{"id":30187,"date":"2013-12-16T00:41:30","date_gmt":"2013-12-16T00:41:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=30187"},"modified":"2013-12-16T00:58:13","modified_gmt":"2013-12-16T00:58:13","slug":"master-and-drone-commander","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=30187","title":{"rendered":"Master and (Drone) Commander?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>(by <strong>Adam Elkus<\/strong>)<\/p>\n<p>How to think about the shape of future, high-end conventional conflict? Military robotics seems to be a point of recent focus. Take Tom Ricks&#8217; latest on the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/to-improve-the-us-military-shrink-it\/2013\/12\/06\/b3b1b062-5c3c-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story.html\">American military<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>By and large, the United States still has an Industrial Age military in an Information Age world. With some exceptions, the focus is more on producing mass strength than achieving precision. Land forces, in particular, need to think less about relying on big bases and more about being able to survive in an era of persistent global surveillance. For example, what will happen when the technological advances of the past decade, such as armed drones controlled from the far side of the planet, are turned against us? A drone is little more than a flying improvised explosive device. What if terrorists find ways to send them to Washington addresses they obtain from the Internet?<\/p>\n<p>Imagine a world where, in a few decades, Google (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.palantir.com\/\" data-xslt=\"_http\">having acquired Palantir<\/a>) is the world\u2019s largest defense contractor. Would we want generals who think more like George Patton or Steve Jobs \u2014 or who offer a bit of both? How do we get them? These are the sorts of questions the Pentagon should begin addressing. If it does not, we should find leaders \u2014 civilian and in uniform \u2014 who will.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I quote (as I often do) from <a href=\"http:\/\/globalguerrillas.typepad.com\/globalguerrillas\/2011\/12\/drone-bonjwas.html\">John Robb&#8217;s excellent analysis of drone swarms<\/a>\u00a0because Robb has produced one of the few classics in the emerging military literature on the future of drone warfare. Here, Robb rhapsodizes about the future drone swarm commander and his unlikely origins in the civilian (and South Korea-dominated)\u00a0<em>Starcraft <\/em>game series:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Here are some of the characteristics we&#8217;ll see in the near future:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Swarms<\/strong>. \u00a0The cost and size of drones will shrink. \u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/diydrones.com\/\" target=\"_self\">Nearly everyone will have<\/a>\u00a0access to drone tech (autopilots already cost less than $30). \u00a0Further, the software to enable drones to employ swarm behavior will improve. \u00a0So, don&#8217;t think in terms of a single drone. Think in terms of a single person controlling hundreds and thousands.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Intelligence<\/strong>. \u00a0Drones\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/globalguerrillas.typepad.com\/globalguerrillas\/2008\/03\/rats-and-supere.html\" target=\"_self\">will be smarter than they are today<\/a>. \u00a0The average commercial chip passed the level of insect intelligence a little less than a decade ago (which &#8220;magically&#8221; resulted in an explosion of drone\/bot tech). \u00a0Chips will cross rat intelligence in 2018 or so. \u00a0Think in terms of each drone being smart enough to follow tactical instructions.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Dynamism<\/strong>. \u00a0The combination of massive swarms with individual elements being highly intelligent puts combat on an entirely new level. \u00a0It requires a warrior that can provide tactical guidance and situational awareness in real time at a level that is beyond current training paradigms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Training Drone Bonjwas<\/h3>\n<p>Based on the above requirements, the best training for drones (in the air and on land) isn&#8217;t real world training, it&#8217;s tactical games (not first person shooters). \u00a0Think in terms of the classic military scifi book, &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/exec\/obidos\/ASIN\/0812550706\/ref=nosim\/globalguerril-20\" target=\"_self\">Ender&#8217;s Game<\/a>&#8221; by Orson Scott Card. Of the games currently on the market, the best example of the type of expertise required is Blizzard&#8217;s\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/exec\/obidos\/ASIN\/B000ZKA0J6\/ref=nosim\/globalguerril-20\" target=\"_self\">StarCraft<\/a>, a scifi tactical management game that has amazing multiplayer tactical balance\/dynamism. \u00a0The game is extremely popular worldwide, but in South Korea, it has reached cult status. \u00a0The best players,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/wiki.teamliquid.net\/starcraft\/Bonjwa\" target=\"_self\">called Bonjwas<\/a>, are treated like rock stars, and for good reason:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Training of hand\/eye\/mind. \u00a0Speeds of up to 400 keyboard mouse (macro\/micro) tactical commands per minute have been attained. \u00a0Think about that for a second. \u00a0That&#8217;s nearly 7 commands a second.<\/li>\n<li>Fight multi-player combat simulations \u00a0for 10-12 hours a day. \u00a0They live the game for a decade and then burn out. \u00a0 Mind vs. mind competition continuously.<\/li>\n<li>To become a bonjwa, you have to defeat millions of opponents to reach the tournament rank, and then dominate the tournament rank for many years. \u00a0The ranking system\/ladder that farms new talent is global (Korea, China, SEA, North America, and Europe), huge (millions of players), and continuous (24x7x365).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>That&#8217;s the tactics&#8212;but what about the strategy? Robb calls it a &#8220;tactical management game,&#8221; which is correct. We can discern a bare shell of the &#8220;strategy&#8221; we normally discuss in the higher level decisions concerning the composition and deployment of the force. And here we also see a different kind of strategic control at play, one much more having to do with the Cold War science of operations research.<\/p>\n<p>One important cognitive aspect of <em>Starcraft <\/em>that has been automated is the evolution up the tech tree. The <a href=\"http:\/\/gamestudies.org\/1201\/articles\/tuur_ghys\">tech tree that the player must advance up<\/a> in order to produce needed units, accessories, and tactics is deterministic, perhaps reflecting the real-world convergence toward a <a href=\"http:\/\/globetrotter.berkeley.edu\/people6\/Biddle\/biddle-con3.html\">&#8220;modern&#8221; style <\/a>of high-end conventional tactics. <em>Starcraft <\/em>as a game represents the\u00a0purely tactical considerations of warfare as an elaborate game of rock-paper-scissors, in keeping with <a href=\"http:\/\/www.clausewitz.com\/readings\/Bassford\/Cworks\/Works.htm\">Clausewitz&#8217;s statement<\/a> that tactics can be considered closer to science than other aspects of warfare.<\/p>\n<p>It is a reflection of <em>Starcraft<\/em>&#8216;s deterministic structure that the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wired.com\/gamelife\/2010\/11\/genetic-algorithms-starcraft\/\">tech tree &#8220;build orders&#8221;<\/a>, the most crucial element of <em>Starcraft<\/em>&#8216;s mode of war, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.rockpapershotgun.com\/2010\/11\/02\/genetic-algorithms-find-build-order-from-hell\/\">can be automated<\/a>. A genetic algorithm infamously was derived to optimize build orders. But this is only possible because the build orders themselves optimize a very small piece of the overall problem, and one made possible by determinism baked into the game.<\/p>\n<p>The use of genetic algorithms to produce build orders also interestingly enough mirrors the overall social, economic, and organizational structure that produces a champion <em>Starcraft <\/em>player. In the 1980s, <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation\">Robert Axelrod created an algorithm tournament<\/a> designed to find a best-performing strategy to the canonical &#8220;Prisoner&#8217;s Dilemma&#8221; in game theory. Using the tournament selection mode of genetic algorithms, Axelrod iteratively weeded out &#8220;unfit&#8221; strategies until a dominant strategy was found. Perhaps the process that Robb describes is quite literally &#8220;tournament selection&#8221; that produces an optimal <em>Starcraft <\/em>player type.<\/p>\n<p>The most important element of strategy &#8212; translating organized violence into political payoff &#8212; is mostly absent.\u00a0<em>Starcraft\u00a0<\/em>demands\u00a0the intricate steps needed to prepare the weapon itself (build older optimization) and immaculate skill at firing it (in-game command) but not the problem of ensuring that the violence make political sense. There is no security dilemma caused by the threat of\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.urbandictionary.com\/define.php?term=zergling%20rush\">Zergling rushes<\/a>. \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n<p>Because it is a videogame,\u00a0<em>Starcraft<\/em>\u00a0as experienced by the player is nothing close to the overall difficulty, uncertainty, and complexity implied by the overall in-game universe of factions, technologies, and personalities. The level of cognitive <em>difficulty<\/em> that must be dealt with is kept on the order of something that a single player can reason through. Of course, in even in the &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/The-Closed-World-Computers-Technology\/dp\/0262550288\">closed<\/a>&#8221; world of <em>real<\/em> Cold War military science (which <em>Starcraft <\/em>has eerie similarities to), this has been the stuff of military staffs, RAND and Hudson-like research groups, systems analysts, and supercomputers.<\/p>\n<p>What about uncertainty and complexity? Depending on the game, the most important political-military decisions may not be up to the player.\u00a0The transformative in-game decision to rebel against Arcturus Mengsk and create <a href=\"http:\/\/starcraft.wikia.com\/wiki\/Raynor's_Raiders\">Raynor&#8217;s Raiders<\/a> is not made by the player but by the grieving <a href=\"http:\/\/starcraft.wikia.com\/wiki\/Jim_Raynor\">Jim Raynor<\/a>. \u00a0In <em>Starcraft:\u00a0Brood War <\/em>and\u00a0<em>Starcraft II<\/em>, player choice becomes important in structuring the flow of action. When attacking Char in <em>Starcraft II<\/em>, the player must choose to either attack the enemy&#8217;s air support or ground elements. Both choices are presented are potentially valid depending on player preference. Many other individual choices lead to important distinctions in the shape of events. But the overall &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scholarpedia.org\/article\/Basin_of_attraction\">basins of attractions<\/a>&#8221; built into the game structure pull the player towards the same broad outcome regardless. That&#8217;s because the game universe and the creators&#8217; demands is the overarching political-military context that determines the path of the war.<\/p>\n<p>When it comes to multiplayer matches, online games in general make combat sport. That is why we dub the Korean <em>Starcraft <\/em>aces champions. They compete in a ritualized game with clear rules and all-powerful human gamemasters that create the game itself and instantiate their ideas of what an ideal combat sport represents in computer \u00a0code. <em>Starcraft <\/em>has much more in common with the Roman coliseum battles than the Roman army on campaign in some harsh European or Middle Eastern land. Of course, all online environments have weak points that are often exploited to offer advantage, but<em>\u00a0Starcraft<\/em>&#8216;s limited range of behavior makes it easier for game-masters to secure than the sprawling\u00a0<em>World of Warcraft <\/em>or <em>EVE Online.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Though I have some serious misgivings about the <a href=\"http:\/\/www4.ncsu.edu\/~tenshi\/Killer_000.htm\">ethical context<\/a> of <em>Ender&#8217;s Game<\/em>\u00a0as a novel, it also remarkably approximates the experience of game-playing in many real-time &#8220;strategy&#8221; games like <em>Starcraft<\/em>.\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ender_Wiggin\">Ender himself<\/a>, whom Robb analogizes, is a virtual virtuoso that spends most of his time in <em>Ender&#8217;s Game<\/em>\u00a0unaware that the &#8220;training&#8221; simulations he is playing are actually the war he is training to fight in the first place. Hence one comes to wonder if the real genius is not necessarily <em>entirely\u00a0<\/em>Ender, who supplies the cognitive firepower necessary to dominate Clausewitz&#8217;s &#8220;play of chance&#8221; on the battlefield. Rather, what about the men and women who organized \u00a0and equipped the fleet? \u00a0And of the politicians and generals that decided \u00a0the overall shape of the strategy that Ender executes, and infamously decided to authorize the genocide of the &#8220;Bug&#8221; aliens Ender exterminates with weapons of mass destruction?<\/p>\n<p>This isn&#8217;t a strike against Robb&#8217;s idea that <em>Starcraft<\/em> is a metaphor for one part of future warfare. Robb himself states that <em>Starcraft <\/em>is <em>tactical management, <\/em>and it is as good an vision to contend with as any other.\u00a0Changes in warfare that begin on the level of tactics have <em>strategic<\/em> implications. We already know that tactical virtuosity that might be so essential to victory in a closed environment with well-formulated rules are often counterbalanced by the problem of making those skills serve strategic effectiveness <em>outside that environment<\/em>. What kind of problems might arise for the hypothetical <em>Starcraft<\/em>-ish military bot commander?<\/p>\n<p>The first problem to be surmounted is <em>collective action<\/em>. <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Multi-agent_system\">Multi-agent systems<\/a> face similar coordination problems as seen in human relationships. The interdisciplinary field of algorithmic game theory has arisen to study how to create <em><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Algorithmic_mechanism_design\">algorithmic mechanism design<\/a> <\/em>for solving many of these issues. Another problem lies in the conflict between speed of tactical execution and the slower-moving demands of strategy. The Cold War stories of commanders that decide to risk annihilation rather than launch nuclear forces on faulty signals tells that many strategic problems have to do not necessarily with the most efficient ways of employing violence but <a href=\"http:\/\/www.foreignaffairs.com\/articles\/23368\/sir-solly-zuckerman\/judgment-and-control-in-modern-warfare\">rather have to do<\/a> with the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Military-Strategy-General-Control-Classics\/dp\/0870213628\"><em>control <\/em>of military power<\/a>. This question has in fact <a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Governing-Lethal-Behavior-Autonomous-Robots\/dp\/1420085948\">dominated<\/a> most <a href=\"http:\/\/www.hrw.org\/topic\/arms\/killer-robots\">discussion<\/a> about autonomous weapons.<\/p>\n<p>Lastly, the most important insight that Robb&#8217;s piece gives us is that <em>Starcraft <\/em>is an <em>social environmen<\/em>t that <em>produces novel behavior<\/em>. It is the <em>online wargaming medium<\/em> itself and its speed and essentially <em>social\u00a0<\/em>complexity that produces the Starcraft champion&#8217;s unique characteristics. Similarly, a certain <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Napoleon\">Corsican<\/a> arose from the cauldron of the &#8220;multi-player interaction&#8221; of an era caught between the emerging crest of &#8220;modern&#8221; warfare and the 18th century military system. Dubbed the &#8220;God of War,&#8221; he became the template for every 19th century commander to copy. The most important strategic problem implied by Robb&#8217;s blog is conceptualizing the range of behaviors produced by the unique military system that he sketches with <em>Starcraft <\/em>as inspiration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(by Adam Elkus) How to think about the shape of future, high-end conventional conflict? Military robotics seems to be a point of recent focus. Take Tom Ricks&#8217; latest on the American military: By and large, the United States still has an Industrial Age military in an Information Age world. With some exceptions, the focus is [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[127,13,18],"tags":[987,988,1235,985,986],"class_list":["post-30187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-strategy","category-theory","category-war","tag-enders-game","tag-future-warfare","tag-military","tag-robots","tag-starcraft"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30187","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=30187"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30187\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30190,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30187\/revisions\/30190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=30187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=30187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=30187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}