Future Warfare: Human and Machine Integration

Welcome to Inside West Point, Ideas That Impact. I'm Brigadier General Shane Reeves, the Dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point. Through a series of discussions, we will show you a different side of West Point, where we will make even our most complex initiatives accessible to broad audiences, and give you an inside view to our cross-disciplinary work, which is being applied throughout the world. Mr. Musk, thank you very much for being here, sir. We appreciate it. It's an honor to be here. Yeah, it's really a great honor. Well, we're really excited for you to help us kick off our intellectual theme, Human and the Machine, which is leadership on the emerging battlefield. And we want to make sure that the Academy and the cadets are focused on not tomorrow, but the next 20, 30, 40 years. And underlying the entire theme is an emphasis on the importance of preparing cadets for future warfare and really where humans and machines intersect. And it's as if your background was made for this theme. However, I actually talked to quite a few people. And they really don't know who you are. Neither do I. So I thought I should tell people a little bit about your bio. Who am I? Who are we really? You'll make a company that figures it out, sir. All right. So if you don't know, if you don't know, and this is ridiculous, of course you know, but I'm going to do it anyways. Elon Musk, sitting next to me, co-founded and leads, or leads, X, Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink. Here's my favorite as an academic, the boring company. That was good. That was good. Come on. I thought it was a joke. Yeah, it did. And that's real. Well, it's awesome. By the way, you have a new company also, XAI. Yeah. And that's all of them unless you started one this morning I don't know about. I'm not sure. Right? But basically what this means is everybody in this room has the opportunity, based on these companies, to drive a futuristic electric truck through a gigantic underground tunnel while using a digital connection in their brain to start a rocket while simultaneously getting updates on Army football. His innovations have revolutionized electric vehicles, batteries, space exploration, advanced human-machine interactions, made access to information instantaneous, and have started to help integrate AI throughout our daily lives. After the convocation, I'm hoping to have a little bit of time, so you can give me some personal tips because somehow you have founded and lead multiple companies. You're a father to multiple children, and I'm exhausted after two hours of coaching one kid's sport. That's her. So whatever you can do to help me out, I'd appreciate it. So we have cadets and staff and faculty who can speak on multiple disciplinary perspectives, I would interest you. Drone swarms, electric batteries, molecular brain science, engineering psychology, philosophy, law, Chinese language. But that's just the start. I think this one's particularly relevant, because we can even cover the intense science of boxing with our world-class Department of Physical Education, just in case, you never know, some random head of state challenges you to a fight. You know, I did challenge Putin to a one-on-one combat. Did he take it? No. And then I was like, I actually, on the ex-FKA Twitter, I said, I hereby challenge Vladimir Putin to one-on-one combat. And I made sure to use his name in Russian Cyrillic, and the stakes are Ukraine, and the use of Ukrainian Cyrillic. And then... And then people thought I wasn't serious. I'm like, no, I'm absolutely serious. I mean, he does have, he has, you know, he's good at judo, I hear. And I think it would be, I mean, the pay-per-view on that would be incredible. I could get everybody in here to start chanting two men enter, one man leaves. Yeah. Two men enter, one man leaves. I mean, I'd watch that, and I'm in it. So I will tell you that our 31st Superintendent, Douglas MacArthur, once said, there's no substitute for victory. Yeah. And when it comes to fighting, it's not just our military, but it's also the whole country and the whole industrial base. Yes. That's so important. And you've innovated across so many areas, whether it's beneath our surface, outer space, and everything in between. And we're, again, truly, truly grateful for you to be here as we start to talk about some of these things that you've been working on. And as you look into the audience, I just want to give you a bit of context. A lot of these are the leaders who will face our nation's most complex and difficult challenges going forward. We have our cadets who will serve as army officers leading hundreds and eventually thousands of soldiers through this complexity that we talk about. And we also have our faculty who are preparing them to do just what I just said, lead through these complex situations. And many of our faculty will also reenter the army and be required to lead. Thank you for taking the time to help us think deeper. and inform us as we start to inform our cadets on how we can be successful, not just fighting but winning in the contemporary and future battle space. So let me start with this broad question. How do you see warfare transforming in the future? I mean, the biggest effect, I think, by far, is AI and drones. So the next, well, in fact, the current war in Ukraine is very much a drone war already. It's sort of a contest between Russia and China to see who can deploy the most number of drones. Now, if there's... A major power war, it's very much going to be a drone war. It's going to be drones and AI. And, you know, it's a sort of... I mean, I do worry about the existential risk of AI, which is that if you employ AI and drones, do you go down this path where eventually you get to Terminator? You know, try to avoid that. That would be good. That would be good. Yeah. Minimize the terminator risk. But essentially, when you're making military drones, you are making terminators. And I think you'll somewhat be forced into giving the drone localized AI, because if the AI is far away, it can't control as well as localized AI. So what do you mean by localized AI, meaning it's an autonomous scaling machine? Completely autonomous. Well, give it the okay in a particular arena, and it goes. With certain parameters? Yeah, hopefully. Do you think our adversaries will have those same type of concerns or limitations? Well, yeah. I mean, it depends on how much existential risk there is in these wars. So if it's a regional war, I think it'll be more temperate. If it goes beyond a regional war, then it's all bets are off. And then you start deploying things that you really wouldn't want to deploy. So hopefully that doesn't happen. But you said it, and I would agree that if you just look at the contemporary conflicts that are taking place, you would agree that. Machines aren't just disrupting warfare, they're now commonplace. Drones are going to be overwhelmingly what matters between any powers that have significant technology. So my personal belief is that it'll actually be, I think, probably too dangerous to have humans at the front. It's drones, it's drones at the front. And it's too dangerous... Drones don't miss. Because of the lethality, though. It's too dangerous to have humans at the front. Yes, I mean, if you've seen some of the computer-controlled sniper rifles, I mean, they just don't miss. So you're in the... You're fighting a machine that's going to, you know, aim with micron-level accuracy, and never gets tired. So how do you think the United States should be levering technology to further our national defense? Well, I think we probably need to invest in drones. The United States is strong in terms of the technology of the items, but the production rate is low. So it's a small number of units, relatively speaking, but basically... I think there's a production rate issue. If you say, like, how fast can you make drones? If you say there's a drone conflict, the outcome of that drone conflict will be how many drones does each side have in that particular skirmish times the kill ratio. So if you've got... You can have a... Let's say the United States would have a set of drones that have a high kill ratio, but then the other side has far more drones. If you've got a 2-to-1 kill ratio... the other side has four times as many drones, you're still going to lose. Do you think our industrial base can scale to make the volume of drones that you're talking about? I think that's going to be the biggest challenge. It can scale, but it is not currently scaling. Why would that be? I think the procurement is still... I mean, I read a lot of military history and actually... I... The thing that I go to sleep with is usually an audio book on military history of one kind or another. I find the subject very interesting. And one of the things that tends to happen is that countries pretty much are geared up to fight the last war, not the next war. And it's hard to change. I mean, if you look at the uniforms at the start of World War I and the tactics and strategies they used at the start of World War I, they were not significantly different from the Napoleonic era. You know, the... I mean, the French were marching into war with brightly colored uniforms. Looked great. That's not what you want to be. You know, when someone's trying to point a gun at you, you don't want a great-looking uniform. You want a uniform that blends in. So there's a tendency to be gearing up to fight the last war. And the last war, the U.S. War, was kind of the Cold War, I guess. So it usually takes, like, some kind of shock factor to... Adjust. I would recommend adjusting now. And you are seeing some startups like Andro and a few others that have different mindset. But it's really, it's going to be, can you make a lot of drones? And what's the kill ratio? That's what it comes down to. So there was recently a report that said that President Zelensky said by February 2025 there'll be a million drones produced by the Ukrainians. So it seems like it's doable and this might be a process question and we'll talk about process in a second but as you were as you were just talking I was thinking about and you said that you can't have humans at the front and so you haven't created a company that's solved aging yet have you? No. Okay so in a hundred years. I wonder whether we should solve aging. That's a great point. I'd like to wrap it up sometimes, right? Well, it's like... How long do you want Putin and Kim Jong-un to live? That's a great point, yeah. Don't get it first. Let's say you go forward 50, 100 years. How do you envision this evolution? And I think this might get to Neuralink. How do you see this evolution between the human, who maybe can't be at the front any longer, the technologies at the front, yet keeping them integrated and synchronized? How does that... How is that going to work in your mind? I mean, so communications is essential. Like, it is actually very important to have space-based communications that cannot be intercepted, which is what Starlink offers. Starlink is the backbone of the Ukrainian military communication system because it can't be blocked by the Russians. It's the only thing that can't be. So on the front lines, all the fiber connections are cut, the cell towers are blown up, and the geostationary satellite links are jammed. The only thing that isn't jammed is Starlink. So it's the only thing. And the GPS is also jammed. The GPS signal is very faint, but Starlink can offer location capability as well. So it is a strategic advantage that's very significant. And when you're trying to communicate with the drones, the drones need to, like, basically, they need to know where they are, and they need to receive instructions. So if you don't have communications and positioning, then the drones don't work. So that's quite important. It's essential. But do you find it important that there's still that communication between the human and the machine or the drone? Yeah, yes. And it's a different question of, like, where are things... like right now versus where will things be in 10 years. But I have to say, I do look at the future with some trepidation. I have to have some deliberate suspension of disbelief to sleep sometimes because I think we're headed into a pretty wild future. And I'm naturally an optimistic person. So, you know, but AI is going to be so good. Including localized AI. I mean at the current rates you'll have You know some of that sort of rock level AI Probably that can be run on a drone and so you could literally say, you know This is the equipment that the drone needs to destroy go into that thing, it'll recognize what equipment needs to be destroyed and take it out. It's a lot of your work with Neuralink though, is because what you're saying is that AI is going to quickly surpass. At least in your estimation, the human's ability to control it. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I'd like to say no, but the answer is yes. So how, first off, how long until you think that happens? Before the AI has evolved to the point where, you know, the AIs can start working together, even relying on computers, like in a de-hobbled way, and therefore... surpasses the ability for the human to be able to influence how it's working. Well, I think humans will be able to influence how it's working for a long time. This is an esoteric subject that really goes into pretty wild speculation. I think to some degree that the AIs, I think, will... want humans as a source of will. So if you think of how the human mind works, there's the limbic system and the cortex, your sort of, your kind of base instincts and the sort of thinking and planning part of your brain. But you also have a tertiary layer already, which is all of the electronics that you use, your phones, computers, applications. So you already sort of have three layers of intelligence. But all of those, the cortex and the machine intelligence, your sort of cybernetic third layer, is trying to make the limbic system happy, because the limbic system is a source of will. So there's some, you know, it might be that the AIs just want to make the humans happy. And part of what Neuralink's trying to do is improve the communication bandwidth between the cortex and the digital tertiary layer. Because our bandwidth, output bandwidth of a human is less than one per second per day. There's 86,400 seconds in a day. You don't output 86,400 tokens. So, you know, it's like the number of words that I can say at this forum. Just look at it from an information theory standpoint. How much information am I able to convey? Not that much, because I can only say a few number of words. And in order to convey an idea... I have to take a concept in my head, I have to compress it down to a small number of words, try to aspirationally model how you would decompress those words into concepts in your own mind. That's communication. So your brain is doing a lot of compression, decompression, and then has a very small output bandwidth. Neuralink can increase that bandwidth by several orders of magnitude. And also, you don't have to spend as much time compressing thoughts into . A small number of words. You can do conceptual telepathy. That is the idea behind Neuralink. So, it is intended to be a mitigation against AI existential risk. You talk about alignment. Can you explain what you mean by alignment to help everyone understand? Yeah, just, is AI going to do things that make civilization better? make people happy or will it be contrary to humanity? Will it foster humanity or not? What will be against humanity? So obviously we want an AI that will foster humanity. I think in developing an AI to foster humanity, as I've thought about AI safety for a long time, I think I've had probably a thousand hours of discussion about this. And my ultimate conclusion is that the best course for AI safety is to have an AI that is maximally truth-seeking and also curious. And if you have both of those things, I think it will naturally foster humanity because it will want to see how humanity develops. Humanity is more interesting than not humanity. I like Mars, I'm a big fan of Mars, obviously, and I think we should become a multi-planet civilization. That's very important. The purpose of SpaceX is to make life multi-planetary. That's the reason I created the company and that's the reason that we have the Starship development in South Texas. That rocket is far too big for just satellites. It's intended to establish life on Mars. Not just send astronauts there briefly, but to build a city on Mars. That's ultimately self-sustaining. So, getting back to AI, the... If you've got a truth-seeking AI that is maximally curious, my neural net, my biological neural net, says that that's going to be the safest outcome. Because, like I said, while I like Mars, Mars is not as interesting as Earth, because there's no human civilization there. Or thought of another way, if you want to render Mars... Rendering Mars is pretty easy. It's basically red rocks on a... look kind of like some parts of Arizona, you know, there's not a lot of people. It's just... it's easy to render. It's rendering... like to Mars, but rendering human civilization much harder, much more complex, much more interesting, and I think so I think a curious, truth-seeking AI would foster humanity and want to see where it goes. That relies on... requires trust. between the human and the machine. And that's where I want to ask you a question on this. So the Army, leaders in the Army, are no strangers to implementing new technologies. Think about how GPS, for example, transformed navigation. It'd be unheard of not to use GPS today. But when I was a lieutenant, no one used GPS. So recently I was watching this incredibly important and realistic documentary called Top Gun Maverick. Yeah. And in it, I learned... It's really good. It's really good. You don't want to think about the plot too closely, but... It's a great movie. It's a fantastic movie! I learned that Tom Cruise is actually not an actor. He's like a pilot, apparently. But he taught me something really important in it. He says it's about the pilot, not the plane. That's right before he defeats a fifth-generation fighter with a 1970 F-14, right? Yeah. Yeah. So. I mean, just go with the biplane. Yeah, there you go. Why, Tom Cruise could do it. Soft with camel. But in it, you know, it's a bit of a cynicism or a cynical view of the need for technology. It's like, hey, technology is superfluous. Humans can do it. But we know that's not the case. I mean, no. I don't question Tom Cruise, Elon. I don't ever question Tom Cruise. No, I'm just kidding. But I guess the question is, how do we get humans? To be able to trust the machines because there is a lot of stories for example We just recently had a conversation where we're a pilot Apache pilots were given new technology And they're like we're not going to use it because we don't really trust it Okay, use it and so how do you get the how do you when new technology is implemented? We have to be able to trust especially if it's going to be the difference maker to win So how do we do that? How do we build the trust between the human and the machine? Well, I don't I think we shouldn't just automatically trust these things I think you want to test it out. You can do a lot of testing and see how it actually works in a conflict at small scale and then scale it up if it's effective. But, yeah, I mean, I have to say, like, I'm not sure, for example, that there is a... Fortunately, this is not an Air Force gathering, but I'm not sure there's a lot of room, opportunity for fighter pilots. Because I think if you've got a drone swarm coming at you, the pilot's a liability in the fighter plane, to be honest. So if you say you compare a drone versus a fighter plane, how easy is it to make a drone? It's an order of magnitude, maybe 100, at least. 10, maybe 100 times easier to make the drone, and you can afford to sacrifice the drones, whereas the pilots, you don't want to sacrifice the pilots. So my guess is that actually the age of human-piloted fighter aircraft is coming to an end. If that's the case, then there's a question that is oftentimes debated in law and ethics, debates about killer robots. Yes. Really, are these things that should we be willing to lean so forward with the technology that we start to supplant the human pilot with the technology? And where does that go? And so what are your thoughts as we talk about technology replacing humans on the battlefield? Well, I guess what I'm saying is that at the front of the battle lines, it's going to be just drones. And any humans caught in the crossfire are going to get... We'll be killing some of them. So then it's irrelevant. It's just going to be the way military operations take place. There isn't going to be... If you make the choice to be there, then you're at a significant disadvantage. Yeah, I mean, I think it's just thinking like you've got drones that, you know, are constantly scanning. They're scanning in infrared, scanning invisible. There's thousands of them or tens of thousands. You mentioned a million that Ukraine is going to make. You've got a million drones coming at you. Do you want to be there with trying to take out drones with a assault rifle? It's not going to be a good situation. I mean, I think that there is something where if you go fully analog, where if you can do sort of an EMI, like electromagnetic explosion of some kind, that could take out all electronics. But then your electronics are going to go too. So you're going to go either fully analog or fully digital. So I think there actually would be a role for a fighter plane if it was fully analog. and had mechanical controls. Because then you could do an EMF blast, take out the drones, and the analog... I mean, that could be another Tom Cruise movie, maybe. I don't know. You know, it just goes with a fully analog aircraft, and all the drones fall out of the sky because of an EMF bomb. How do you reply to those in, say, industry that would say... We don't want to contribute to the development of technology that can be used by the Department of Defense. Basically, we need to build trust with the industrial base and with society. Maybe it's something we're doing. How do we do that? Well, I'm very pro-military, to be clear. It's good. Your audience will like that. Yes. Yeah, so, but I think what, if there's a significant conflict, the U.S. industrial base will switch quickly to military production just as it did in World War II. Is it quick enough? I don't know, but that's what will probably happen. But yeah, AI and drones, that's the future of warfare. I mean, tell me if I'm missing something here. Where do you see the domain of space? Space? Yeah, space is, I mean, space is the ultimate high ground. So it really goes, space is big. Real big. It's like, whoa. Yeah, if you ever see like Earth to scale with the Sun and the, you know, it's like, wow, we're just like a tiny little dust moat, you know, floating around space. That's Earth. But space is becoming increasingly militarized. And so how do you see that, especially as it relates to land warfare? Like, what's your thoughts on the space domain as it relates to land warfare? And what are things that we should be doing to start to gain those advantages that are necessary? Well, I mentioned the... Space-based communications is critical. Like, if you can't communicate, you don't know what's going on, you can't receive orders, you can't report information, and whether it's a human or a drone, they need the communication. So you've got to have communications, any ground-based communications, like fiber optic cables and cell phone towers will be destroyed. So it's basically all you've got are basically analog radios. But for any kind of data communications, it's space-based. And then while GPS has been effective for a long time, GPS jamming at this point is pretty easy because the GPS signal is a weak signal. So it's easy to do GPS jamming. So having sort of a next-generation system that can provide positioning is going to be very important. Space can also probably offer... the ultimate weapons where you just have tungsten cannibals from orbit. How about offensive weapons in space? Do you see those? That's what I mean by rods from God. Yeah. They talked about this in the Star Wars program in the 80s, but this is certainly something that can be done which is you have just kinetic weapons from space or space-based lasers. Finally. system technically does have lasers but they're low power lasers For now. Yeah. So let me ask you about, back to this question about process. So I like military history also. Yeah. So in, I like all disciplines at West Point, by the way. I love all of them. So in 149 BC, there was the Third Punic War is ongoing, and the Roman legions are outside Carthage. And they lay siege to Carthage, and it's not going very well. The pro-councils that are in charge are passive, risk-averse, and they're losing. And there's a young guy who's from the famous Scipio line of pro-councils, and it is Scipio Aemilianus, who is the adopted grandson of Scipio Africanus. And so Scipio is the only one who's doing something. And so Cato the Elder is sitting in the Senate, and he says this. He says, he alone still thinks the others flit about in the shadows. And his basically argument was, I want Scipio in charge. And the problem was Scipio was too young. You had to be 42 to be a pro-council. And so Cato's like, I don't care. He's the right guy. And then what does Scipio do? He goes in, and he puts juice into it. He's innovative, and obviously we know how the Third Punic War ends because we know about Rome and not Carthage, right? Right. What Cato was getting at is this need for innovative and creative and entrepreneurial leaders, right? That's what is necessary. And so processes are only as good as those who lead it. And so what are the traits you look for in those who lead your various businesses and enterprises? Well, I'm very much in technology. So for me, if somebody is going to lead something in technology, they must themselves be good at technology. Meaning that if they're going to lead something that involves complex engineering, they must themselves be good at engineering. They don't necessarily need to be the best engineer on the team, but they need to be very competent in their field. So this is incredibly important. To me, if somebody is leading a given engineering field, or engineering department and they are not good at that, then that would be like a cavalry captain who can't ride a horse. Problem. Problem. Great leader in every way, except can't ride a horse. And then you've got to charge into battle and the cavalry captain pulls off the horse. It's not as firing. So, cavalry captain must be able to ride a horse. That's actually, there don't need to be the best. horse rider, but they must be competent in this regard. Otherwise, they cannot evaluate the talent of the team, and they don't understand the technology that's being developed. This may seem like a simple thing, but it is often the case that this is overlooked. I don't want to pick on the CEO of Boeing, but he's got a degree in accounting or something. You want to have someone who knows how airplanes work. run the airplane company. I guess I have to cross out my job at Boeing CEO. Can't do that. It's like you want to not be the... It's just, if you're running an airplane company, you should know how airplanes work and how they fly and how to design an airplane. I think that's pretty important. So, I think it's vital. How do you create... Innovative intuition and those that work for you. I mean you're you're famous for Trying to gain efficiencies create create better processes pushing To try to to try to to gain those not just efficiencies, but effectiveness So how do you is it possible can you build this innovative intuition in a person? Well, it's it I think it is possible to learn to be innovative You know, a lot of times, for any given thing, you have to say, did you try? This may sound obvious, but actually try. Some of you might wonder, well, can I be innovative? Well, have you tried? Just try thinking of interesting ideas. I mean, I do find a good source of innovation is, if you read about a whole bunch of fields, you can cross-fertilize ideas from one field into another. And so you can synthesize, so you take say SpaceX and Tesla, the automotive industry is very good at manufacturing. In terms of manufacturing complex machines at volume, the automotive industry is the best. Now the rocket industry, space industry, is very good at advanced materials and making things very light. And so taking advanced materials and mass optimization concepts from the space industry, applying it to automotive and taking automotive... mass manufacturing techniques and applying it to space was kind of like a superpower. But when you, that's interesting because when you think about it, when you're talking about innovating though and you said people can try, that means you have to be willing to let them fail. Yes. And so where do you draw the line between recklessness and being overly cautious? No, if you're not failing at least some of the time, you're not trying hard enough. You have to fail some of the time. So... You know, it's more like a batting average. Somebody should have a good batting average, but nobody bats 1,000. But if somebody bats zero all the time, I mean, okay. You know, you've got to take them off. So, you know, so I think I do have this sort of simple first principles algorithm that I think could be quite helpful. And I sort of say it as a mantra to myself because I've made this... Mistake so many times So the first element is for any given thing make the make the make the requirements less dumb So whatever problem you solve make the requirements less dumb and whoever gave you those requirements Even if they are the smallest person in the world, they're still dumb. So the so if say like This is where say military procurement it goes wrong right at the outset with excess requirements. So you'll get this giant document of requirements that actually should be like one page. So step one, make the requirements. Simplify and just make the requirements less dumb. Because if you don't do that as the first step, then you can get the right answer to the wrong question. If the question's wrong, it doesn't matter. So. Then the step two is delete the part or process step. Delete. And if you're not putting in, if you're not adding back 10% of what you deleted, you haven't deleted enough. Again, this stuff sounds, I think, maybe very obvious, but it's very effective. But it goes to the idea, if some of the ideas that you're doing don't fail, you're not trying hard enough. And then only the third step is to optimize the thing. And if I say, like, what's one of the mistakes that I see smart people making all the time, especially smart engineers, is optimizing a thing that should not exist. Sounds obvious. You know, like you could try to make, let's have the world's best biplane, cloth biplane. And I'm like, well, actually, no, we should have... Jet airplanes instead, you know. So we should not optimize a thing that should not exist. And then step four is go faster. Again, this sounds really obvious, but people just don't. Try going faster. And the first step would be to automate something. But only automate it once you've done those other four things. Now, the reason I have this mantra is because I've personally, many times, automated something, sped it up, optimized it, and then deleted it. And I'm like, wait, I'm tired of going backwards here. So if you run that simple algorithm, in many arenas of life, you will be shocked at how effective it is. So, shockingly, we are already running out of time. So let me ask you this. If you could choose one attribute, just one attribute that would be critical for our future officers to have to be successful, what would it be? Curiosity. As long as you're not a cat. But curiosity. Try to read as much as possible, learn as much as possible, and in many different fields. and apply critical thinking to anything that you're told. Thank you. So I'd like to say on behalf of Lieutenant General Gillen and the entire academy, we're really thankful that you're here. We're really thankful you took the time to help us celebrate the excellence of the faculty and the cadets and really sharing some wisdom with us because we're really thinking about what do we need to do to be successful because we have a very important mission, which is a no-fail mission, which is we have to fight and win. And we're laser focused on that. Yeah. Well, I mean, in my view, or I think probably a lot of people's views, you know, America is like Atlas holding up the free world. And you are the arms of Atlas. Thank you, Mr. Musk. Please be sure to tune in to the Inside West Point Ideas that Impact podcast next month. Remember, you can find this podcast as well as the other podcasts, journals, and books hosted or published by the West Point Press at westpointpress.com. So until next time.

Mr. Musk, thank you very much for being here, sir. We appreciate it. It's an honor to be here.

Yeah, it's really a great honor. Well, we're really excited for you to help us kick off our intellectual theme, Human and the Machine, which is leadership on the emerging battlefield. And we want to make sure that the Academy and the cadets are focused on not tomorrow, but the next 20, 30, 40 years.

And underlying the entire theme is an emphasis on the importance of preparing cadets for future warfare and really where humans and machines intersect. And it's as if your background was made for this theme. However, I actually talked to quite a few people. And they really don't know who you are. Neither do I.

So I thought I should tell people a little bit about your bio. Who am I? Who are we really? You'll make a company that figures it out, sir.

All right. So if you don't know, if you don't know, and this is ridiculous, of course you know, but I'm going to do it anyways. Elon Musk, sitting next to me, co-founded and leads, or leads, X, Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink. Here's my favorite as an academic, the boring company. That was good.

That was good. Come on. I thought it was a joke. Yeah, it did. And that's real.

Well, it's awesome. By the way, you have a new company also, XAI. Yeah.

And that's all of them unless you started one this morning I don't know about. I'm not sure. Right?

But basically what this means is everybody in this room has the opportunity, based on these companies, to drive a futuristic electric truck through a gigantic underground tunnel while using a digital connection in their brain to start a rocket while simultaneously getting updates on Army football. His innovations have revolutionized electric vehicles, batteries, space exploration, advanced human-machine interactions, made access to information instantaneous, and have started to help integrate AI throughout our daily lives. After the convocation, I'm hoping to have a little bit of time, so you can give me some personal tips because somehow you have founded and lead multiple companies.

You're a father to multiple children, and I'm exhausted after two hours of coaching one kid's sport. That's her. So whatever you can do to help me out, I'd appreciate it.

So we have cadets and staff and faculty who can speak on multiple disciplinary perspectives, I would interest you. Drone swarms, electric batteries, molecular brain science, engineering psychology, philosophy, law, Chinese language. But that's just the start. I think this one's particularly relevant, because we can even cover the intense science of boxing with our world-class Department of Physical Education, just in case, you never know, some random head of state challenges you to a fight.

You know, I did challenge Putin to a one-on-one combat. Did he take it? No. And then I was like, I actually, on the ex-FKA Twitter, I said, I hereby challenge Vladimir Putin to one-on-one combat. And I made sure to use his name in Russian Cyrillic, and the stakes are Ukraine, and the use of Ukrainian Cyrillic.

And then... And then people thought I wasn't serious. I'm like, no, I'm absolutely serious.

I mean, he does have, he has, you know, he's good at judo, I hear. And I think it would be, I mean, the pay-per-view on that would be incredible. I could get everybody in here to start chanting two men enter, one man leaves.

Yeah. Two men enter, one man leaves. I mean, I'd watch that, and I'm in it.

So I will tell you that our 31st Superintendent, Douglas MacArthur, once said, there's no substitute for victory. Yeah. And when it comes to fighting, it's not just our military, but it's also the whole country and the whole industrial base. Yes. That's so important.

And you've innovated across so many areas, whether it's beneath our surface, outer space, and everything in between. And we're, again, truly, truly grateful for you to be here as we start to talk about some of these things that you've been working on. And as you look into the audience, I just want to give you a bit of context. A lot of these are the leaders who will face our nation's most complex and difficult challenges going forward. We have our cadets who will serve as army officers leading hundreds and eventually thousands of soldiers through this complexity that we talk about.

And we also have our faculty who are preparing them to do just what I just said, lead through these complex situations. And many of our faculty will also reenter the army and be required to lead. Thank you for taking the time to help us think deeper.

and inform us as we start to inform our cadets on how we can be successful, not just fighting but winning in the contemporary and future battle space. So let me start with this broad question. How do you see warfare transforming in the future? I mean, the biggest effect, I think, by far, is AI and drones. So the next, well, in fact, the current war in Ukraine is very much a drone war already.

It's sort of a contest between Russia and China to see who can deploy the most number of drones. Now, if there's... A major power war, it's very much going to be a drone war. It's going to be drones and AI. And, you know, it's a sort of...

I mean, I do worry about the existential risk of AI, which is that if you employ AI and drones, do you go down this path where eventually you get to Terminator? You know, try to avoid that. That would be good. That would be good.

Yeah. Minimize the terminator risk. But essentially, when you're making military drones, you are making terminators.

And I think you'll somewhat be forced into giving the drone localized AI, because if the AI is far away, it can't control as well as localized AI. So what do you mean by localized AI, meaning it's an autonomous scaling machine? Completely autonomous.

Well, give it the okay in a particular arena, and it goes. With certain parameters? Yeah, hopefully. Do you think our adversaries will have those same type of concerns or limitations? Well, yeah.

I mean, it depends on how much existential risk there is in these wars. So if it's a regional war, I think it'll be more temperate. If it goes beyond a regional war, then it's all bets are off. And then you start deploying things that you really wouldn't want to deploy. So hopefully that doesn't happen.

But you said it, and I would agree that if you just look at the contemporary conflicts that are taking place, you would agree that. Machines aren't just disrupting warfare, they're now commonplace. Drones are going to be overwhelmingly what matters between any powers that have significant technology. So my personal belief is that it'll actually be, I think, probably too dangerous to have humans at the front. It's drones, it's drones at the front.

And it's too dangerous... Drones don't miss. Because of the lethality, though.

It's too dangerous to have humans at the front. Yes, I mean, if you've seen some of the computer-controlled sniper rifles, I mean, they just don't miss. So you're in the...

You're fighting a machine that's going to, you know, aim with micron-level accuracy, and never gets tired. So how do you think the United States should be levering technology to further our national defense? Well, I think we probably need to invest in drones. The United States is strong in terms of the technology of the items, but the production rate is low.

So it's a small number of units, relatively speaking, but basically... I think there's a production rate issue. If you say, like, how fast can you make drones?

If you say there's a drone conflict, the outcome of that drone conflict will be how many drones does each side have in that particular skirmish times the kill ratio. So if you've got... You can have a...

Let's say the United States would have a set of drones that have a high kill ratio, but then the other side has far more drones. If you've got a 2-to-1 kill ratio... the other side has four times as many drones, you're still going to lose.

Do you think our industrial base can scale to make the volume of drones that you're talking about? I think that's going to be the biggest challenge. It can scale, but it is not currently scaling. Why would that be? I think the procurement is still...

I mean, I read a lot of military history and actually... I... The thing that I go to sleep with is usually an audio book on military history of one kind or another.

I find the subject very interesting. And one of the things that tends to happen is that countries pretty much are geared up to fight the last war, not the next war. And it's hard to change. I mean, if you look at the uniforms at the start of World War I and the tactics and strategies they used at the start of World War I, they were not significantly different from the Napoleonic era. You know, the...

I mean, the French were marching into war with brightly colored uniforms. Looked great. That's not what you want to be.

You know, when someone's trying to point a gun at you, you don't want a great-looking uniform. You want a uniform that blends in. So there's a tendency to be gearing up to fight the last war.

And the last war, the U.S. War, was kind of the Cold War, I guess. So it usually takes, like, some kind of shock factor to... Adjust.

I would recommend adjusting now. And you are seeing some startups like Andro and a few others that have different mindset. But it's really, it's going to be, can you make a lot of drones? And what's the kill ratio? That's what it comes down to.

So there was recently a report that said that President Zelensky said by February 2025 there'll be a million drones produced by the Ukrainians. So it seems like it's doable and this might be a process question and we'll talk about process in a second but as you were as you were just talking I was thinking about and you said that you can't have humans at the front and so you haven't created a company that's solved aging yet have you? No.

Okay so in a hundred years. I wonder whether we should solve aging. That's a great point. I'd like to wrap it up sometimes, right? Well, it's like...

How long do you want Putin and Kim Jong-un to live? That's a great point, yeah. Don't get it first.

Let's say you go forward 50, 100 years. How do you envision this evolution? And I think this might get to Neuralink.

How do you see this evolution between the human, who maybe can't be at the front any longer, the technologies at the front, yet keeping them integrated and synchronized? How does that... How is that going to work in your mind? I mean, so communications is essential.

Like, it is actually very important to have space-based communications that cannot be intercepted, which is what Starlink offers. Starlink is the backbone of the Ukrainian military communication system because it can't be blocked by the Russians. It's the only thing that can't be. So on the front lines, all the fiber connections are cut, the cell towers are blown up, and the geostationary satellite links are jammed.

The only thing that isn't jammed is Starlink. So it's the only thing. And the GPS is also jammed. The GPS signal is very faint, but Starlink can offer location capability as well.

So it is a strategic advantage that's very significant. And when you're trying to communicate with the drones, the drones need to, like, basically, they need to know where they are, and they need to receive instructions. So if you don't have communications and positioning, then the drones don't work. So that's quite important. It's essential.

But do you find it important that there's still that communication between the human and the machine or the drone? Yeah, yes. And it's a different question of, like, where are things... like right now versus where will things be in 10 years.

But I have to say, I do look at the future with some trepidation. I have to have some deliberate suspension of disbelief to sleep sometimes because I think we're headed into a pretty wild future. And I'm naturally an optimistic person.

So, you know, but AI is going to be so good. Including localized AI. I mean at the current rates you'll have You know some of that sort of rock level AI Probably that can be run on a drone and so you could literally say, you know This is the equipment that the drone needs to destroy go into that thing, it'll recognize what equipment needs to be destroyed and take it out.

It's a lot of your work with Neuralink though, is because what you're saying is that AI is going to quickly surpass. At least in your estimation, the human's ability to control it. Yeah.

Okay. I mean, I'd like to say no, but the answer is yes. So how, first off, how long until you think that happens?

Before the AI has evolved to the point where, you know, the AIs can start working together, even relying on computers, like in a de-hobbled way, and therefore... surpasses the ability for the human to be able to influence how it's working. Well, I think humans will be able to influence how it's working for a long time.

This is an esoteric subject that really goes into pretty wild speculation. I think to some degree that the AIs, I think, will... want humans as a source of will.

So if you think of how the human mind works, there's the limbic system and the cortex, your sort of, your kind of base instincts and the sort of thinking and planning part of your brain. But you also have a tertiary layer already, which is all of the electronics that you use, your phones, computers, applications. So you already sort of have three layers of intelligence.

But all of those, the cortex and the machine intelligence, your sort of cybernetic third layer, is trying to make the limbic system happy, because the limbic system is a source of will. So there's some, you know, it might be that the AIs just want to make the humans happy. And part of what Neuralink's trying to do is improve the communication bandwidth between the cortex and the digital tertiary layer.

Because our bandwidth, output bandwidth of a human is less than one per second per day. There's 86,400 seconds in a day. You don't output 86,400 tokens. So, you know, it's like the number of words that I can say at this forum. Just look at it from an information theory standpoint.

How much information am I able to convey? Not that much, because I can only say a few number of words. And in order to convey an idea... I have to take a concept in my head, I have to compress it down to a small number of words, try to aspirationally model how you would decompress those words into concepts in your own mind. That's communication.

So your brain is doing a lot of compression, decompression, and then has a very small output bandwidth. Neuralink can increase that bandwidth by several orders of magnitude. And also, you don't have to spend as much time compressing thoughts into .

A small number of words. You can do conceptual telepathy. That is the idea behind Neuralink.

So, it is intended to be a mitigation against AI existential risk. You talk about alignment. Can you explain what you mean by alignment to help everyone understand?

Yeah, just, is AI going to do things that make civilization better? make people happy or will it be contrary to humanity? Will it foster humanity or not?

What will be against humanity? So obviously we want an AI that will foster humanity. I think in developing an AI to foster humanity, as I've thought about AI safety for a long time, I think I've had probably a thousand hours of discussion about this. And my ultimate conclusion is that the best course for AI safety is to have an AI that is maximally truth-seeking and also curious. And if you have both of those things, I think it will naturally foster humanity because it will want to see how humanity develops.

Humanity is more interesting than not humanity. I like Mars, I'm a big fan of Mars, obviously, and I think we should become a multi-planet civilization. That's very important.

The purpose of SpaceX is to make life multi-planetary. That's the reason I created the company and that's the reason that we have the Starship development in South Texas. That rocket is far too big for just satellites.

It's intended to establish life on Mars. Not just send astronauts there briefly, but to build a city on Mars. That's ultimately self-sustaining.

So, getting back to AI, the... If you've got a truth-seeking AI that is maximally curious, my neural net, my biological neural net, says that that's going to be the safest outcome. Because, like I said, while I like Mars, Mars is not as interesting as Earth, because there's no human civilization there.

Or thought of another way, if you want to render Mars... Rendering Mars is pretty easy. It's basically red rocks on a...

look kind of like some parts of Arizona, you know, there's not a lot of people. It's just... it's easy to render.

It's rendering... like to Mars, but rendering human civilization much harder, much more complex, much more interesting, and I think so I think a curious, truth-seeking AI would foster humanity and want to see where it goes. That relies on... requires trust.

between the human and the machine. And that's where I want to ask you a question on this. So the Army, leaders in the Army, are no strangers to implementing new technologies. Think about how GPS, for example, transformed navigation.

It'd be unheard of not to use GPS today. But when I was a lieutenant, no one used GPS. So recently I was watching this incredibly important and realistic documentary called Top Gun Maverick. Yeah.

And in it, I learned... It's really good. It's really good.

You don't want to think about the plot too closely, but... It's a great movie. It's a fantastic movie!

I learned that Tom Cruise is actually not an actor. He's like a pilot, apparently. But he taught me something really important in it.

He says it's about the pilot, not the plane. That's right before he defeats a fifth-generation fighter with a 1970 F-14, right? Yeah. Yeah.

So. I mean, just go with the biplane. Yeah, there you go. Why, Tom Cruise could do it.

Soft with camel. But in it, you know, it's a bit of a cynicism or a cynical view of the need for technology. It's like, hey, technology is superfluous.

Humans can do it. But we know that's not the case. I mean, no. I don't question Tom Cruise, Elon. I don't ever question Tom Cruise.

No, I'm just kidding. But I guess the question is, how do we get humans? To be able to trust the machines because there is a lot of stories for example We just recently had a conversation where we're a pilot Apache pilots were given new technology And they're like we're not going to use it because we don't really trust it Okay, use it and so how do you get the how do you when new technology is implemented? We have to be able to trust especially if it's going to be the difference maker to win So how do we do that? How do we build the trust between the human and the machine?

Well, I don't I think we shouldn't just automatically trust these things I think you want to test it out. You can do a lot of testing and see how it actually works in a conflict at small scale and then scale it up if it's effective. But, yeah, I mean, I have to say, like, I'm not sure, for example, that there is a... Fortunately, this is not an Air Force gathering, but I'm not sure there's a lot of room, opportunity for fighter pilots.

Because I think if you've got a drone swarm coming at you, the pilot's a liability in the fighter plane, to be honest. So if you say you compare a drone versus a fighter plane, how easy is it to make a drone? It's an order of magnitude, maybe 100, at least. 10, maybe 100 times easier to make the drone, and you can afford to sacrifice the drones, whereas the pilots, you don't want to sacrifice the pilots. So my guess is that actually the age of human-piloted fighter aircraft is coming to an end.

If that's the case, then there's a question that is oftentimes debated in law and ethics, debates about killer robots. Yes. Really, are these things that should we be willing to lean so forward with the technology that we start to supplant the human pilot with the technology? And where does that go?

And so what are your thoughts as we talk about technology replacing humans on the battlefield? Well, I guess what I'm saying is that at the front of the battle lines, it's going to be just drones. And any humans caught in the crossfire are going to get...

We'll be killing some of them. So then it's irrelevant. It's just going to be the way military operations take place.

There isn't going to be... If you make the choice to be there, then you're at a significant disadvantage. Yeah, I mean, I think it's just thinking like you've got drones that, you know, are constantly scanning.

They're scanning in infrared, scanning invisible. There's thousands of them or tens of thousands. You mentioned a million that Ukraine is going to make.

You've got a million drones coming at you. Do you want to be there with trying to take out drones with a assault rifle? It's not going to be a good situation. I mean, I think that there is something where if you go fully analog, where if you can do sort of an EMI, like electromagnetic explosion of some kind, that could take out all electronics.

But then your electronics are going to go too. So you're going to go either fully analog or fully digital. So I think there actually would be a role for a fighter plane if it was fully analog.

and had mechanical controls. Because then you could do an EMF blast, take out the drones, and the analog... I mean, that could be another Tom Cruise movie, maybe. I don't know.

You know, it just goes with a fully analog aircraft, and all the drones fall out of the sky because of an EMF bomb. How do you reply to those in, say, industry that would say... We don't want to contribute to the development of technology that can be used by the Department of Defense.

Basically, we need to build trust with the industrial base and with society. Maybe it's something we're doing. How do we do that?

Well, I'm very pro-military, to be clear. It's good. Your audience will like that. Yes. Yeah, so, but I think what, if there's a significant conflict, the U.S. industrial base will switch quickly to military production just as it did in World War II.

Is it quick enough? I don't know, but that's what will probably happen. But yeah, AI and drones, that's the future of warfare. I mean, tell me if I'm missing something here. Where do you see the domain of space?

Space? Yeah, space is, I mean, space is the ultimate high ground. So it really goes, space is big.

Real big. It's like, whoa. Yeah, if you ever see like Earth to scale with the Sun and the, you know, it's like, wow, we're just like a tiny little dust moat, you know, floating around space.

That's Earth. But space is becoming increasingly militarized. And so how do you see that, especially as it relates to land warfare? Like, what's your thoughts on the space domain as it relates to land warfare? And what are things that we should be doing to start to gain those advantages that are necessary?

Well, I mentioned the... Space-based communications is critical. Like, if you can't communicate, you don't know what's going on, you can't receive orders, you can't report information, and whether it's a human or a drone, they need the communication. So you've got to have communications, any ground-based communications, like fiber optic cables and cell phone towers will be destroyed.

So it's basically all you've got are basically analog radios. But for any kind of data communications, it's space-based. And then while GPS has been effective for a long time, GPS jamming at this point is pretty easy because the GPS signal is a weak signal.

So it's easy to do GPS jamming. So having sort of a next-generation system that can provide positioning is going to be very important. Space can also probably offer... the ultimate weapons where you just have tungsten cannibals from orbit.

How about offensive weapons in space? Do you see those? That's what I mean by rods from God. Yeah.

They talked about this in the Star Wars program in the 80s, but this is certainly something that can be done which is you have just kinetic weapons from space or space-based lasers. Finally. system technically does have lasers but they're low power lasers For now.

Yeah. So let me ask you about, back to this question about process. So I like military history also.

Yeah. So in, I like all disciplines at West Point, by the way. I love all of them. So in 149 BC, there was the Third Punic War is ongoing, and the Roman legions are outside Carthage.

And they lay siege to Carthage, and it's not going very well. The pro-councils that are in charge are passive, risk-averse, and they're losing. And there's a young guy who's from the famous Scipio line of pro-councils, and it is Scipio Aemilianus, who is the adopted grandson of Scipio Africanus. And so Scipio is the only one who's doing something. And so Cato the Elder is sitting in the Senate, and he says this.

He says, he alone still thinks the others flit about in the shadows. And his basically argument was, I want Scipio in charge. And the problem was Scipio was too young. You had to be 42 to be a pro-council. And so Cato's like, I don't care.

He's the right guy. And then what does Scipio do? He goes in, and he puts juice into it.

He's innovative, and obviously we know how the Third Punic War ends because we know about Rome and not Carthage, right? Right. What Cato was getting at is this need for innovative and creative and entrepreneurial leaders, right? That's what is necessary.

And so processes are only as good as those who lead it. And so what are the traits you look for in those who lead your various businesses and enterprises? Well, I'm very much in technology. So for me, if somebody is going to lead something in technology, they must themselves be good at technology.

Meaning that if they're going to lead something that involves complex engineering, they must themselves be good at engineering. They don't necessarily need to be the best engineer on the team, but they need to be very competent in their field. So this is incredibly important.

To me, if somebody is leading a given engineering field, or engineering department and they are not good at that, then that would be like a cavalry captain who can't ride a horse. Problem. Problem. Great leader in every way, except can't ride a horse. And then you've got to charge into battle and the cavalry captain pulls off the horse.

It's not as firing. So, cavalry captain must be able to ride a horse. That's actually, there don't need to be the best.

horse rider, but they must be competent in this regard. Otherwise, they cannot evaluate the talent of the team, and they don't understand the technology that's being developed. This may seem like a simple thing, but it is often the case that this is overlooked. I don't want to pick on the CEO of Boeing, but he's got a degree in accounting or something.

You want to have someone who knows how airplanes work. run the airplane company. I guess I have to cross out my job at Boeing CEO.

Can't do that. It's like you want to not be the... It's just, if you're running an airplane company, you should know how airplanes work and how they fly and how to design an airplane. I think that's pretty important.

So, I think it's vital. How do you create... Innovative intuition and those that work for you. I mean you're you're famous for Trying to gain efficiencies create create better processes pushing To try to to try to to gain those not just efficiencies, but effectiveness So how do you is it possible can you build this innovative intuition in a person?

Well, it's it I think it is possible to learn to be innovative You know, a lot of times, for any given thing, you have to say, did you try? This may sound obvious, but actually try. Some of you might wonder, well, can I be innovative?

Well, have you tried? Just try thinking of interesting ideas. I mean, I do find a good source of innovation is, if you read about a whole bunch of fields, you can cross-fertilize ideas from one field into another.

And so you can synthesize, so you take say SpaceX and Tesla, the automotive industry is very good at manufacturing. In terms of manufacturing complex machines at volume, the automotive industry is the best. Now the rocket industry, space industry, is very good at advanced materials and making things very light. And so taking advanced materials and mass optimization concepts from the space industry, applying it to automotive and taking automotive... mass manufacturing techniques and applying it to space was kind of like a superpower.

But when you, that's interesting because when you think about it, when you're talking about innovating though and you said people can try, that means you have to be willing to let them fail. Yes. And so where do you draw the line between recklessness and being overly cautious?

No, if you're not failing at least some of the time, you're not trying hard enough. You have to fail some of the time. So... You know, it's more like a batting average.

Somebody should have a good batting average, but nobody bats 1,000. But if somebody bats zero all the time, I mean, okay. You know, you've got to take them off.

So, you know, so I think I do have this sort of simple first principles algorithm that I think could be quite helpful. And I sort of say it as a mantra to myself because I've made this... Mistake so many times So the first element is for any given thing make the make the make the requirements less dumb So whatever problem you solve make the requirements less dumb and whoever gave you those requirements Even if they are the smallest person in the world, they're still dumb. So the so if say like This is where say military procurement it goes wrong right at the outset with excess requirements. So you'll get this giant document of requirements that actually should be like one page.

So step one, make the requirements. Simplify and just make the requirements less dumb. Because if you don't do that as the first step, then you can get the right answer to the wrong question. If the question's wrong, it doesn't matter.

So. Then the step two is delete the part or process step. Delete. And if you're not putting in, if you're not adding back 10% of what you deleted, you haven't deleted enough. Again, this stuff sounds, I think, maybe very obvious, but it's very effective.

But it goes to the idea, if some of the ideas that you're doing don't fail, you're not trying hard enough. And then only the third step is to optimize the thing. And if I say, like, what's one of the mistakes that I see smart people making all the time, especially smart engineers, is optimizing a thing that should not exist. Sounds obvious. You know, like you could try to make, let's have the world's best biplane, cloth biplane.

And I'm like, well, actually, no, we should have... Jet airplanes instead, you know. So we should not optimize a thing that should not exist. And then step four is go faster. Again, this sounds really obvious, but people just don't.

Try going faster. And the first step would be to automate something. But only automate it once you've done those other four things. Now, the reason I have this mantra is because I've personally, many times, automated something, sped it up, optimized it, and then deleted it.

And I'm like, wait, I'm tired of going backwards here. So if you run that simple algorithm, in many arenas of life, you will be shocked at how effective it is. So, shockingly, we are already running out of time.

So let me ask you this. If you could choose one attribute, just one attribute that would be critical for our future officers to have to be successful, what would it be? Curiosity. As long as you're not a cat. But curiosity.

Try to read as much as possible, learn as much as possible, and in many different fields. and apply critical thinking to anything that you're told. Thank you.

So I'd like to say on behalf of Lieutenant General Gillen and the entire academy, we're really thankful that you're here. We're really thankful you took the time to help us celebrate the excellence of the faculty and the cadets and really sharing some wisdom with us because we're really thinking about what do we need to do to be successful because we have a very important mission, which is a no-fail mission, which is we have to fight and win. And we're laser focused on that. Yeah. Well, I mean, in my view, or I think probably a lot of people's views, you know, America is like Atlas holding up the free world.

And you are the arms of Atlas. Thank you, Mr. Musk. Please be sure to tune in to the Inside West Point Ideas that Impact podcast next month. Remember, you can find this podcast as well as the other podcasts, journals, and books hosted or published by the West Point Press at westpointpress.com.

So until next time.

Transcript for:Future Warfare: Human and Machine Integration

Transcript for:
Future Warfare: Human and Machine Integration