Large language models, epochal change and true strategic policy innovation

I think that we, poor old oligophrenic ‘homo sapiens’,  have been using far too little strategic creativity in many of the big picture discussions we are having about creating ‘value’. That applies especially to public value creation in fundamentally important policy areas such as education, the environment, health care, mobility, etc. But it also applies to the field I am spending most of my time on: foreign, security and defense policy. The new large language models (like GPT-4) may actually prove uniquely helpful in broadening the strategic aperture of these policy debates, but only if we prod them to move beyond their training material.

We are currently doing a piece for the Dutch MoD on 'armed forces profiles'. They want us to dream up different possible profiles for future (Dutch/European) armed forces that can then be assessed against various criteria like cost, effectiveness, societal acceptance, etc. For them, future 'armed forces profiles' are essentially marginal tweaks to the current era's incarnation of the concept of 'armed force'. They see ‘the’  'future of defense' still pretty much as the same types of humans (as agents of the nation state), doing the same types of things (what I call the 3D framework: Deterring the enemy, Defending territory if deterrence fails, and in that case Defeating him) with the same types of (industrial-kinetic) kit - things that move and go 'boom'.  

It has been my feeling for quite some time that we are too beholden to 'linear' industrial-age 'social technologies' in dealing with public policy issues and challenges. One of my lifelong ambitions has been (and remains) to widen the aperture of these debates. I still think that applying more rigor and (! ) creativity and (!) passion in these matters is crucial to making progress. [Contrary to popular opinion, I think these three not only go very well together, but even require one another].

And so last night, I was working on a broad taxonomy of armed forces with  my new best non-human friend ‘chattie’ (that’s how I affectionately call OpenAI’s chatGPT). Trained as she has been on the existing literature - and there is clearly quite a bit of (US-based) defense literature in those corpora - she kept coming up with ‘industrial age’ taxonomic principles and actual taxa. This is the initial prompt I fed here

What are different taxonomic principles that would allow us to differentiate between different types of armed forces?

This is what I received

Types of armed forces can be classified using several different taxonomic principles, including:

1. Professional vs. amateur: This principle classifies armed forces based on whether they are composed of full-time, professional soldiers (regular military forces) or part-time, amateur soldiers (reserve military forces and militias).

2. State-controlled vs. non-state: This principle classifies armed forces based on whether they are controlled by a recognized government (regular military forces, reserve military forces, and paramilitary forces) or are not under government control (irregular military forces and non-state actors).

3. Purpose: This principle classifies armed forces based on their primary role or mission, such as conventional warfare (regular military forces), internal security (paramilitary forces), and special operations (special forces)

Sensible. But very presentists and recentist. So I started prodding her more and more to think more broadly through - admittedly leading - prompts like this:

Countries's leaders  have many high-level options available for designing, building  and structuring their armed forces. These ranges from very mundane ones (e.g. do we want animal military capabilities or not); over very generic ones (e.g. are we willing to spend a lot of money on them or not) to truly strategic policy ones (e.g. do we want to pursue strong offensive or mostly defensive defense postures , what is our level of ambition (e.g. globally or just regionally) etc. I'd like you to give me some high-level taxonomic principles for the most fundamental choices that strategic decision-makers have for designing different incarnations of "armed force", defined as a capability bundle that enables a country or coalition to achieve its defense and security goals in the most cost-effective and sustainable way.

These still mostly assume that armed forces are primarily kinetic-military in nature. What if we mostly abandon that assumption and try to identify some other high-level policy choices that are optimally likely to countries' defense and security goals in the most cost-effective and sustainable way. To give but a few examples - most European leaders today find that they have found far more effective ways of achieving true stability and security through political-economic integration; some analysts today thing that artificial intelligence offers far more intelligent solutions for (even intransigent) security dilemmas between countries through identifying potential crises much sooner and nudging leaders to alternative, non-conflictual solutions; some feel that we have to find ways to diminish the role of the 'parties of war' in different countries;  some advocate a focus on peace engineering; etc. Can you give me 30 high-level taxonomic principles that ALSO include such taxa and examples. Please give these to me in a consistent tabular format with 3 columns 

 This started giving me lists like these - combining more traditional with also ‘new’ ones. 

Category	Principle	Description
Traditional Military	1. National Security Strategy	Define overarching security objectives aligned with geopolitical, economic, and cultural context.
	2. Threat Assessment	Analyze potential adversaries, their capabilities, and intentions.
	3. Force Structure	Determine the size and composition of the armed forces, including ground, air, and naval components.
	4. Offensive vs. Defensive Capabilities	Balance between offensive and defensive capabilities based on strategic posture and objectives.
	5. Level of Ambition	Focus on regional or global operations depending on the nation's strategic objectives.
Political-Economic Integration	6. Regional Integration	Foster cooperation and collaboration among neighboring countries to ensure regional stability and security.
	7. International Diplomacy	Engage in diplomacy and dialogue to prevent conflicts and promote understanding.
	8. Economic Cooperation	Leverage economic interdependence and trade to create mutual benefits and deter conflict.

These already included much broader options, but they were still not as truly creative as I would have liked to see them. So I still then went a step further with prompts like these

These are much better. Please give me 30 more. And this time from the point of view of an imaginary  new post-United Nations global governance that would include non-state actors (private actors, cities, NGOs, etc.) as well as state actors let's call them the United Custodians. Instituted after some big conflagration, they would have a mandate from the international community to prioritize truly new approaches that would have Pareto-optimal human flourishing at the individual or household level as the main stability goal, and not the 'balance of power' between nation states; and that would also try to maximize true 'security and stability' value for 'security and stability' money. the would be asked to come up with 30 additional high-level policy options, some concrete measure, and their expected value for money    

And so here are some of the options she suggested:

Category	Principle	Description	Concrete Measure	Expected Value for Money
Global Cooperation	1. Global Social Impact Funds	Create global funds to finance social impact projects aimed at improving human flourishing and reducing insecurity.	Launch a global crowdfunding platform for projects.	Increased investment in projects with high impact.
	2. Transnational City Networks	Encourage the formation of transnational city networks to promote local-level cooperation on security and stability.	Organize annual city network summits.	Localized solutions and knowledge sharing.
	3. Global Volunteer Corps	Establish a global volunteer corps to address humanitarian crises, promote development, and build local capacity.	Recruit and train volunteers from various countries.	Strengthened global solidarity and local capacity.
Human-Centric Security	4. Universal Basic Security	Implement a universal basic security framework that guarantees minimum levels of safety, well-being, and access to basic services for all individuals.	Develop a global standard for basic security.	Reduced inequality and increased stability.
	5. Human Security Index	Develop a human security index to measure and track progress on individual and household-level security and well-being.	Publish annual index reports and rankings.	Informed policy-making and resource allocation.

I then went even further. 

Give me 30 more radical solutions along these lines. Think of things like a new architecture for a new internet with security by design, optimal attributability, equity, transparency, etc. Think of totally redesigning our global governance, education, energy, transportation, health systems in a much less linear and more effective - and security-enhancing - way. And these are just a few examples - please also include other ones.

This gave me options like the following ones. 

Category	Principle	Description	Concrete Measure	Expected Value for Money
Radical Solutions	54. Next-Generation Internet Architecture	Develop a new internet architecture with security by design, optimal attributability, equity, and transparency, enhancing trust and stability in the digital environment.	Convene an international task force to design and implement the new architecture.	Improved digital security and trust.
	55. Redesigning Global Governance	Rethink and redesign global governance structures to be more inclusive, responsive, and adaptive, focusing on achieving sustainable human flourishing.	Establish a global forum to explore new governance models.	Increased effectiveness and legitimacy of global institutions.
	56. Transformative Education Systems	Promote the development of transformative education systems that prioritize critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and adaptability, empowering individuals to navigate an increasingly complex world.	Support innovative educational policies and initiatives.	Enhanced human capital and global stability.
	57. Decentralized Energy Systems	Encourage the adoption of decentralized energy systems, leveraging renewable energy sources and smart grid technologies to increase resilience, sustainability, and access to energy.	Provide funding and technical assistance for energy infrastructure projects.	Sustainable energy access and reduced geopolitical tensions.