The U.S. Department of Defense's Artificial Intelligence Balancing Act

Key Chapter Title List

1. OVER PROMISE / UNDER PROMISE: Exaggeration and Lack of Evidence in the AI Debate
2. AI Evolution and Early DoD Perception: From the "Third Offset Strategy" to Innovation Units
3. Scale of Commercial Cooperation and Strategic Pivot: From Tactical Optimization to Strategic Decision Support
4. Timeline of AI Adoption Journey in the Department of Defense (2014-2025)
5. Competitive Strategies: The Dual Dilemma of Overestimating and Underestimating Risks
6. "Wild West" Style Procurement Competition and the Issue of Supplier Over-Promising
7. The Controversy of AI Value Being Underestimated: Are Safety Concerns Exaggerated?
8. Navigating the Dual Risks of AI Adoption
9. Recommended Path: Establishing Independent Evaluation, Incremental Deployment, and a Culture of Technical Literacy

Document Introduction

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the core tension faced by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) in adopting artificial intelligence technology: on one hand, there is over-hyping and unrealistic promises about AI capabilities from industry and some advocates; on the other hand, critics may fall into extreme alarmism regarding AI safety risks. The report points out that this debate is particularly critical in the national security domain, as the success or failure of technology adoption can directly concern matters of life and death.

The report systematically reviews the institutional evolution and capability-building journey of the DoD in the field of artificial intelligence since it proposed the "Third Offset Strategy" in 2014. Through the establishment of a series of organizations, from the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUX) and the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) to the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO), the DoD has gradually shifted from internal R&D to an agile acquisition model emphasizing commercial cooperation, evaluation, and integration. The report pays special attention to multi-million to multi-billion dollar level cooperative relationships with leading AI companies such as Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, xAI, and how these collaborations have propelled AI applications from battlefield management optimization to supporting high-level strategic decision-making in areas like scenario planning, operational plan development, red teaming, and wargaming.

The research reveals two major competitive risks faced by the DoD when adopting emerging technologies: the risk of overestimation and the risk of underestimation. Currently, the competition to sell AI products to the DoD remains in an early "Wild West" stage, where claims by various companies about their products' immediate capabilities are often contentious, potentially overlooking fundamental challenges such as the "hallucination" problems of current models, reliance on high-quality training data, and the need for explainability and verifiability on the battlefield. Simultaneously, some warnings about AI safety may be overly exaggerated, with their testing conditions failing to adequately simulate scenarios of responsible deployment in the real world. Excessive skepticism may hinder the adoption of critical technologies, thereby ceding advantage to less scrupulous competitors.

The report ultimately proposes three key pathways to navigate these risks. First, the DoD must invest in building internal, independent technical evaluation capabilities, moving beyond high-level demonstrations to rigorously scrutinize vendor claims. Second, the adoption process should follow a continuous, incremental evaluation strategy, deploying in phases to assess technology performance and impact in real-time. Third, it is essential to cultivate a culture of realistic expectations and technical literacy, enhancing large-scale training for senior officials and program managers so they can make informed strategic planning based on technological realities rather than sales pitches.

This assessment is based on a comprehensive analysis of public policy documents, agency reports, commercial contract information, and related academic research. It aims to provide defense researchers, policymakers, and national security analysts with an authoritative, in-depth interpretation of the U.S. DoD's AI adoption process, its inherent contradictions, and future governance directions. The report emphasizes that the future of U.S. national security will depend on its ability to successfully manage the tension between AI's undeniable potential and its current limitations and risks.