“The one who becomes the leader in this sphere (artificial intelligence) will be the ruler of the world.” –Russian President Vladimir Putin
Perplexing suggestion to give up on accountability because there are complex design and development life cycles. That is why there is governance, life-cycle management, standards, enterprise architecture and risk management. The article claims that bad metrics make accountability impossible. Pun intended, this is a prime example of a bad metric (assumption) leading to a defective product (conclusion.) Lat arising manufacturing, labor, political or any problems may not (or actually may) be relevant to, for example an earlier bad decision on vendor selection or supply chain, but each gate’s decision can be held to standards and metrics relevant to, and foreseeable at that gate.
partnering with the Center for Strategic and International Studies to bring you their fab Bad Ideas series through the Christmas holiday season. They produced three today. I’m betting Sen. John McCain will most enjoy the first of the three, this one by Andrew Hunter, on why it’s so damn complex and often difficult to know just who to hold responsible for acquisition malpractice. We’re putting the three pieces up separately.
Service chiefs are converging on a single strategy for military dominance: connect everything to everything.
For men at war, the function of the weapon is the function of the eye. -Paul Virilio, War and Cinema: The Logistics of Perception
Wing commanders within the U.S. Air Force’s space enterprise discussed how they are using intelligence to better help their respective missions.
The United States has recently been ridiculed for losing the ongoing information war, and has fallen victim to successive propaganda and disinformation campaigns orchestrated by Russia without a significant response. Given Russia’s aggressive meddling in the 2016 US elections, along with other concerted efforts to delegitimize Western democracies and their institutions, it is imperative for […]
The U.S. Army is concept-based and doctrine-driven. It uses concepts to change the Army for the future, while doctrine establishes frameworks and guidance to run the Army in the present. As the Army’s “architect,” Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is charged with the responsibility to craft both concepts and doctrine. To arrive at the future prepared and ready to dominate the fight, we need a concept to guide convergence and integration of capabilities across air, land, sea, space, cyber, and electro-magnetic spectrum.