Less Autonomy, More Teaming
How can one human control 100 drones? You can't! At least not through direct control... which is why there has been such a big push for autonomy. However, autonomy leaves the human out of the loop and engenders both ethical and pragmatic problems especially for complex missions. Neither direct teleoperation nor full autonomy are necessarily good options. I see a future where mixed-initiative teaming provides the key to reliable behavior and large-scale impact.
For more than two decades there has been a tendency, fueled mostly by the media, but also by marketers, to pit the human against AI… to talk about fully self-driving cars and to tout the elimination of the human element as a benefit. Anything less is seen as technical failure by the engineers and a financial loss by the bean counters looking to eliminate the labor cost column of their spreadsheet.
DARPA has played a pivotal role, arguing from the nineties that the DARPA-hard problem is full autonomy. What if they had viewed effective teamwork as the DARPA-hard problem? I know it doesn't sound as exciting, but I believe that enabling appropriate mixed-initiative control, supported by shared understanding, is more difficult, more scientifically interesting and more valuable, especially in critical situations.
What do I mean by mixed-initiative control? It is being the water, not the stone. It is giving up control to gain a harmonic balance. It flattens hierarchy in order to build organic strength through distributed intelligence and resilient interdependence. In a mixed-initiative system no team member is in complete control and every team member has some control.
If that sounds more like a self-help book than good engineering principles, perhaps the following will be instructive. In a mixed-initiative team, every team member is empowered to:
However, years of robotics working with faulty sensors and helpless robots has taught me that not every team member is right and that not every input is valuable. Consequently, AI can be used to create a dynamic balance between the multiple voices, allowing each entity to do what it does best. The "mixing" should ensure the following:
In a mixed-initiative system there is no master-slave relationship and no fully autonomous independence, because everything is interdependent, connected by shared purpose.
I’ve fielded many systems that functioned autonomously for a time. When communications failed or humans were too busy, robots could take care of themselves. Autonomy is a good thing when supported by a mixed-initiative team structure. In this sense, the best way to achieve robust autonomy may be to focus on the strength of the team, rather than the autonomy of the individual.
The question of how to design control is a fundamental question that underlies all robotic capability and perhaps the universe writ large. Do you demand your children obey your commands or do you help them think independently and act as part of the family? Do you micro-manage your employees, view them as independent contributors or encourage teamwork? In every test we did, using over 1000 users, mixed-initiative control always out performed either teleportation or so called full autonomy.
Recently, these same issues accelerated at the speed of sound, as an AI-controlled fighter jet pulled crazy G's while taking on a human-piloted bogey. At Edwards Air Force Base with the Secretary of the Air Force, the associated press couldn't help but take the bait. As expected, they tried to nail down quotes about how fully autonomous AI would fare against a human. Secretary Kendall wants a system that supports the pilot, but the headlines still read in terms of human vs AI.
Personally, I see a bright future for AI behaviors that empower and enhance the human. This is what makes me so excited about the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) #ACE program and the progress so far. Let's learn from the many fully autonomous programs of the past and focus on creating teaming relationships where human and AI do what they are best at, compensating for each other and enhancing performance. If we can find the right mix of initiative the opportunities are endless. At the heart of this is the human. Humanity-centered design is the key to better performance and to an ethical future for #swarming, #UVS and #robotics.
Autonomous Systems SME | Solution Architect
5moDavid Bruemmer, an excellent and very thought-provoking article and comments! So many threads are running through my brain - here's one of them: Speaking of information flow among large teams of heterogeneous autonomous systems, agents and humans, it would likely need to be intelligently managed based on context, role, bandwidth and need. Here are some examples. If the current context includes radio silence, there can't be any information exchanged except for what can be passively observed. If the current role is oversight, then trends and status might be sufficient (with the ability to request details if needed). If the bandwidth is low, information can be selectively down sampled, aggregated or even skipped entirely based on need/criticality.
Autonomous Systems SME | Solution Architect
5moDavid Bruemmer, an excellent and very thought-provoking article and comments! So many threads are running through my brain - here's here's one of them: When thinking about teams of autonomous agents, I like the approach that Dr. Paul Scerri used in his Machinetta software for collaborative autonomy and teaming, where every actor is deemed a Robot, an Agent, or a Person (in this context, an Agent is defined as an intelligent/self-managing software entity with no physical presence). Each actor in a RAP team has a set of things it can do, must do and mustn't do along with a set of roles it can play, all of which can change based on context and shared goals and beliefs. Actors work together to achieve the goal(s) and can even negotiate (e.g., can some actor take over current role/tasking so I can opportunistically take on a new role/task?) or make sacrifices (e.g., take on a comms relay role/task even though its primary role is surveillance) if it improves the mission outcome. Is this a good expression of "mixed-initiative teaming"?
Autonomous Systems SME | Solution Architect
5moDavid Bruemmer, an excellent and very thought-provoking article and comments! So many threads are running through my brain - here's here's one of them: The way I think about it is that being autonomous should never exclude the human element, even if the entity is operating in a "fully autonomous" mode. Human Soldiers are fully autonomous, but they still have to operate within their authority-generated orders, rules of engagement, training, etc. and the same goes for autonomous systems and agents.
Everybody gets inspired by America's "disruption" model of entrepreneurship and narratives. Very few know how many promoters of this ideology "the system" has deleted. "fully realised people and robots" is an amusing narrative hook.