The human/technology interface encompasses the ways in which humans engage with and utilize technology to enhance their capabilities, perform tasks more efficiently, and achieve desired outcomes. This interface is rapidly evolving from simple physical interactions to more complex engagements involving augmented reality, AI, and wearable devices. Given the strategic certainty that widespread artificial general intelligence (AGI) integration will fundamentally alter the cognitive and leadership roles of every soldier, how must the Army redesign its leader development models and cultural norms to cultivate a force that excels at integrated human-machine teaming?
As the line between humans and technology potentially becomes blurred via human/machine symbiosis, what are the broader implications of these ever more tightly interwoven connections for both conventional forces and Special Operations Forces (SOF)? Are humans always more important than hardware, or, at some point, does technology become more critical?
To ensure human capital remains the decisive element, research must explore how a human/technology interface can enhance the span of control a person has over the technology they use. What role does trust play in the successful adoption and integration of this technology, and specifically, when should we trust AI versus when should we not? Ultimately, what potential risks or challenges are associated with an increasing reliance on technology in human decision-making processes, and how can the military ensure personnel maintain appropriate control and autonomy to preserve trust and mitigate potential negative consequences?
- Beers, Lt. Col. Shannon, "Lobbying Gone Wrong Contributes to 346 Deaths," AF Fellows portfolio (Georgetown), 2025, 20 pgs.
- Beers illustrates the fatal risks of increasing reliance on automated technology at the expense of human autonomy through Boeing's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). To avoid the costs and delays associated with simulator training for the new 737 MAX, Boeing engineered MCAS to automatically push the aircraft's nose down based on a single angle-of-attack sensor input. Crucially, Boeing deliberately omitted MCAS from the flight manuals, stripping the pilots of their autonomy and awareness of the system's existence. When the system received erroneous sensor data, pilots were overwhelmed by automated nose-down commands and contradictory cockpit warnings they had never been trained to understand or override. Beers argues this tragedy demonstrates that aircraft should not be designed to secretly override human control, nor should they rely on perfect human performance in a crisis to mitigate preventable technological flaws.
- Brode, Michael C., "Battle Management Automation: Balancing Technological Adoption and Trust with Risk," SAASS thesis, 2025, 95 pgs.
- Brode answers this by asserting that trust must be carefully calibrated according to the system's reliability and the specific operational environment. To mitigate the risks of human-machine teaming, Brode emphasizes that military platforms must maintain a "man-in-the-loop" configuration to complete the kill chain and ensure human oversight. He argues that operators must undergo comprehensive training with and without automation so they understand a system's true capabilities, know when to override it, and can function effectively if the technology fails.
- Conley, Lt. Col. David E., "Perfecting Boyd's Loop: Artificial Intelligence Enhancing the Tactical Edge," GCPME thesis, 2024, 53 pgs.
- DeHenre, Rena "Reyna," "Military Decision Making and Adversarial Machine Learning Attack," SAASS thesis, 2022, 73 pgs.
- Edwards, Capt. William J., "AI's Ethical Skies: Navigating RPA Aircrew Responsibilities," AFGC thesis, 2025.
- Answering questions about the risks of increasing reliance on technology in human decision-making, Edwards analyzes the dynamics of Human-Autonomy Teams (HATs) within RPA missions. He explains that relying too heavily on AI can lead to complacency and a loss of adaptability, while over-trusting AI recommendations can distance humans from the ethical consequences of lethal force. To ensure operators maintain appropriate control and trust, Edwards emphasizes that AI must be treated as a collaborative partner rather than an infallible tool, requiring operators to continuously validate the AI's logic and intervene when it behaves anomalously. To mitigate negative consequences, he proposes comprehensive aircrew training focused on AI ethics and system limitations, as well as joint training with Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers to ingrain a culture of critical thinking where humans act as the ultimate moral arbiter.
- Gates, Maj. Justin M., "A Strategic Analysis of Advanced Technologies in Air Force Aviation Risk Mitigation," AFGC thesis, 2025, 46 pgs.
- Gates identifies pilot complacency, overreliance on automation, and the degradation of manual flying skills as severe risks associated with increasing technological reliance. He illustrates these negative consequences using the Air France 447 crash, where a sudden loss of airspeed data caused the autopilot to disconnect, leading to catastrophic situational awareness failures because the pilots were ill-equipped to abruptly assume manual control. To mitigate these risks and ensure pilots maintain appropriate autonomy and control over the aircraft, he recommends revising Crew Resource Management (CRM) programs to heavily emphasize manual flight proficiency through scenario-based training. Furthermore, he suggests the Air Force adopt a standardized emergency decision-making framework, similar to Delta Air Lines’ Threat and Error Management Model (TEMM), to reduce ambiguity and human error during high-workload transitions from automated to manual flight.
- Nicholson, Capt. Jonathan, "LLM Use Case," SOS AUAR, 2025.
- Nicholson explicitly argues that the most effective long-term solution for the military is to invest in its people rather than over-relying on technology. He points out that while AI models might outperform humans in basic tasks, humans possess a critical cognitive advantage in areas essential to national defense—including critical thinking, effects analysis, course of action development, contingency planning, adversarial analysis, and creative thinking. Ultimately, he maintains that cultivating a diverse and capable human workforce will consistently exceed the capabilities of any autonomous system.
- Vahle, Maj. Mark W., "Opportunities and Implications of Brain-Computer Interface Technology," ACSC paper, 2018.