Software

Old papers: Intelligence Analysis for New Forms of Conflict

Another old friend from back in the days before old age and disillusionment (aka 1997). I don’t do this sort of thing any more, but I’d really like to think about how it could be applied to more civilian activities. Abstract As the volumes of information available from modern sensors and sources increases, processing all available intelligence data has become too complex and time consuming for intelligence analysts. There is a need to assess how technology can and should be used to assist them, and for a clear view of the issues raised by the data and processing methods available. This paper discusses automated intelligence analysis, its impact and its role in modern conflict analysis. 1. Intelligence Analysis Before we can automate intelligence analysis, we need to know what it does. The output of intelligence analysis (by human or machine) is intelligence: information that is pertinent to the current area…

Software

Old papers: Uncertainty Handling for Military Intelligence Systems

Something I had laying around the office; thought it would be useful for the archives in a “what i thought when I was 10 years younger” sort of way. ABSTRACT We describe sources of and techniques for handling uncertainty in military intelligence models. We discuss issues for extending and using these models to generate counterintelligence- recognise groups of uncertainly-labelled entities and recognise variations in behaviour patterns. INTRODUCTION Intelligence is the information that a commander uses to make his decisions. It is an informed view of the current area of interest of a commander or policymaker, in a form that he can use to improve his position relative to another, usually opposing, commander.Uses of intelligence include the basis for command decision making and the creation of uncertainty in opposing commanders’ systems and minds. Commanders use intelligence to recognise situations (situation awareness), predict changes in situations, predict an enemy’s behaviour (threat assessment)…

What’s the questions again?

Oh the questions, the questions. The more meetings I go to, the more I see the deep fundamental importance of asking and attempting to answer the right questions. And there are many wrong questions out there, especially (but definitely not limited to just) in AI. Having said there are wrong questions, I probably need to clarify that. There are very few invalid questions: most questions provoke a response, or thought, and therefore have a motive or reason. Now some questions are just plain immoral (such as “what’s the best way to kill a million people”), others are just plain insensible (“Hey you! The troll with the big bike! How come you’re so ugly?”) and some are just there for the fun of it. So also having said that there are wrong questions, I need to qualify again that it’s a subjective thing. There are good questions to ask here and…