AI prevailed against a human in DARPA ’s recent AlphaDogfight trials. Given that DeepMind’s AI achieved the level of grandmaster in the StarCraft II video game, AI beating a human in a simulated closed world contest is not impressive. What is impressive is AlphaDogfight’s role in DARPA’s overall plan for the development of AI in the military.

DARPA, the United States’ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, has been called the US military’s “Department of Mad Scientists.” Its mission is to prevent strategic military surprise by supplying fertile ground where new and revolutionary ideas can sprout and grow. DARPA founded the internet and gave us the GPS (Global Positioning Satellite system) that guides our Google map directions.

Less well known is DARPA’s role in initiating research into self-driving cars. Over a decade and a half ago, DARPA’s Grand Challenge offered a million-dollar prize for autonomous vehicles traversing a given track. Many of the participants went on to pursue the commercial development of self-driving cars.

As I pointed out in my book The Case for Killer Robots, we need to examine the history in order to soberly assess how we should adopt new AI weapons. Apart from technology, military adoption of AI requires the application of psychology. Col. Dan “Animal” Javorsek, the DARPA project manager for AlphaDogfight, gets it. He recounts a lesson in psychology from military history that can be applied to today’s AI.

In the early years of World War II (1939–1945), Hitler’s blitzkrieg (“lightning war”) strategy defeated Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland and France before the US became involved in 1941. U.S. General George C. Marshall, later the namesake of the Marshall Plan, asked Chief of Cavalry Major General John Herr how the US could counteract the Nazis’ lightning war. Herr, a strong proponent of cavalry (soldiers on horseback), said horses should be transported to the front lines by vehicle so they would be fresh when they initiated their attack on the German Panzer tanks. The foolish advice was ignored and the US cavalry wisely began abandoning the use of horses in favor of mechanized vehicles.

The lesson here is that inertia can impede thoughtful strategy. Like the cavalry, US fighter pilots have a long and proud tradition of doing things a certain way. Think Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer in Top Gun (1986).

According to Javorsek, fighter pilots need to be convinced of the capabilities and utility of AI in combat beyond current practice. DARPA’s AlphaDogfight is a step in this direction.

By posing relevant questions, DARPA’s overall AI strategy accurately embraces both the capabilities and limitations of AI. How can AI enhance the performance of the pilot by lessening cognitive load? How can companion unmanned aircraft accompanying the fighter pilot’s fighter jet be effectively used? What are the limitations and dangers of autonomous drones?

Remotely controlled unmanned drones are not always feasible. Their tethering to a remote-control pilot can be severed by enemy jamming. Totally autonomous drones cannot yet be trusted to make complex life-and-death decisions. So oversight by a human pilot is the sober solution in the near future. DARPA is addressing these and other important questions.

The mission of US military technical research is to work hard to equip the American war fighter with the tools for victory. My research as a professor has been funded by the US Army, Navy, and Air Force. I am invariably impressed by the serious dedication of those I have worked with in the military. This is less true of other government agencies than have funded my research. DARPA’s AlphaDogfight and the subsequent adaptation of AI in the military confirm my experience.

DARPA gets AI right.

Backgrounder: DARPA has scheduled AI vs. AI aerial dogfights for next week Robert J. Marks: A round robin tournament will select the AI that faces off against a human pilot Thursday. A successful AI dogfight tournament is exciting but it is only a first step toward enabling such fighters to be used in combat.

See also: Book at a Glance: Robert J. Marks, The Case for Killer Robots

Further reading: Why we can’t just ban killer robots Should we develop them for military use? The answer isn’t pretty. It is yes. (Robert J. Marks) (February 15, 2019)

Two heavyweights — Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain — square off in Lisbon on Sunday for the chance to lift the Champions League trophy. Both clubs win their domestic leagues virtualy every year, with the Champions League title a significant goal for both sides. This should be as exciting a brand of soccer as we get to watch, and I can’t wait for the chess match to unfold.

Bayern Munich, the slight favorite, has been the best club in European soccer since all of these leagues restarted in June. It is undefeated and has looked like the most complete side in the world. Bayern made light work of Chelsea in the round of 16, famously destroyed Lionel Messi and Barcelona, 8-2, and got past Lyon, 3-0.

That last game was closer than the score line. Lyon created good chances but did not convert them like it did against Juventus and Manchester City. Bayern still won expected goals 2.7–1.5. Like in most of its matches, Bayern went into half ahead and Lyon couldn’t recover.

Bayern plays a high line and lets its fullbacks, especially Alphonso Davies, push upfield in attack. Because of this, it is often leaky at the back. Lyon had three fantastic chances on the counter but just didn’t convert them. With Kylian Mbappe and Neymar out wide for PSG, Bayern needs to be more careful how it uses its fullbacks in this match. Hansi Flick has usually managed the club aggressively, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a bit more tactical here given the stage.

Paris Saint-Germain is one of the more divisive clubs in the world. It’s more of a group of individuals than it is a team. If there is a down year or a problem, they just throw money at it rather than look internally. With that said, this is a top-five team when it comes to talent.

Mbappe is on the short list of younger players (20) who could take Messi and Ronaldo’s spot as best in the world. Neymar has a bit more experience and is also a top-five player when he is at his best. Some criticized him for not taking advantage of great chances against Atalanta and Leipzig, but I thought that was harsh. He was the reason for most of those chances and had his fingerprints all over both of those games.

We haven’t even gotten to Angel Di Maria, who was man of the match against Leipzig. They also have been surprisingly good at the back as well, conceding very few goals. PSG has the quality and explosiveness to score a few on Bayern but likely will give Bayern some chances to score as well.

One thing I would point out would be quality of opponent. Bayern beat Chelsea, Barcelona, and Lyon. PSG beat Dortmund, Atalanta, and Leipzig. It was a down year for Chelsea and Barca, but Bayern’s road here was probably a bit tougher.

This is a pretty fascinating match to handicap. On the surface, everyone’s expecting a 3-2 score line, and that this will be an exciting match. Both clubs are stacked with attacking talent and are a bit lacking on the defensive side.

I’m staying away from the total of 3.5, but would lean to the Under. I think this match could have a cagey start, and 3.5 is a high total. It wouldn’t surprise me if Flick was more cautious with his fullbacks to start at least. European finals are historically anything but shootouts.

I like Bayern first half +155 and moneyline +105 for the match. Flick will get this right tactically, and the Germans prevail.