On the Red Swarm commander’s computer screen, it’s hard to tell who’s winning. The drone icons overlap one another in a blur while, outside, the drones circle each other in a maelstrom of air combat. The whirling gyre looks like pure chaos to me, although Davis tells me he sometimes can pick out which drones are chasing each other.

  A referee software called The Arbiter tracks the score. Red Swarm gains the upper hand with four kills to Blue’s two. The “killed” drones’ status switches from green to red as they’re taken out of the fight. Then the fight falls into a lull, with the aircraft circling each other, unable to get a kill. Davis explains that because the aircraft are perfectly matched—same airframe, same flight controls, same algorithms—they sometimes fall into a stalemate where neither side can gain the upper hand.

  Davis resets the battlefield for Round 2 and the swarms return to their respective corners. When the swarm commanders click go, the swarms close on each other once again. This time the battle comes out dead even, 3–3. In Round 3, Red pulls out a decisive win, 7–4. Red Swarm commander is happy to take credit for the win. “I pushed the button,” he says with a chuckle.

  Just as robots are transforming industries—from self-driving cars to robot vacuum cleaners and caretakers for the elderly—they are also transforming war. Global spending on military robotics is estimated to reach $7.5 billion per year in 2018, with scores of countries expanding their arsenals of air, ground, and maritime robots.

  Robots have many battlefield advantages over traditional human-inhabited vehicles. Unshackled from the physiological limits of humans, uninhabited (“unmanned”) vehicles can be made smaller, lighter, faster, and more maneuverable. They can stay out on the battlefield far beyond the limits of human endurance, for weeks, months, or even years at a time without rest. They can take more risk, opening up tactical opportunities for dangerous or even suicidal missions without risking human lives.

  However, robots have one major disadvantage. By removing the human from the vehicle, they lose the most advanced cognitive processor on the planet: the human brain. Most military robots today are remotely controlled, or teleoperated, by humans; they depend on fragile communication links that can be jammed or disrupted by environmental conditions. Without these communications, robots can only perform simple tasks, and their capacity for autonomous operation is limited.

  The solution: more autonomy.

  THE ACCIDENTAL REVOLUTION

  No one planned on a robotics revolution, but the U.S. military stumbled into one as it deployed thousands of air and ground robots to meet urgent needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) had woken up to the fact that something significant was happening. Spending on uninhabited aircraft, or drones, which had hovered around the $300 million per year mark in the 1990s, skyrocketed after 9/11, increasing sixfold to over $2 billion per year by 2005. Drones proved particularly valuable in the messy counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Larger aircraft like the MQ-1B Predator can quietly surveil terrorists around the clock, tracking their movements and unraveling their networks. Smaller hand-launched drones like the RQ-11 Raven can provide troops “over-the-hill reconnaissance” on demand while on patrol. Hundreds of drones had been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in short order.

  Drones weren’t new—they had been used in a limited fashion in Vietnam—but the overwhelming crush of demand for them was. While in later years drones would become associated with “drone strikes,” it is their capacity for persistent surveillance, not dropping bombs, that makes them unique and valuable to the military. They give commanders a low-cost, low-risk way to put eyes in the sky.

  Soon, the Pentagon was pouring drones into the wars at a breakneck pace. By 2011, annual spending on drones had swelled to over $6 bill
ion per year, over twenty times pre-9/11 levels. DoD had over 7,000 drones in its fleet. The vast majority of them were smaller hand-launched models, but large aircraft like the MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk were also valuable military assets.

  At the same time, DoD was discovering that robots weren’t just valuable in the air. They were equally important, if not more so, on the ground. Driven in large part by the rise of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), DoD deployed over 6,000 ground robots to Iraq and Afghanistan. Small robots like the iRobot Packbot allowed troops to disable or destroy IEDs without putting themselves at risk. Bomb disposal is a great job for a robot.

  THE MARCH TOWARD EVER-GREATER AUTONOMY

  In 2005, after DoD started to come to grips with the robotics revolution and its implications for the future of conflict, it began publishing a series of “roadmaps” for future unmanned system investment. The first roadmap was focused on aircraft, but subsequent roadmaps in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013 included ground and maritime vehicles as well. While the lion’s share of dollars has gone toward uninhabited aircraft, ground, sea surface, and undersea vehicles have valuable roles to play as well.

  These roadmaps did more than simply catalog the investments DoD was making. Each roadmap looked forward twenty-five years into the future, outlining technology needs and wants in order to help inform future investments by government and industry. They covered sensors, communications, power, weapons, propulsion, and other key enabling technologies. Across all the roadmaps, autonomy is a dominant theme.

  The 2011 roadmap perhaps summarized the vision best:

  For unmanned systems to fully realize their potential, they must be able to achieve a highly autonomous state of behavior and be able to interact with their surroundings. This advancement will require an ability to understand and adapt to their environment, and an ability to collaborate with other autonomous systems.

  Autonomy is the cognitive engine that power robots. Without autonomy, robots are only empty vessels, brainless husks that depend on human controllers for direction.

  In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military operated in a relatively “permissive” electromagnetic environment where insurgents did not generally have the ability to jam communications with robot vehicles, but this will not always be the case in future conflicts. Major nation-state militaries will almost certainly have the ability to disrupt or deny communications networks, and the electromagnetic spectrum will be highly contested. The U.S. military has ways of communicating that are more resistant to jamming, but these methods are limited in range and bandwidth. Against a major military power, the type of drone operations the United States has conducted when going after terrorists—streaming high-definition, full-motion video back to stateside bases via satellites—will not be possible. In addition, some environments inherently make communications challenging, such as undersea, where radio wave propagation is hindered by water. In these situations, autonomy is a must if robotic systems are to be effective. As machine intelligence advances, militaries will be able to create ever more autonomous robots capable of carrying out more complex missions in more challenging environments independent from human control.

  Even if communications links work perfectly, greater autonomy is also desirable because of the personnel costs of remotely controlling robots. Thousands of robots require thousands of people to control them, if each robot is remotely operated. Predator and Reaper drone operations require seven to ten pilots to staff one drone “orbit” of 24/7 continuous around-the-clock coverage over an area. Another twenty people per orbit are required to operate the sensors on the drone, and scores of intelligence analysts are needed to sift through the sensor data. In fact, because of these substantial personnel requirements, the U.S. Air Force has a strong resistance to calling these aircraft “unmanned.” There may not be anyone on board the aircraft, but there are still humans controlling it and supporting it.

  Because the pilot remains on the ground, uninhabited aircraft free surveillance operations from the limits of human endurance—but only the physical ones. Drones can stay aloft for days at a time, far longer than a human pilot could remain effective sitting in the cockpit, but remote operation doesn’t change the cognitive requirements on human operators. Humans still have to perform the same tasks, they just aren’t physically on board the vehicle. The Air Force prefers the term “remotely piloted aircraft” because that’s what today’s drones are. Pilots still fly the aircraft via stick and rudder input, just remotely from the ground, sometimes even half a world away.

  It’s a cumbersome way to operate. Building tens of thousands of cheap robots is not a cost-effective strategy if they require even larger numbers of highly trained (and expensive) people to operate them.

  Autonomy is the answer. The 2011 DoD roadmap stated:

  Autonomy reduces the human workload required to operate systems, enables the optimization of the human role in the system, and allows human decision making to focus on points where it is most needed. These benefits can further result in manpower efficiencies and cost savings as well as greater speed in decision-making.

  Many of DoD’s robotic roadmaps point toward the long-term goal of full autonomy. The 2005 roadmap looked toward “fully autonomous swarms.” The 2011 roadmap articulated an evolution of four levels of autonomy from (1) human operated to (2) human delegated, (3) human supervised, and eventually (4) fully autonomous. The benefits of greater autonomy was the “single greatest theme” in a 2010 report from the Air Force Office of the Chief Scientist on future technology.

  Although Predator and Reaper drones are still flown manually, albeit remotely from the ground, other aircraft such as Air Force Global Hawk and Army Gray Eagle drones have much more automation: pilots direct these aircraft where to go and the aircraft flies itself. Rather than being flown via a stick and rudder, the aircraft are directed via keyboard and mouse. The Army doesn’t even refer to the people controlling its aircraft as “pilots”—it called them “operators.” Even with this greater automation, however, these aircraft still require one human operator per aircraft for anything but the simplest missions.

  Incrementally, engineers are adding to the set of tasks that uninhabited aircraft can perform on their own, moving step by step toward increasingly autonomous drones. In 2013, the U.S. Navy successfully landed its X-47B prototype drone on a carrier at sea, autonomously. The only human input was the order to land; the actual flying was done by software. In 2014, the Navy’s Autonomous Aerial Cargo/Utility System (AACUS) helicopter autonomously scouted out an improvised landing area and executed a successful landing on its own. Then in 2015, the X-47B drone again made history by conducting the first autonomous aerial refueling, taking gas from another aircraft while in flight.

  These are key milestones in building more fully combat-capable uninhabited aircraft. Just as autonomous cars will allow a vehicle to drive from point A to point B without manual human control, the ability to takeoff, land, navigate, and refuel autonomously will allow robots to perform tasks under human direction and supervision, but without humans controlling each movement. This can begin to break the paradigm of humans manually controlling the robot, shifting humans into a supervisory role. Humans will command the robot what action to take, and it will execute the task on its own.

  Swarming, or cooperative autonomy, is the next step in this evolution. Davis is most excited about the nonmilitary applications of swarming, from search and rescue to agriculture. Coordinated robot behavior could be useful for a wide variety of applications and the Naval Postgraduate School’s research is very basic, so the algorithms they’re building could be used for many purposes. Still, the military advantages in mass, coordination, and speed are profound and hard to ignore. Swarming can allow militaries to field large numbers of assets on the battlefield with a small number of human controllers. Cooperative behavior can also allow quicker reaction times, so that the swarm can respond to changing events faster than would be possible with one person controlling each vehic
le.

  In conducting their swarm dogfight experiment, Davis and his colleagues are pushing the boundaries of autonomy. Their next goal is to work up to a hundred drones fighting in a fifty-on-fifty aerial swarm battle, something Davis and his colleagues are already simulating on computers, and their ultimate goal is to move beyond dogfighting to a more complex game akin to capture the flag. Two swarms would compete to score the most points by landing at the other’s air base without being “shot down” first. Each swarm must balance defending its own base, shooting down enemy drones, and getting as many of its drones as possible into the enemy’s base. What are the “plays” to run with a swarm? What are the best tactics? These are precisely the questions Davis and his colleagues want to explore.

  “If I have fifty planes that are involved in a swarm,” he said, “how much of that swarm do I want to be focused on offense—getting to the other guy’s landing area? How much do I want focused on defending my landing space and doing the air-to-air problem? How do I want to do assignments of tasks between the swarms? If I’ve got the adversary’s UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] coming in, how do I want my swarm deciding which UAV is going to take which adversary to try to stop them from getting to our base?”

  Swarm tactics are still at a very early stage. Currently, the human operator allocates a certain number of drones to a sub-swarm then tasks that sub-swarm with a mission, such as attempting to attack an enemy’s base or attacking enemy aircraft. After that, the human is in a supervisory mode. Unless there is a safety concern, the human controller won’t intervene to take control of an aircraft. Even then, if an aircraft began to experience a malfunction, it wouldn’t make sense to take control of it until it left the swarm’s vicinity. Taking manual control of an aircraft in the middle of the swarm could actually instigate a midair collision. It would be very difficult for a human to predict and avoid a collision with all of the other drones swirling in the sky. If the drone is under the swarm’s command, however, it will automatically adjust its flight to avoid a collision.