The Team House - How AI & Quantum Computing will Change the Battle Space | Tom Gaines | Ep. 324

Episode Date: January 24, 2025

Tom Gaines is a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, whose military journey began as a rifle platoon leader during the height of combat operations in Iraq. There, he gained firsthand experience leading soldiers through ambushes, firefights, and high-stakes raids, learning the true meaning of resilience and leadership under fire. His path eventually led him to Special Operations, where he sharpened his abilities as both a leader and a strategic thinker.In this elite community, Tom’s expertise has shaped decisions at the highest levels of government, and his innovations in information technology continue to influence the evolution of modern defense technology. His deep understanding of leadership, decision-making, and technology has made him a sought-after voice in these fields, with his work appearing in the Harvard Business Review, Chicago Booth Review, and West Point’s Modern War Institute. He has also co-authored several influential publications on military strategy, including Creating Strategic Problem Solvers and Trust the AI, But Keep Your Powder Dry.When not leading advanced IT initiatives or writing on leadership, Tom advises organizations on how to thrive in today’s rapidly changing and uncertain environments. His debut novel, Quantum Dagger, draws from his military experience and explores a world of advanced technology and global conflict, offering a thrilling and thought-provoking look at the future of warfare.——————————————————————-Order Jack Murphy's new book "We Defy: The Lost Chapters of Special Forces History" today! ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/We-Defy-Chapters-Special-History-ebook/dp/B0DCGC1N1N/Support the show here:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouse___________________________________________________Subscribe to the new EYES ON podcast here:⬇️https://www.youtube.com/@EyesOnPodcast/featured—————————————————————-Today's Sponsors:GhostBed⬇️https://www.ghostbed.com/houseFOR 50% OFF!!!Mando ⬇️https://shopmando.comPromo code "TEAMHOUSE" for 40% off your starter pack.____________________________________Pre-order Jack Murphy's new book "We Defy: The Lost Chapters of Special Forces History" today! ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/We-Defy-Chapters-Special-History-ebook/dp/B0DCGC1N1N/——————————————————————To help support the show and for all bonus content including:https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouse-AD FREE AUDIO-AD FREE VIDEO-Access to ALL bonus segments with our guestsSubscribe to our Patreon! ⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseOr make a one time donation at: ⬇️https://ko-fi.com/theteamhouseTeam House merch: ⬇️https://teespring.com/stores/my-store-10474963Social Media: ⬇️The Team House Instagram:https://instagram.com/the.team.house?utm_medium=copy_linkThe Team House Twitter:https://twitter.com/TheTeamHousePodJack’s Instagram:https://instagram.com/jackmcmurph?utm_medium=copy_linkJack’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/jackmurphyrgr?s=21Dave’s Twitter:https://twitter.com/dave_parke?s=21Team House Discord: ⬇️https://discord.gg/wHFHYM6SubReddit: ⬇️https://www.reddit.com/r/TheTeamHouse/Jack Murphy's memoir "Murphy's Law" can be found here:⬇️ https://www.amazon.com/Murphys-Law-Journey-Investigative-Journalist/dp/1501191241The Team Room Reading Room (Amazon Affiliate links):⬇️ https://jackmurphywrites.com/the-team-room-reading-room/Intro music by https://www.youtube.com/user/RemixSampleWant to sponsor the show?Email: ⬇️[e-mail] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey guys, it's Jack. I just wanted to talk to you today about a way that you can help support the podcast if you're not already. To support the channel is to become a Patreon member. So we have Patreon memberships that start at just $5 a month. And when you sign up, you get access to all of our episodes ad free. That's the big bonus for that. I mean, we also do some Patreon bonus episodes for our subscribers. But this is the biggest and best way that you can support the Team House. channel and podcast if you'd like to and we really appreciate that so go it and check us out at patreon.com slash the team house special operations covert ops espionage the team house with your host jack murphy and david park hello everyone welcome to episode 324 of the team house i'm jack here with and our guest on tonight's show is Tom Gaines. He's the author of Quantum Dagger, which I read here on my Kindle. Tom, you want to hold up the paperback version.

You can go and find both of these out on Amazon now and pick up a copy. Tom serves as a signals officer and a United States Army Special Operations Command officer. And he wrote this book. It envisions near-term war and how technology is going to impact tomorrow's conflicts.

So Tom, welcome to the show. I'm really happy to have you on here. I really enjoyed the book. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate you guys inviting me on. I really like what you all do with the team house, the discussions that you all have with different members of the community. I think what you guys do is fill a pretty important niche,

which is not filled by a lot of the other podcasts that are out there. So, yeah, I appreciate what you guys are doing. That's a strong endorsement. Thank you, Tom. I'll take that. So let's start off talking a little bit about you and your military career, which will, of course, lead us into the book. Tell us a little bit about, you know, where you came from and how you ended up in the Army.

What was that path like for you? Yeah. So, I mean, all stories start at the beginning. So my dad was in the Army. he was actually a medical corps officer, so he was a physician. He got out right when I was in like third grade at the beginning of a desert storm. So I was vaguely around the military, but not really for the most of my life. Then we moved to East Tennessee, grew up, always saying that I was going to follow in his footsteps,

did what everybody else did and went to college and kind of ran into some trouble because I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life. You know, I finally got to the point where the world was open to me and I struggled. Fortunately, though, I kind of stumbled onto ROTC. I thought about honestly just dropping out of school and enlisting, but that seemed a little bit drastic to do something I had no idea what I was going to do. I was like, well, just try this ROTC thing, see what that is. I didn't have any idea what the difference would have been between enlisting or going through ROTC and becoming an officer. It was like, oh, just I'll do this thing. And it turned out to be a great decision for me, right?

Because essentially, I just lacked sort of discipline and drive to accomplish things on my own. So I kind of latched on to what the Army provided in ROTC. And I just borrowed theirs. And it was enough to get me, get me through. College was wasted on me then. But that's all that's right. I think, you know, the youth is wasted on the. young. I made it through though and commissioned into the into the infantry went through the

infantry pipeline so the Benning School for boys and then Ranger School and then Airborne School and then my first duty assignment was the three two striker brigade combat team out of Fort Lewis showed up about a month or two before they were due to deploy so immediately hopped on the first deployment with them in 2006. 15 months there. While I was there, I kind of decided that the infantry life wasn't necessarily for me, so I transferred over to the Signal Corps, because I wasn't ready to just get out of the army altogether. So I said, well, I've kind of got a technical aptitude. I'll try this Signal Corps thing. Again, I have no idea what I'm doing. I just think, oh, yeah, this will be cool. I'll

go go do that. So as I do that, transition, do another road. in Iraq, get back. After that rotation, they sent me to school to learn how to be a Signal Corps officer. And while I was at Fort Gordon, I got an email saying, hey, come to this, come to this briefing. You know, we're going to, we're going to tell you about, you know, this special assignment within Army Special Operations Command. Maybe maybe it would be interested. I had no idea what it was about. If you notice, there's a theme here. But I was like, yeah, I want to do something interesting. So I showed up.

They said, we can't tell you what this is. But, you know, come and try out if you're good enough. Cool. So I did that. I kept raising my hand and saying, yeah, I'll do this. And it's worked out pretty well for me. I think one of the great things about the Army is there's so many opportunities for that. where, you know, if you're just willing to do things,

there's all sorts of different paths where you can find what it is specifically that you want to go. It may not all be glamorous. It may not all be perfect. But there are so many different opportunities in the Army if you kind of take a chance and find them. So I did that. And it worked out really well for me in this case. Tom, I think your camera got knocked out of focus a little bit. We'll see if I can't get it.

You want to hold, there you go. There you go. Yep, perfect. Cool. So yeah, it sounds like you were constantly looking to challenge yourself and see what the next thing was and found what you were looking for, it sounds like. Yeah, exactly. You know, I didn't want to do the typical thing.

I wanted to be able to make an impact greater than what I thought I'd be able to do if I just, you know, stayed doing IT and a, enterprise management. You know, we absolutely need people that do that. I just would have been bored. So I needed to do something else. And that's something else is what led me to use a sock. And you're, I mean, what can you say about, you know, where you're at today, what you're, the next step is, you know, sort of in your career. And I think you mentioned that you're, you're getting towards the point of retiring out of the military anyway. My current job, I basically have been promoted out of doing anything fun at this point.

So they pulled me back into doing infrastructure sorts of things. So my current role is I am the G6 for Special Forces Command. So I run all of the IT enterprise for White Soft. So all of the Green Berets, Cyops, and Civil Affairs. That's my current role for about another four months or something. so and then I'll, you know, get my piece of paper, my handshake thanking me for my service and I'll be retired. Well, unlike us infantry guys, it sounds like you have a career track where you can actually walk on to a really good job in the civilian world. Yeah, the problem is I don't know that I

want to do that. I thought I'm doing that for so long. Yeah, I get it. Now I don't necessarily want to do that coming out. So I think what I want to end up is helping other people, uh, figure out how to be adaptable and Brazilian. So that's been a project that I've been working on for a couple of years with a neuroscientist out of Ohio State, basically going back into the special operation schoolhouses and trying to figure out what it is about those schoolhouses that train operators to survive and thrive and win

when they're put in these sorts of load data volatile uncertain situations. And, you know, kind of what we've done is we've taken those lessons learned and we've brought them back to his lab and paired it with what neuroscience is telling us about the way the brain works and then translate that into lessons that we can give to, you know, people who aren't going on the long walk or aren't going to Robin Sage or things like that, getting it into the school so we can make. kids more adaptable and resilient as they're coming up today.

What are there any preliminary findings from that effort about like what is it about special ops training that is kind of like giving these qualities giving us the the types of soldiers that we we hope for? Yeah. So it really comes down to the open-ended nature of what we give them. So when we interviewed a bunch of folks from the community on, hey, you, you, you, you were successful. What was it about you? What was it about your training that made you successful? And all of the green berets pointed to one specific thing. And that was Robin Sage. So Robin Sage was like the first point in their career where like it was a, it's a very open-ended exercise, right? The, the cadre there, do a really good job of just reacting to whatever the students do. So there is no one set answer. And unfortunately, most of our lives, we're taught, hey, there is one right answer in school. You've got to get to the professor's answer.

That's the right answer. So we raise a generation of students who think that way. So one, they think that there's one right answer. And then two, when things don't necessarily go their way, they immediately look to authority figures to solve their problems for them. Right? And that's, that's, you see that in kids. You see that in adults now. People are just not necessarily given those skills.

But what Robin Sage does is it essentially removes that from them. In these sort of open-ended exercises, they say, hey, figure it out, right? So what we've figured out was that a lot of the gray beards that have gone back, they're long since retired, but they still want to give back to the community, they're doing it through, you know, being members at Robbins. age. And they're using words like, hey, trust your gut, use your gut instinct, you know, use your intuition, things like that. And what we found is that really what we're doing is we're training up four different things. We're training up intuition. So your ability to spot something

that's different in your environment, your imagination, so your ability to come up with a new plan in response to that, your common sense, so your ability to decide wisely, even in the absence of a bunch of data, and then finally your emotion, so your ability to actually regulate your emotion to take advantage of what it's telling you about yourself and your environment to make better decisions. So that's what all of these soft pipelines are actually training up, even though they didn't necessarily have those words. That's what they were all doing. So we took those findings. We went to the Commandant General Staff College and tried it out on some majors

because that's where, you know, field grade officers go to get their field grade lobotomies where their good idea fairy colonies, whatever you want to call it. So we went there and we tested it on them. And through, we gave them an hour block of instruction on this new method. And the results were essentially that we raised their creativity by one standard deviation, which is pretty statistically significant, right? So if you came in with an average amount of creativity, you became better than average. If you were below average, we got you up a little bit.

And if you were already above average, creativity, we made you better. Then we replicated that study with some college students. And so different testing, different evaluators, same results. So the college students were in about two hours. We raised their creative IQ by one standard deviation. We also raised their resilience by about the same amount. So what we mean by resilience is, hey, when your plan breaks, can you come up with a second plan?

And then we're like, oh, this is cool. Let's try it on third graders. So we tried it on third graders and we got the same results. So that's been published in the New York Academy of Sciences. It's now like the second or third most read article in the New York Academy of Sciences history. And so we're having a pretty good impact on those findings, which is pretty exciting. Is that article, do people have to pay to download that? No, it's, yeah, so you can just Google New York Academy of Sciences creativity, and it's there.

If you sleep hot at night, you know just how disruptive it can be. Whether you're having trouble falling asleep, you're waking up sweating in the middle of the night or all the above. That's where a ghost bed can help. As the makers of the coolest beds in the world, Ghostbed is your go-to for cooling mattresses, cooling pillows, and even cooling bedding. From their signature ghost ice fabric to patent a technology that adjusts with your body temperature, every ghost bed mattress is designed with cooling in mind. So whether you want a plush your mattress that cushions your shoulders and hips or a firmer option with exceptional support, your ghost bed will keep you cool and comfortable all night long.

When you purchase a ghost bed mattress, your comfort is guaranteed. You can try out your mattress for a 101-night's risk-free and make sure it's the right fit for you. Plus, they offer free shipping and most items ship within 24 hours. If you're not sure which ghost bed is for you, check out their mattress quiz. You'll answer a few questions and get your personalized recommendation, or reach out for their friendly team of sleep experts for all the help you need. Even better, Team House listeners can get 50% off site wide for a limited time. just visit ghostbed.com slash house and use code house at checkout.

Again, that's ghostbed.com slash house with code house at checkout to save a whopping 50% off site wide. And if you're not in the market for a mattress, check out their pillows, they're bedding. They have all kinds of great stuff there. So thanks to ghostbed and check them out. We've written stuff for Harvard Business Review. We've, Google has picked up a bunch of our stuff. if we work with NASA, because everybody is after the same problem, right?

Whether it's kids today trying to do this or folks graduating from high school, graduating from college, one of the things that we get when we go out and talk to the business community is they see their employees that don't know how to handle adversity or uncertainty, right? And they don't know what to do it. They think that there's like one way to do things. And as soon as you deviate from that, they fall to pieces.

So this is something that everybody's kind of understood, but nobody's really had a pretty good answer with until now pulling those lessons out from the soft community and getting them out to the rest of the world. Well, I mean, that's terrific results because the Army has kind of struggled, I think, for decades with how do we inject more creativity and initiative? For sure. With our soldiers. And, you know, that runs up against.

against the micromanaging zero defect environment that the military cultivates or did for a long period of time. So it's interesting. And I think absolutely this is directionally correct about how we train and indoctrinate soldiers. Yeah, exactly. So one of the heartening things about this program is the current CAT commander, Lieutenant General Beagle.

So he oversees all of the military PME, right? So all of the professional military education, he is super interested and invested in this sort of training. Because I think he sees the writing on the wall that it's not going to be this sort of sterile conflict like we had in GWAT if we have to go to war. Humans are more important than hardware. Right, exactly. There's something about that in, you know, the soft truth somewhere. I don't know. It's written somewhere. Well, on that note, let's start talking a little bit about your book, Quantum Dagger, that just came out a couple months ago, I think.

So how did the idea or even occur to you of writing a novel? It sounds like you're pretty busy with your military career. How did that come about? Yeah, so honestly, it came about from this research project. So my friend and I were like, I could. We've written this academic piece. We've written a bunch of these other things. But, like, how do we get people to sort of understand what it is that we're talking about?

And he's like, well, you could write a, you could write a novel about it. And it's like, I can't write a, I can't write a novel. I'm not a guy who's had any sort of desire or intent to do that. Like, I'm not going to do that. He's like, no, you should totally write that. So, again, I was like, okay, I have no idea what this thing is, but I'll raise my hand and I'll do it. So that's kind of the genesis of this novel. So a lot of our research is juxtaposed against the way that so many people think that intelligence works.

So the common way that people think that intelligence works is logic and reasoning-based, right? That's what kind of got us to where we are. And it's brilliant. We absolutely need logical reasoning. We need the ability to critically analyze data. The problem is human beings are very bad at it. Yes. We're just not very good.

Fortunately, computers, fantastic at it. Computers are way better at it than we are. But the problem is we keep trying to make human beings more like computers, and it just is failing spectacular because we're not really good at it. So that's sort of the genesis of this book is a way to get people to understand that human beings aren't, we're never going to be better at crunching large amounts of data than computers are. But we're really good at other things. We're really good at low data environments.

If you put even the smartest computer up against a situation where they don't have a lot of data to work against, they fail in spectacular ways. So the best example that I have of this is recently the Marines went up against an AI pattern recognition software. I don't know if you guys have heard this. No, I think I know this one, yeah. Probably like a year ago where these technical engineers have been working for months on, target identification software so that they could detect people moving in and around the environment. So they're like, all right, we're going to test this thing is going to be great.

So they gave the task to play the red team to Marines. And what are Marines going to do? The Marines are going to do marine things. So one of one Marine did somersaults, right, up to this turn and was not detected. Another Marine like literally did like the, the cartoon get under a cardboard. box and was not detected, right? A human being standing there would be like, that's, that's totally a dude in a cardboard box or a dude in a summer. What are you guys doing? But the computer wasn't trained on that. Their data didn't account for it, so it didn't know what to do with it. And it's awesome how fast some

young Marines came up with a way to defeat that. Yeah, right? If you want ingenuity, give give the E4 mafia a problem and tell them that you're going to look the other way and you'll be back and need a solution. Right. They will solve every single problem you need them to. So that's, machines are fantastic, but they're also fantastically dumb in certain cases. So how do we imagine a world where humans are doing human things and machines are doing machine things? Right. Because the other problem, one of the problems I see right now is that we are investing so much money in all of these advanced technologies.

And we need to because there's a lot of great things that they can do. But it can't come at the expense of training humans to deal with whatever situation comes with my team. Train up those fundamental skills that make us win in whatever. conflict we need. So that was sort of the genesis of this novel. Hey, what are the technical capabilities that might come out in the near future? What's within the realm of the possible? And then what would it look like if those were sort of taken to their logical end?

If there was a competitor that just doubled down on all of these sorts of advanced technology, And what would happen, though, if we just unleashed the power of an ODA, right? So a team of Green Berets against them just they happen to be in the right place at the right time because that's one of Ussesawks, you know, guiding principles right now is that they are out in the contact layer, working with our partners, building relationships, and they just have placement and access in these regions that aren't necessarily in conflict, but we are absolutely competing. So what could they do against an adversary who has all of these advanced systems?

So that was the genesis of this whole thing. So to tell our listeners, reviewers, a little bit more, the plot of your book centers around a special ops intel guy who's kind of out there doing Singleton stuff and an ODA that's in Vietnam. And then eventually these two plot lines come together in the book. Of course, the title, Quantum Dagger, Quantum is a big part of this novel and what it's about. before we get into maybe some of the details there I would like to open it up

maybe with a broader discussion about quantum which is a bit of a buzzword today but it is a real technology I mean I feel like I'm qualified I did watch everything in the Marvel Comics universe so I do feel as though

I have a good grasp on what quantum is I don't have a good grasp at what quantum is I know it's related to quantum physics and there's quantum computing and these are technologies that are kind of on a near-term horizon maybe in the next 10 years that we're going to see. Could you tell us what this is and what its military applications are? Yeah. So quantum computing does exist right now. We have quantum computers and actually in 2019 we reached the tipping point where a quantum computer can now outperform the fastest, the best normal computer.

So like it's a real thing now. It's just not where we think it's going to be in the future. So we'll start back at the beginning again, right? So it is essentially a different technology than current computers are. So it's sort of like a candle and a light bulb. They both do the same thing. They both illuminate, right, but they go about it in very different ways. So with a classical computer, you're using electricity and you're storing essentially like a bunch of on and off switches.

So one bit can either be on or it can be off, right? And that's where we get the idea of like binary. If you ever see some computer code breaking down as a bunch of ones and zeros, that's where like NEO can see. the matrix, it's just a bunch of ones and zeros flipping by. And what's great about that is a computer can look at those ones and zeros and extract that into information. And they can do that very, very quickly, much faster than human beings can do. So it can, they can do thousands and millions of computations every second by interpreting what that each of those symbols actually means when you put them all together. But they're limited in their speed and capacity kind of by

the limits of electricity, right? Quantum computers, on the other hand, use a totally different property in physics and a totally different technology based on the idea of quantum mechanics, right? So in normal computers, you have that zero or one gate. So it's a switch that it can either be on, on or off. Quantum computers use, instead of bits, they use qubits, would imaginatively name quantum bits, right? And instead of just being on or off, they can be both, they can be multiple things at one time, right? So it's what they call the superposition. So one cubic can be multiple things at once versus on a traditional computer, it can only be.

one thing. So what that means is when you pair a bunch of different cubits together, now instead of having to be a one at one point and then a zero, right, a very slow mechanical process, it can do calculations vastly more quickly, right? So it's orders of magnitude faster. and it's able to do things that would take a normal computer years and years almost instantaneously. And that's with the systems that we have right now. So if you translate that into start to get into discussion of military means,

one of the things that people are talking a lot about when they talk quantum computers is encryption, right? So the current kind of gold standard for encryption in the world is something called AES 256. Right. So that's a specific encryption algorithm. That's 256 bits long, right? So essentially, like, the number of different possibilities that any one password could be is two raised to the 256 power, which is a very large number, right? traditional computers, so the strongest computer in the world right now would take something like 50 million years or something to break that. It's just, it's not even worth brute force attacking

that password. Quantum computers, as they stand right now, it's not like an instantaneous thing with where the technology sits right now. A quantum computer now would take 100 days to a year, or so to break that password. Wow. So it's not like the sky is falling right now, but if you look at where computing has come in the past, right, where we had the computers that filled rooms, right, that we're using punch cards.

Which quantum computers kind of do right now. Quantum computers are absolutely in the room filling space right now. But as we refine that technology, it's going to be miniaturized like everything else. And eventually it will get to the point where even those high algorithms are going to fall relatively quickly to the point where they're no longer useful. You know, like everything in the competition, it's always a competition between offense and defense, right? ever since somebody had a stick and somebody else got a different stick, right? This is no difference. So on the defense side, everybody is starting to work on quantum hardened algorithms

and ways to combat this thing so that they can't read the mail. But we're not necessarily there yet. When I think about the military applications, I typically think about what you just mentioned, quantum encryption and quantum decryption. And so it was interesting to reading your book, sort of like on the tactical level, how is this really going to impact the force?

And your protagonist finds one of these devices like in a server form where it shouldn't be, right? When it is miniaturized and it is out there in the wild like that, what does that potentially mean for us from a national security standpoint? Yeah, so I think it has, it has implications at every level of the war, right? And I do, I kind of go into that and ask that question in the book at different phases, right?

So from the strategic lens, if I can read your mail, if I can read your email and know what your policies are, know where your weaknesses are, I can exploit that to my own gain, right? So at the strategic level, if they have the ability to just break into our email, our databases, and essentially read our correspondence, that's a pretty big threat to us. Down at the operational level, if I can do that same thing, but then exploit it in such a way that I can cause doubt. And this is the specific mechanism I use in the book. I can use it to delay, deter, deny, even if it's just for a short time, you acting, I gain a pretty big asymmetric advantage.

So again, the ability to sort of read and understand like what an adversary's capability is and readiness to respond to these source of threats or even, you know, so a little bit of doubt can buy critical. time, especially on the onset of a conflict. And then at the tactical level, if you have the ability to understand in near real time plans and intentions of what another force is doing, that's gold. Like, that's what we've commanders have been wishing for for, you know, millennia, is the ability to understand really what's going on. And unfortunately, for the majority of human civilization, we've been, kind of mired in this Klaus Witsian fog, right, where we don't really know what's going on.

The best we could hope for was a really good scouting report from, from cavalry, right? If you look at what we've done in the global war on terrorism, we've come a long way with that, right? We have spent a lot of money bringing these sorts of intelligence aggregators, a lot of, of these systems and integrate them to in talks, in jocks, in Intel centers, Intel fusion centers where we're pulling in feeds from everywhere. And you know, you've got headquarters all around the world that are creating common understanding and working off of a common operating picture. That's we are close to that goal standard now. But the problem is those are going to be the first thing that go in a modern conflict, right? That's, that's one of the things that we've learned,

we learned quickly at the beginning of the Ukrainian campaign was if you are in a static talk location, you've got your talk mahal put up, you've got your kill TV on like nine different screens with different drone feeds up, like that's, you're not going to survive more than a couple hours. Right. So we know that that can no longer be the case. So how do you get those same effects while still being sort of disconnected and either hiding in the noise or being very careful about when and where and how you communicate. And that's one of the problems that I've been working on in my current role with First Special Forces Command is, hey, what does that actually look like?

Because we have gotten spoiled. We've been spoiled for the last 20 years. So like my, basically my entire Army career and the entire Army career of more and more senior folks has been where we can communicate in the time and method of our choosing. I can pick up a radio. I can pick up a VoIP call. I can get on a VTC. And I can talk to whoever, whenever I want for any length of time and it doesn't matter. Right.

But that's not the way it's going to be in this next conflict. Right. And the Army gets it. We're experimenting with how it's going to look like, but we don't know to what extent that's actually going to be the case. I mean, that whole thing has also created its own unique set of problems because all of a sudden you have a lot of combatants on the battlefield being micromanaged by somebody sitting in a jock, you know, a thousand miles away.

trying to make, trying to make their tactical decisions for them. Yeah, exactly, right? So what we've done is in the military is the same thing that we sort of, we talked about earlier with, you know, the rise of logical reasoning in the school system, right? We had this idea that if we have like the perfect general with perfect information, we can come up with the perfect plan and then we can execute it perfectly. Right. And then we will achieve the perfect victory.

Right. Like that's an idea that is intoxicated Americans for decades. Right. Like that's the American way of war. We love technology and the idea that technology can get us to that end state. And that's why one of the reasons why we love the idea of, of AI so much. We love the idea that I can have perfect information,

and then I can use that to make the perfect decisions. The problem I have with that is that's not what has made us successful. If you look at how we've been successful in wars or just as a nation, that's not success in democratic terms. democratic success is small groups of people going and figuring it out and coming together for a common, united by a common purpose,

but then figuring it out on their at the lowest level, right? Sort of the centralized planning, decentralized execution thing that is in the Army doctrine. If you follow the doctrine of mission command, right? What I described a little bit ago is essentially like authoritarianism.

It's or, you know, modern manifestations of communism where I can, I can rule by edict and as long as my chess pieces play the perfect game as I have out, as I have laid out, I will, I will win every single time. Like, that's not,

that's not democracy. Like, that's, that's not what's made us successful. But it's, it's so intoxicating. for people to think that you can do that. And what we're really realizing is, no, what makes us successful is when you unleash the creativity

of the guys on the ground, right? Like we were talking about earlier, the best way to solve a problem is to give the E4s the challenge and tell them they're not going home until the problem is solved. Suddenly that problem is getting solved, right? Like one of the greatest examples of ingenuity that we like to point to in the Army PME is the idea of the getting through the hedgerows in Normandy in World War II, right? Where essentially a sergeant was like, hey, I've got an idea for how we can get through these hedgerows. And that's where they came up with the idea to put the blades on the front of the tanks, right? field expedient, like, nobody tasked that.

They didn't form a task force, hire some, you know, a big military contractor to come up with a bunch of different ideas. They were just like, no, man, figure this thing out. You know how to weld here. Here's some steel, like weld some shit onto the front of this tank. We got a war to win, right? What I think is, like, really interesting is the way you're describing, like, a high-tech, low-tech environment at the same time.

Like, we're having this conversation about, like, AI teaming and, quantum computers and all this borderline science fiction stuff. But at the same time, you're also describing how the electronic warfare environment will be intense. You know, you'll have ballistic missiles coming into your talk. The notion of the golden hour is out the window. If you have a casualty, you're going to have to treat them in place. You might, your comms windows are going to be different. The way that the maneuver elements communicate with the headquarters elements is going to have to change. I mean, I'm trying to like wrap my mind around that sort of new paradigm myself, like that combination of high tech and low tech.

Yeah. So essentially, and everybody's struggling with this. In the civilian world, they're struggling with it. But what makes our challenge unique when it comes to the defense space is we have a multi-optimization problem, right? In the civilian market, they just have to optimize to use all of the technology. How can I leverage technology to create value for my firm? Like that's that's it.

Cool. And I mean, that's that's easier said than done. In the military, we have to be able to do that, right? So when everything is turned on, when we're going full bore, all of our assets are working, we can outpace you. And right, going back to John Boy's Oodaloupe, I can get inside your Oudaloup and make decisions, faster than my adversary, and I can act on them faster than my adversary. That's with everything turned on. But then we also have to optimize our processes for when all of that gets shut off.

Right, right. What happens when I can't use these systems because either they're denied to me or if I turn them on, there's a missile that's going to come into my talk in 20 minutes. and then, you know, that spectrum in between. So we don't have the luxury of just going all in on this one thing. We have to optimize on that spectrum. And unfortunately, what ends up happening is we do over-optimized towards one end. Right.

What optimization really gets us is brittleness. Right, right. I was kind of thinking about it. You know, you mentioned, you know, like how much we love technology. And it's sexy, right? I mean, you know, when you start talking about, like, integrated VR, like, headsets that give us a friend foe and everything else like that, like, everything that can happen. But then it's almost like whoever is willing to, like, throw out that EMP and has been training like Daredevil to fight with the lights off, right? And they turn off the lights knowing that's going to happen.

What happens to the element or the side that is not ready for that to happen? Yeah, exactly. So here's the great part. The great part of that whole thing is if I train up the humans to do inherently human things, those same skill sets translate to whether I am doing using perfect information from the vacuums of data that are hoovering everything up on the battlefield. or if I'm doing it essentially with a map and compass. I'm still coming up with a plan. I am still aligning my team to execute my intent to accomplish the mission.

It's just what sort of toys am I bringing with it. So, Tom, I have a question in regards to that. So you mentioned how these Marines beat this AI by doing things that would not defeat a human. And obviously, there are things that you can do. do to defeat a human, you know, like gilly suits and camouflage that maybe AIs can recognize patterns and whatnot. How do people, so obviously, depending on the environment we're going to go into, like, how do you create a hybrid strategy to deal with either or those things or both of those things at the same

time? Yeah, ideally, it's a team, right? So the concept of human machine teaming. The problem is a lot of the things that I hear about when it comes to human machine teaming is the human almost ends up like the dummy minder who's essentially like the minimum wage fry guy who's just like, yep, nope, yep, right? Like that's not really it. That kind of reminds me of like the Mike Judge idiocracy and state. where we just get let around by our nose. But that's not where we're actually going to create magic, right?

The magic is going to be when the machines are doing machine things and humans are doing the human things because we've recognized the difference and where each one excels and also where each one fails. One of the really hard parts is getting machines to realize that they're done. Right. So a couple, a couple months ago, it was all over the internet because everybody realized how dumb chat GPT was because it didn't know how many R's were in strawberry. All right. Like chatchy, it's just going to fail it in hilarious and or catastrophic ways. The problem is it doesn't know when it's dumb.

Right. Right. So that concept of hallucinating that you hear about where it's going to give you an answer, right? It is going to give you an answer and it is going to tell you it with the conviction deep down to its very core. But it doesn't know whether it's right or not. So that's where the idea of like explainable AI comes in. XAI is like the acronym because tech folks and military folks both love their acronyms. So XAI is the idea that not only can. can a computer come up with an answer?

It can tell you how it got there. Because right now, most AI models, they're a black box, right? We don't actually know what it's doing. It doesn't know what it's doing. Right. We just fed it enormous amounts of training data and kept poking it with a stick until the output was what essentially we wanted. Right. Right.

I was just going to say because in addition to that, like you mentioned the human fallacy of thinking that we're logical, right? When we're not almost all of our decisions, we've reached emotionally and then we create the logical structures to support that decision, right? So if you look at our politics, everybody on each side thinks that they're right, 100% right. And so when they go to train these AIs, and we've seen this with like whether it's political influence or their religious influence or what? whatever it might be, the person telling the AI what to do is flawed. So they're giving the AI flawed sort of information on how to determine whether something is information or misinformation or whatever else. And now you have an AI that it can do great computer stuff, but it also carries the baggage of the people who programmed it, right? Yeah.

I mean, I don't know the extent to which programmer bias influences it. I just don't know enough about it to speak to. But you're right that the models are only good as the data that's given them. And there's a human being involved in that. Right. And yeah, we are, we are fallible. Right. So if we expect a computer to give us infallible information, but we haven't been able to iron out all of the foibles of it, like it's going to come up with issues.

Right. which is I think one of the reasons rightly so, people are nervous about keeping a human in the loop, right, of the kill chain, not letting the entire kill chain of censor to shooter be taken over by machines. Right. Can I ask you then, this is kind of off tangent, but I'm very curious. You know, what is the concern of like with these AIs, whether there are, military or whatever, of them actually being dispoiled by the enemy of, you know, like the enemy, like getting in there, hacking in or whatever, and then telling them, you know, hey, this is actually that or whatever, and now the AI, is that a concern that, you know, that.

Yeah. Oh, it's, it's absolutely a concern. So it's, so the phenomenon you're talking about is data poisoning. Okay. Right. So there's, there's just like the human being, like, oh, we made a mistake error. like yeah, we trained it to think that buses are actually bicycles. Like, okay, cool.

But then there's absolutely malicious actors that will seek to poison data, right? So either through training sets, which is far worse, because then essentially they're just training it to be dumb or train to do something incorrect, right? Which we touch on a little bit in the book. we do some training data poisoning to kind of talk about this thing or they poison the data that it's currently collecting. So what it thinks is accurate is not necessarily accurate, right? So it's one thing if I'm pulling in data from all sorts of different sources and I fact check it, right? Because I'm like, I'm not, I'm not really sure if Tom's a reliable source, so I need to fact-check it from these different places. But what happens when you are getting information from a source

that you trust, right? You have trust that that source is there, but it is now feeding you incorrect information because that data has been poisoned. Right. And we wouldn't know with a lot of these models that that is actually the case because it can't explain how it arrived at the conclusions it arrived at necessarily. Right. And I feel like on a fine fix finish, like you say, the kill chain, that if the enemy could actually say that these friendly positions are enemy positions and there's not a human in there that it could have catastrophic effects. Yeah, Exactly. And that's not to say that, again, we shouldn't use these technologies.

It's just these are the problems that everybody is trying to figure out right now. Like how best to use these systems as they currently exist, and then how best to structure our R&B to meet what we think we'll need in the future. What was your impression of the story of the, I know that the Air Force retracted and said it wasn't actually. but the colonel had come out and said that the drone had revolted and killed its operator in a simulation. Do you recall that story? No. So it was, it was, I think a colonel gave a talk and said that an operator, in a simulation, an operator had given a drone in order to kill, to take out a target or something like that. Do you remember the specifics?

No. to take out a target and it was against like the drones or the AI sort of, I don't know if it was, you know, warfare rules, it was civilian targets, but essentially the drone revolted and killed its own operator as a result of that. And then the Air Force later came out and said, no, that's not true. That's not a real story. Even though it was an Air Force colonel who had given the talk. Let me see if I can find that up.

Yeah. Colonel saying drones highly unexpected strategies to achieve its goal in a virtual test. Maybe it wanted to kill the target, and the drone operator said, no. I can't remember the specifics. But the system started realizing that while they did identify the threat, at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat. But it got its points by killing the threat. So it wanted to get more points. So what did it do?

It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from it. accomplish his objective. Now that was like given by an Air Force officer at a talk. And then the Air Force was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That didn't happen. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if that happened or didn't happen.

But like that's not outside of the realm of the possible. Right. Right. Where if you give an autonomous system a list of priorities, like, hey, here's what I want you to go after. you don't know exactly like how it translate that when it's being trained to execute the tasks that it's being assigned. So you have to be very careful with that because it can interpret it any number of ways. And that's kind of one of the key things in that book is the AI is going to make decisions based.

on what what it sees, what its priorities that have been given. And it's not necessarily going to take into account things that humans would necessarily take into account. Kind of shades of eye robot, right? And that's exactly what I wanted to dive into was, you know, most of your book is more about like operational preparation of the battle space. But the war goes hot at a certain point. And I think there's a couple of different interesting conversations to be had about the A.A. teaming question. One of them is how America might use these technologies versus an authoritarian country does. And in your novel, one of these authoritarian countries essentially hands over

their strategic military decision making to an AI in order to make those decisions faster. But of course, an AI just sees military units as chess pieces on a board, has no compunction at all about sacrificing them in order to achieve whatever goals it's been programmed. You played that out really interestingly in your novel. Could you talk about that a little bit? Yeah. I mean, commanders have always had a hard job, right? They've always had to make decisions that send soldiers to their deaths. Right. That's that's a hard thing. People will always wrestle with that. And unfortunately, sometimes you do have to make those hard decisions. The good thing is a human being, at least like a sane, rational one, will take pause at spending that.

Unfortunately, if you look at spending lies from a pure logic, rational level, you're essentially just trading pieces on a chessboard, right? So one of the famous, like, cold-hearted quotes from World War I that I can't remember the specific, but essentially is how are the French going to beat me? I can spend, you know, 10,000 lives a week. Like, holy crap, man. Like, those are people that all had families. Like, that is super callous, especially, you know, modern, western, ideals, like have a hard time coming to terms with that.

AI doesn't necessarily have that compunction, right? Like, they will, if you're going to tell me to win the war, I'm going to win the war no matter what. I don't care that afterwards you're going to, you know, crucify me in the court of public opinion or, like, legitimately hold me accountable for my actions. I'm a computer. like I don't that doesn't factor into it you give me a task I will complete the task and the best way that I see fit given the resources and constraints that I'm placed on so you can't necessarily think that it's outside the realm of the possible that given that if you take the gloves off and say hey win me this war it's not going to come up with things that a human just wouldn't want to wouldn't actually pursue as a suitable or acceptable course of action.

Yeah, and as your book demonstrates, what happens when the human beings get tired of being treated like chess pieces? Yeah, yeah. So I wouldn't want to be treated like that over and over again. The French mutinied in 1917 when they felt like they were that way. So, you know, in this one, the human beings decide that they no longer want to be a part of those sorts of shenanigans. And that ends up kind of being a critical moment for that military.

Other points from the book, any like, you know, big, you know, you've talked a lot about the intersection of the military and technology. Are there any other big themes that you want to talk about in the book? Yeah. So I think in addition to, you know, just wanted to explore the difference in human intelligence. The other thing that I wanted to get at was one of the things that Yusasak has been trying to figure out is what General Braga has been calling the soft space cyber triad. So harkening back to the nuclear triad as a theory of deterrence and competition, right? What is the new triad for competing that doesn't necessarily involve nuclear?

the planet. And essentially what he's come up with is, hey, soft, when you put soft together with space capabilities and cyber capabilities, there's a lot that we can do to compete below the level of active arm conflict. So I kind of wanted to see like what that looks like, because it seems like one of those things is not like the other. You've got you've got nerds in space, you've got nerds in cyberspace and then you've got you know you've got the this long tab snake earers like what what is that doing uh and really what it comes back to is uh placement and access like they they have soft has people in places currently working with uh our counterparts right building partners and they are they are there right and they are there right and they

They have the ability to, when you cross that threshold and you want to move into unconventional warfare or regular warfare, or even keep it below, they can gain proximate access for some of these space and cyber effects, right? Because some of them you can't just do from the convenience of, you know, some, the NSA's basement. You have to, you have to get pretty close to be able to do these things. And it's not going to be like a super engineer that's doing it, like a computer programmer. They'll get you most of the way. But at the end of the day, in a lot of instances, there has to be somebody that's on the ground doing these things. And that's where, like, soft forces are uniquely suited, right? For the last 20 years, we've been hunting terrorists, and we got really good at that.

But that really wasn't necessarily like in the Green Beret wheelhouse, right, where we are work going by with and through locals, operating in small teams, in and around the battle space, maybe not particularly in the conflict zone, but in the periphery to achieve outside effects. And that's something that Soft can absolutely do if they can help. deliver some of the effects that the folks in the space and the cyber world are dreaming out. How do you see that sort of playing out? Because as you point out, the Green Beret and the NSA offensive hacker guy, like two very different people, different personalities. They're selected and trained for different things.

How do you, and I know we've experimented over the years trying to blend these capabilities and blend teams together. I mean, how do you sort of see that playing out in the coming years as we try to combine these capabilities? Yeah, so I think you're always going to need like the pure breeds on either side, right? You're always going to need guys who just want to be trigger polers and you're going to need girls and guys that are keyboard warriors. And I mean that in like the best sense of the term.

The things that those folks are able to do in cyberspace is absolutely amazing. But then there's there is a need for the way that I've kind of described, trying to find this niche for so kind of people like me are people that want to nerd out and bro down. So they're interested in technology, but they're also totally happy, you know, running around in the mud, getting their gun on from time to time. And you don't need an entire force that's filled with that, but you need enough of those people to be able to go forward.

And that's kind of like what the SADA is doing right now. So I think it'll be something like that, but armed with a little bit different skill sets, maybe just enhance in certain ways or changed. You know, as UAS has come online, that's going to figure into it, like, hey, can I have man-portable UASs that can help deliver these sorts of effects? So I think it's, I think we're going to end up seeing more of that going on.

So if there's a part in the book where we sort of see this, where we are, the team is engaged in a firefight, but then supported. with some of this tactical on-net deception operation ends up feeding information to the AI who then makes decisions based on that incorrect information that ends up saving the day for the green berets. So I think that's going to be the reality here in the not too distant feature where it's going to not necessarily move from, you know, independent operations, but it's going to move into real-time blending of all of the different domains in multi-domain operations.

It sounds like you're describing the guy or a team that can get close enough to the enemy using, you know, achieve tactical surprise, but then also implement some piece of technology. Yeah, exactly. And again, I think the green berets are perfectly suited for this because they are always genuinely curious by nature, right? Like they didn't accidentally stumble into this profession because they just liked following the rules and accepting whatever the line that they were told. They tend to be pretty free thinking and curious and happy to pull threads wherever they can. because they want to be masters of their craft. So I think that's one of the things that makes them particularly well suited to being a large part of this equation.

Do we have all questions for Tom? I actually love to you here. Actually, no, we didn't. I'm going to ask this question from Sully, what's the kind of someone's been to you in your career? What's the kindest someone's been to me? Yeah, the kindest. Yeah. So I think I think the kindest somebody has been to me is helping me actually believe in myself.

Right? So believing that I actually can do things. So I've had, I've been fortunate enough that this has happened a couple times. but I think that's been like the the thing that in hindsight of like that not necessarily kind is because you know their mentors are going to push you but in hindsight like that act

was absolutely kindness of hey Tom you you have way more to give so specific example when I was going through CGSC so the place where majors go to have their brains lobotomized

I wasn't necessarily getting a lot out of it because it's built towards the the meaty end of the bell curve. They need to make sure that they have everybody's on the same page as they're on staff. But I had one professor, Doc Ken Long, who kind of pulled me aside and was like, hey, Tom, I know that this is a challenge for you. Find something that is a challenge for you and like do that. So, you know, him, I can draw a line from the conversation I had with him then to, like, this book being published, right?

Being curious, starting to chip away at this, accepting that I think a little bit differently and, like, doubling down on that and getting, getting me to where I am now. So that's what I would say. I got a question here from V. He says, do you think that plans to expand special forces teams to include people like drone pilots to teams would be more beneficial overall than just sending guys to more schools in those capabilities? I mean, I think that's, I don't know that we really know the answer to that yet. I think that's something that we're trying to figure out right now. So, Yusak is, they are making an MOS for drone operators. So it's going to be a warrant MOS to try and figure this out.

So I guess the question is, is there going to be like an 18 uniform for UAS? And they'll have a specialization? Or is this going to fall into like one of the others of Bravo or Echo? Like we send guys to J-TAC school or sniper school or something that someone's going to go to drone school. And I don't think that we have an answer on which one is best. I think the problem, though, is you can't necessarily stick somebody in here as an additional duty like you would, like the arms room NCO. Right, right. It has to be somebody who is interested and has an aptitude for it because it is hard to wrap your head around some of this.

technology when it comes to like programming these things and understanding what actually is going on. So I think for a while, the best option is going to be something that's separate so that we can get people who are interested and have the aptitude through these sorts of pipelines so that we can experiment with it. But I think as, you know, the technology matures and we figure more things out and people become more comfortable with it, we'll actually be able to see whether or not we could just have it be an additional duty. Tom, do you think that overall that the military needs to relook, for certain fields, it's recruiting requirements when it comes to height, weight,

when it comes to like neurodiversity, things like that, in order to stay at the cutting edge of this stuff? Yeah, I absolutely think so. I think that one of the things that makes America great, again, is democracy and the idea that we pull from the citizenry to get the best and the brightest, right? There's not like a warrior class where, hey, you have to be a member of the aristocracy to serve. Right. We cast a wide net. why would I want to

discount somebody who can be super great at specific things? Right. Just because of like potentially outmoded understanding of what their capabilities are. Right. I don't, I don't,

that's not listed like a blanket, let everybody in, right? Right. You know, come together and just kumbaya, everybody is equal. Everybody is not equal.

Right. And that's the point. Right. Right. If we try and make everybody, make everybody interchangeable parts, like we fail, right? Because again, that's not democratic. That's authoritarian where everybody is just interchangeable parts that you can fit into the cogs in the machine. And again, as long as you have the brilliance at the top, everything runs smoothly.

That's just not reality. So I absolutely, I mean, anytime I've gone down range, I want the best person beside me, right? And if that best person, at whatever task doesn't have to, you know, can be neurodivergent because they're going to be, they don't need to be on the front line. They can do their job. Right. From like a command center back. Like, I don't, I don't care.

We got really close with the ACFT, right? Like, hey, we, I don't care what your, what your background is, whatever. we're going to have job-specific standards for these things. And then we determined that we weren't quite ready for that yet. And we've since modified our... And throughout the science. And we already do it, right? Like, you have to have a higher PT to be in a Ranger Battalion than you do in a line.

Like, we already have those separations. We just... They're internal. Right. Yeah, exactly. So, first, I will say, the only mark of a true leader is your five-mile run time. But besides that, yeah, I think that we could get to a point where we accept that not everybody has to be a physical specimen.

Right. To do their job well. Right. I still think that if you're going to be running a log pack as a, you know, an 88-miseach. truck driver, and you actually probably do need to be in pretty good shape. Right. Right. And you do need to be able to handle yourself in a firefight.

Right. If you're going to talk about on-net operators, we should take a hard look at what those actual demands are and make sure that our recruiting policies are meeting that. And I think there's a recognition that we want to get there. I think there's just a lot of cultural. inertia that we're going to have to overcome. And I'm sorry, Jack, I know we have another question, but that reminds me of the last question I want to ask you is that the Army, I'm outside of special operations.

Special operations has really been an exception to this rule, but outside of that, the military is very slow to change, right? And people get entrenched. There's a massive bureaucracy, whether it's like the latest in boots or the latest in rucksacks or whatever it is. how do they compete you know like there's so much stuff that is in the army system that you can go buy better equipment off the shelf

how does how is the military responding to emergent technology and the ability to stay competitive there yeah we're we're trying to get our act together I think you know the so the new CIOG6, General Ray, just came in like two weeks ago. And before him, General Morrison is, he recognizes that he's kind of fighting with one hand tied behind his back when it comes to IT modernization because of our procurement processes.

They are very, very slow, and they don't necessarily meet pace with what we need. So there are a lot of people that are working on that. But, you know, I'm just as frustrated with the procurement process. Again, we are different, though, than the civilian market in that there is tremendous downside to us getting things wrong. Right. We know what worked in the past. Right.

It got us to this point, right? We are potentially making an existential decision that will cost the lives of our sons and daughters if we get something wrong when it comes to adopting new doctrine, new hardware. So there is, bureaucracies are completely designed to keep. the status quo and they're designed to change slowly. That's, that's not a bug. That's literally a feature of what it is. Right. They need to have you

down at Soft Week on some of those panels to talk to those guys who want to move fast and break things. You know, it's like, what are you guys talking about? Yeah. Like, I too want to move fast and break things. But what I don't want is to go out and end up putting folks in the field with equipment that doesn't actually meet our needs. Right. Right.

And it's the other hard part is we don't know what the future is going to be. Right. We're making all of our choices on past data. Right. The wars that came before. We don't know that what the next conflict is going to look like. Right. So everybody right now,

an inner war period. It's, I mean, it's exactly like the, the period between World War I or World War II, where we're trying to guess what is going to go on, right? Like, if you guessed combined arms maneuver, you won. If you guessed battleships, you lost. Right. Right. Because it turns out that aircraft carriers were the heat in World War II and have been for the last 15 years.

our aircraft carrier is going to be supreme in the next conflict with the rise of hypersonic missiles and, you know, drones, forms and things like that. We don't know, right? Like, we don't know if the next generation fighter is still the best thing or if it's going to be low-tech drones. Like, there's a lot of unanswered questions. So figuring out what our assumptions are and coming out. that I think we do need to be deliberate. That being said, there's still probably a lot of red tape that we could leave on the cutting room floor that at least could get equipment out to exercises and experiments where

it's safe to fail to get it into the hands of servicemen and women so we can learn these things, right? Because it's one thing to sit back and admire the gravity of the situation. But that's just going to lead to paralysis, right? Because we just get bogged down and we don't know what to do because we don't have all of the data. Yeah. But again, human beings are actually really good at making decisions with low data if we get out of our own ways. And we do that through small, safe to fail experiments.

That makes sense. I imagine with emerging technology, it's like, we, don't want to get excited about it. I don't know, be like the Beta Max military when all of a sudden like VHS becomes the big thing. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah.

Not where we want to be. Right. But we also still have to equip the force, the total force now, right? Which comes with a huge price tag. Right. Because it turns out that there's a lot of us and all of us need email.

Yeah. So I got a question from Lewis, this is an interesting one. What can we do to maintain ethical oversight in terms of AI? The biggest thing is to have conversations about ethical oversight when it comes to AI, right? So I think that that starts at every single, at all levels. So from the operator on the ground, like, is it ethical for me to use this system in this context, right? all the way up through, hey, is it ethical to deploy this capability in combat through, hey, where do the authorities need to be held?

And we wrestle with ethical considerations with all sorts of capability, right? It's not like there's just a lieutenant running around somewhere and be like, you know what? J-DAM's for everybody. Like, everybody's just going to get bombs all over the floor. We reserve those authorities at certain levels. So I think that will continue to happen where senior decision makers will delegate authority down to some level, depending on the technology, but then they're still going to reserve it at the highest level for others, whether it's the capability itself or the specific use of it for specific targets, right? That's what we do now. But I think what we need to do is, one, educate the force. So what is it when, what are we actually talking about when we mean AI, right? Do we just mean a drone that if it loses signal, it knows how to come home?

Or I can put it on a pre-planned route so it does what it needs to. Is that unethical or total autonomy where a drone, drone can launch itself based on an piece of intel it had and guide itself all the way to the target and choose to execute that target. I think the understanding what the capabilities are, what the tools are is the first step. And then I think we want to understand what it is that we actually want. So the American people get the army, they get the military that they want. You know, for good or bad, a lot of the policies that you hear being thrown about in the news headlines recently,

they were enacted because part of the American people wanted that thing. And now other Americans think differently. So we're changing to adapt. That's what we've done throughout our history, right? we adapt to be whatever our nation needs us to be. So that plays into our rules of engagement. That's why whenever we go to conflict, we hold ourselves to a higher standard because that's what we believe in.

At our core, those are the values that the American military draws from the American public. And I think that's going to be ending up where we need to draw the source of what we want, right? Like, what is it that we want to do? Because it'd be super easy, right? To turn on the floodgates and just go take out all of our adversaries now. But that's not who we are as a people.

Right. So I think that's what it's. It's an education and it's a reconciliation with, like, our values of who we actually want to be. So M. Corbyn has a question here that I don't even understand, but maybe you will. He says, given that RSA might no longer be secure, de-wave advantage China, do you have any thoughts on the future of encryption? Yeah, I think it's just going to be a constant cat and mouse game, right? We're, I'm going to, I'm going to come up with a shield, and then somebody's going to come up with a way around that shield. They're going to make a better solar.

So I think we are trying to figure, figure this out. as we go. Because, and this goes along the lines of not only how we protect what we are, what we're saying, how we encrypt things, but then also like what needs to be, what needs to be said and what needs to be classified, right? So there's a, there's a big conversation right now happening across the force on, like, what data actually needs to be classified, right? Can, can't, do I need to, because it's been so easy.

We can just over classify everything. and doubt make it like, you know, super secret double probation Jesus level. And like, okay, as long as you're red on, cool, I don't care. But that's not what we need. We recognize that that is hampering our ability to fight. Right. So we're having those conversations about what actually needs to be protected. And maybe instead of just wrapping it in encryption, we just don't say it or, you know, find other ways.

to maneuver around it so that we aren't giving our adversaries the opportunity to swing at it, right? Because one of the big things is not only do they have to possess the capability to do it, they have to have the opportunity, right? So if I never communicate over a particular method, you're not going to know that it exists. Right. Right. But if I start using that for everyday correspondence, suddenly you have all sorts of opportunity to figure it out, to experiment with it, to pick at it, to find out where the holes are. Right. So I think it's going to be a more intentional and deliberate game of cat and mouse. Did you follow the DARPA competition where they had the different AI, the different hacking teams create AIs to both defend and attack at the same time?

No, I didn't. Yeah, it was interesting. It's fascinating what everybody, you know, all the research is going into this field is incredible. Yeah, because I think people realize that when those systems are on and if we can get them to do exactly what we need to do, there's so much potential. potential, right? It's not necessarily even for our capacity to kill people easier, right? So making better, better drugs. So AI is so much better at being able to just crunch through thousands of different permutations for chemical compounds. Like that's, it's an amazing time to be alive. It's just a frustrating time to be alive because we're sort of in the, in the wild west, right?

where we're not sure what needs to be regulated or how it should be regulated yet. Right. Tom, I have a question for you that other people, that people who watch the show, especially young people might be interested in. You know, you mentioned that you got an email or, you know, you got a letter. You know, and we've taught, we've had other people on the show that have been part of Saps that they kind of stumbled into or, you know, different projects and programs. if somebody wanted to go in the military with focused on these types of things how outside of you know just getting a random letter is there a way they can direct their career to like find themselves in these fields yeah i think there's there absolutely is right so the advice that i give

to everybody who i talk to that's interested in these things is all of these organizations are looking for three things. They're looking for can you do the job? Do you want to do the job? And will you fit in? Right. So can you do the job? Do you actually have the skill sets that organizations like this need to accomplish their mission? Right. So in the discussion we're having, do you have the technical acumen, right? You don't necessarily have to be the world's best programmer or anything like that. But do you have a basic understanding of what these things are, right? Do you, are you curious?

Do you read things, right? Are you constantly learning to be the master of your craft wherever you are now, right? Do you know other languages? Like, what is it about you that makes you unique and how can you gain these sorts of additional skills? So that's can you do the job? Do you want to do the job, right? Because these jobs, everybody's like, oh, man, I'm going to go down and do super swoopy stuff, hang out with the secret squirrels.

But a lot of it sucks. I mean, it's, right, right? You're working in windowless offices where, like, I mean, this has been super neat for me for the last couple weeks because I have my phone on me all the time. Right. Like, I go in, like, nothing. Like, I've got my garment watch on. It's neat. Yeah.

You just give up these little things to be a part of this. And then a lot of the work is it's not glamorous, right? It kind of, it sucks. It's hard because if it was easy, everybody would be doing it. So do you actually want to do this job? And how you demonstrate that is by mastering the things that you have control over. Because you don't know what's on the other side of the fence. You don't know what they're looking for specifically.

But you do know things. that will set you apart, right? Like being good at what you, at what your job is now, being physically fit, right? It may not be necessary for all of them, but given the option, would you want somebody who has more endurance or less endurance, given that one of the key indicators of mental resilience is aerobic conditioning, right? So you can be, you don't have to be strong, Ranger, you can be smart ranger but smart ranger also is in shape right right given given two packets the one that's if they're both equal i'm going to take the one that's more in shape because that shows that you are disciplined right and it shows that you actually have stamina because a lot of this work is actually

also really tedious and it requires endurance uh so that's uh do you want to do the job and then finally like will you fit in all of these organizations have their own culture And I think that's, if you look at the different people that you all have had on the team house, like you, that's readily apparent. Like they're all lumped into this thing of, oh, soft or the IC, like it's this monolith. It's not. Right. Every single organization out there has their own unique personality and their own, their own culture. And folks that are thriving in one won't necessarily fit in into the other.

Right. And that's where it's not necessarily a knock against you if you try out and they say, hey, thanks, but you're just not a good fit, right? Because they're honestly doing you a favor because you would put your time and effort in this thing and then you'd go there and you would be miserable. Right. Right. And then you're not producing and you're not happy. Right. Right. So that's just not a recipe for success. So will you fit in is learning who you are as an individual, learning what you like to do, learning what your strengths and your weaknesses are, and being okay with who you are in your skin. And also like not being a terrible human being. Right. Like keep out of, keep out of trouble. Because the other thing that these

organizations all have in common is they have to play by big boy and big girl rules, Right. Right. Like you, the future conflicts are going to be distributed. You cannot expect to be micromanaged and be successful. So you have to trust the people that you are, you're sending out. And if you can't trust somebody to make good decisions when you're just going out in town on the weekend. Right. How am I going to trust you with this high tech cyber thing behind enemy lines, right? Like, how is that sort of? supposed to be. So make good choices. Practice that now because like everything else, it's a habit. So that's what I would say. Yeah. Demonstrate that you can do the job, that you want to do the job, and that you'll fit in. And then, like, there are a lot of these places are open secrets, right? Like, they have recruiters. Right. That are constantly posting in education centers. They all have email addresses.

and once you get inside now you start to open up and understand like what is actually going on with more of these programs you don't necessarily know like all the the the secrets ins and outs of the other organizations but you know who's who right and you can find your way if your first one didn't necessarily land like the ranger regiment is a perfect example of this because they take people straight off the street right and once Once you get into the regiment and kind of cut your teeth a little bit, you see what other opportunities are out there. And it's easier for you to hop from one place to the other because one, it's more directed. It's not just, hey, random email to random organization. It's targeted. I am good at this. If this interests me, I'm going to go for that. And you've already demonstrated that you don't suck, right, a la you can.

can do the job and you want to do the job. Right. Yeah. You know, it's fascinating. And, you know, like, knowing yourself is so important because even inside Ranger Regiment, well, especially these days, because there's so much more professionalized now. But, like, back, you know, way back when, the guys in the sniper section had a very different mentality than the guys on the line. Like, even though they're Rangers and you think of them as monolithic.

Yeah, think about the recon guys. Like, not every infantryman is really cut out for that kind of work. Right. And not every, like, infantrymen wants to. to do that. Some guys just want to kick indoors and that's fine. And yeah, so I mean, that's great.

So, you know, so basically for people who might want to get into like these little fields like start with the big thing. So whether it's cyber or Sigant, you know, signals intelligence or human intelligence or Rangers or, you know, 18 X-ray

or whatever. And then those doors will start to open up for you to like narrow it down. Yeah, exactly. Because what's going to happen is if you go into those positions and you do well and you learn everything you know, all these organizations want you. Yeah. Right. Like they will fight over you to bring you in and put you through their assessment and selection because you've demonstrated that you don't suck.

And when you have the ability to pick your own team, like you want to be around people that. can actually do the job because that's going to make everybody better. Yeah. So the book is Quantum Dagger. Where can people go to find it, Tom? Yeah. So it's available on Amazon. It's,

you can order it from Barnes & Noble. You can order it from pretty much any retailer. I'm not sure how much luck you'd have, like going to your local bookstore and picking it up, but it is available online pretty much everywhere. And we will have a, link down the description. And also, I did do a search for the creativity stuff. Is there, is there, do you have a website? Can people find your work, your academic work in a central

place? Yeah. So the easiest way where I have some of it aggregated is on on the website of the school.us. So t-h-g-h-h-h-school.us. So t-h-he-h-school.us. And then there's a research and media tab that has links to some of the articles we've written on this and then some of the podcasts that we've done that talk about it. I think that's fast. I mean, I think it's such a fascinating topic. Yeah, me too. Really interesting research. Yeah.

Well, thank you again, Tom, for coming on the show. Quantum Dagger is the book. I really enjoyed it. I hope you guys will go check it out. Anything else before we get going? Is there another book project in the back of your mind? Yeah, so I have started to think about like what the next book would look like. It may end up becoming a possibility, but for right now, my focus is more on how I can bring creativity to the next generation.

Awesome. Well, thank you, guys. we will see you all next Wednesday with Daryl, a retired 10th Special Forces Group guy, excited to have him here in studio. Until then. Well, that'll be Friday for the people who are watching this, right? It'll talk on Wednesday. Well, it'll be Friday for the riffraff.

Yes, yes. You know, the poor stuff watched this on YouTube. Yes, yes, yeah. But for our Patreon subscribers. Wednesday for our Patreon subscribers. And Friday for you poor peasants who. So, so. All right.

Thank you, Tom. And we will see all you guys next time.