Author: Scott

Harvard Business Review did a comprehensive study of how corporate CEOs use their time. And the article became a very good treatise on leadership of Continue reading “The CEOs Calendar”

An AI algorithm has taught itself how to solve Rubik’s Cube. Sort of. By building an algorithm that approximates how close the current cube configuration is to the solution, the AI was able to craft its own reward system and outperform most human methods of solving the cube. Why it may be important – Continue reading “Rubik’s AI”

Researchers are working on a new generation of smart clothes with embedded sensors, lights, and even the ability to change colors. How do you think we might be able to use this type of technology to enhance training effectiveness for our Sailors? Are there additional sensors that you would want to have embedded in tactical clothing, or do you worry that we might be collecting too much personal data?

Large scale models of natural phenomena are one of the most challenging classes of problems in science and computing. Galaxy and star formation models are one type; weather and climate are another important area of modeling.  The models themselves are vastly complex, encompassing a huge number of variables, and necessitating difficult decisions about setting initial conditions, tuning assumptions in the model, and matching the scale and granularity of the model to the hypothesis being investigated. It’s tiring just considering the size of the challenge. Scientists are expressing new optimism about galaxy simulation models. While early models didn’t produce results that matched observation, more recent models are corresponding better to observations and increasing scientists’ confidence that they models can begin to serve in a predictive role and lead to new discoveries in cosmology.

This article from a retired Navy Captain presents a very good summary of the issues, concerns, and potential way ahead for autonomous sensor and weapon systems and how to balance war at machine speed with the desire to keep humans in the loop (or on the loop) as much as possible in deadly force decision-making. Do you think we are taking too much risk on autonomous systems? Or are we not taking enough risk?

This article from a popular fitness web site expands on a recent US Army research paper and recommends using performance-enhancing drugs (steroids), under doctor supervision and with deep consideration for safety and side effects, to ensure our soldiers have the greatest possible edge in combat. In combat, where strength, stamina, and other physical factors may make the difference between mission success and mission failure, and where mission failure saves lives, does it make sense to open this line of research? Likewise, where the decisions of leaders at every level – tactical, operational, and strategic – have wide-ranging impacts on mission success, should we also look into drugs to enhance cognitive performance? If we choose not to, and the next adversary does, do we risk giving up the initiative and costing unnecessary loss of life?