Culture
Book Review: ‘Project Maven,’ by Katrina Manson
PROJECT MAVEN: A Marine Colonel, His Team, and the Dawn of AI Warfare, by Katrina Manson
Science-fiction authors have long fantasized about wars where machines aim the weapons and pull the triggers. In “Project Maven,” the Bloomberg News tech and national security reporter Katrina Manson claims the era of “killer robots” is here. The fusion of artificial intelligence and modern warfare raises, as she puts it, “the biggest moral and practical question there is: who — or what — gets to decide to take a human life? And who bears that cost?”
Yet that question has barely been mulled by the officers managing the new weapons or the politicians funding them. It’s a familiar syndrome in military history: New weapons technologies are perfected and rushed into the arsenal before their implications — for the future of not only war but humanity — are thought through.
How this happened with A.I. over the course of barely a decade, much of it secretly plotted by a handful of clever obsessives, is the story that Manson tells in “Project Maven,” which is also the name of the Pentagon’s main A.I. program.
The U.S. military hasn’t yet fired a weapon with no humans in the loop, but we are poised on the thin edge of that evolution. The Defense Department regulation on autonomous weapons requires only “appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force” — without specifying who defines “appropriate.” For many existing weapons, especially the latest drones, A.I. controls every stage from the launch up to the actual kill; it does so in a matter of seconds, and human troops trust the A.I. so fully that they pull the trigger, at the algorithm’s urging, with little hesitation.
Manson’s story — deeply researched and breezily written — begins when a Marine colonel named Drew Cukor was watching a 2017 documentary about an A.I. program that beat an 18-time Go champion in four out of five games. He realized that if A.I. was spreading everywhere, it would soon spread to the battlefield. Cukor knew China was adopting it. If the United States didn’t, he feared we might lose the next big war.
The Pentagon bureaucracy at the time had little interest in the subject; it barely had a presence in the cloud. The big arms manufacturers were still focused on Cold War-era weapons. Cukor, who had been a Mormon missionary in the 1980s, set out to change the world with what one Project Maven official describes as an “insurgency mentality.” He recruited a small team that “would come to regard itself as a scrappy and subversive cult,” Manson writes, exhausted yet inspired by its leader’s fanatical brilliance. A Project Maven contractor describes him as “a psychopath,” sometimes adding “in the best way.”
Cukor was not just a visionary but also, as a deputy defense secretary puts it, “a bureaucratic Ninja.” He scoped out, as an ideal contractor for A.I. weapons, a then-obscure software firm called Palantir (which is now the world’s most highly valued defense corporation). He ghost-drafted Project Maven’s list of requirements in a way that made Palantir seem uniquely suitable for the job. He schooled Palantir’s execs — whose “pernicious” tactics, Manson writes, had alienated the Army on a previous project — on how to pitch Pentagon insiders.
Finally, Cukor found and lobbied the two or three senior Pentagon officials who, once sold on the idea, could ram the project through the bureaucracy’s indifference or hostility.
Cukor kept his true purpose secret. He had sold Maven as strictly an intelligence-gathering system. However, he later admitted to Manson, his goal was “always” to develop an A.I. that could identify targets on the battlefield and calculate which weapons in the U.S. arsenal could most quickly destroy them — and eventually, it seems, take out the targets on their own.
Compressing the “kill chain” so completely was “precisely the thing that would most scare” the project’s skeptics, Manson writes. So Cukor never mentioned his true goal and, Manson reports, admonished his team not to talk about it either — until the program racked up successes, and then commanders and their troops found its possibilities irresistible.
The turning point of Maven’s fortunes came with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. President Joe Biden ruled against mobilizing U.S. troops (to avoid risking World War III), but, even before sending weapons, he gave the Ukrainians access to top-secret intelligence, and Maven was the main facilitator.
Almost immediately, a U.S. Army brigade, led by a Cukor enthusiast, set up an A.I. targeting system for the Ukrainians. Silicon Valley firms, including Palantir, sent technicians to tweak the database, making 60 refinements in the first few months.
In the end, Maven’s data stream let Ukrainian soldiers see and identify tens of thousands of targets — armored vehicles, missile launchers and various military facilities — and destroy hundreds of them a day, some inside Russian territory. To the extent Ukrainians beat back the much mightier Russian Army and mounted a counteroffensive, Maven played a major role.
A.I. targeting systems played a still bigger, if less publicized, role in Israel’s war in Gaza. After Hamas’s terrorist attack of Oct. 7, 2023, the Israel Defense Forces used A.I. to identify 15,000 targets — and proceeded to bomb many of them.
The results shined a harsh light on A.I. warfare’s “double-edged sword.” Some of the A.I. targets (10 percent of them, according to one estimate that Manson notes) were misidentified. The I.D.F. has said that it uses human analysts to cross-check the work of its machines, but even aside from any potential mistakes or ambiguities, A.I.-enabled weapons — which have been sold as a way to reduce civilian casualties — could make war more deadly. They give commanders “more targets, faster, and make it easier to strike them,” Manson writes. “It is hard to imagine this will lead to fewer strikes.”
The book was finished before this spring’s U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iran, which destroyed more than 13,000 targets, many of them at least in part civilian. Maybe the paperback edition will detail the extent to which Maven once again wreaked its awesomely efficient, and occasionally indiscriminate, powers in this theater too.
The dilemmas posed by A.I. weapons have triggered debates even among the technology’s creators. Google at first dropped out of Maven after its employees petitioned against doing any military work, but rejoined after the contracts grew lucrative and the cause — defending Ukraine — became appealing.
In February, Anthropic’s chief executive, Dario Amodei, publicly refused to work on completely autonomous weapons, but only because today’s A.I. systems “are simply not reliable enough” to support them. In his announcement, he touted “partially autonomous weapons,” like those used in Ukraine, as “vital to the defense of democracy” and allowed that fully autonomous ones “may prove critical” someday.
Even so, his critique, plus his refusal to work on domestic surveillance projects (which he said undermine “democratic values”), pushed the Trump administration into declaring Anthropic a “supply-chain risk,” which would bar it from all federal contracts. (President Trump has since begun to reconsider the prohibition.)
As with most spheres of life, it’s too late to ban A.I. from the battlefield, but Manson makes a case for continuing to challenge its use. Even Cukor — who retired from the military in 2021, never talked with any other reporters and only spoke with Manson after she begged him for nearly a year (and meanwhile interviewed his associates and critics) — is apprehensive about the revolution that he spawned. “We have all this tech,” he muses in the last of their many sessions. “Are we the best custodians of it?”
PROJECT MAVEN: A Marine Colonel, His Team, and the Dawn of AI Warfare | By Katrina Manson | Norton | 406 pp. | $31.99
At 53, and after more than a decade in the industry, things are happening for the romance writer Kennedy Ryan that were not on her bingo card.
The most recent: a first look deal with Universal Studio Group that will allow her to develop various projects, including a Peacock adaptation of her breakout 2022 novel “Before I Let Go,” the first book in her Skyland trilogy, which considers love and friendship among three Black women in a community inspired by contemporary Atlanta.
With a TV series in development, Ryan — who published her debut novel in 2014 and subsequently self-published — joins Tia Williams and Alanna Bennett at a table with few other Black romance writers.
“What I am most excited about is the opportunity to identify other authors’ work, especially marginalized authors, and to shepherd those projects from book to screen,” said Ryan, a former journalist. (Kennedy Ryan is a pen name.) “We are seeing an explosion in romance adaptations right now, and I want to see more Black, brown and queer authors.”
Her latest novel, “Score,” is set to publish on Tuesday. It’s the second volume in her Hollywood Renaissance series, after “Reel,” about an actress with a chronic illness who falls for her director on the set of a biopic set during the Harlem Renaissance. The new book follows a screenwriter and a musician, once romantically involved, working on the same movie.
In a recent interview (edited and condensed for clarity), Ryan shared the highs and lows of commercial success; her commitment to happy endings; and her north star. Spoiler: It isn’t what readers think of her books on TikTok.
Your work has been categorized as Black romance, but how do you see yourself as a writer?
I see myself as a romance writer. I think the season that I’m in right now, I’m most interested in Black romance, and that’s what I’ve been writing for the last few years. It doesn’t mean that I won’t write anything else, because I don’t close those doors. But the timeline we’re in is one where I really want to promote Black love, Black art and Black history.
What intrigued you about the period of history you capture in the Hollywood Renaissance series?
I’ve always been fascinated by the Harlem Renaissance and the years immediately following. It felt like a natural era to explore when I was examining overlooked accomplishments by Black creatives. I loved the art as agitation and resistance seen in the lives of people like James Baldwin or Zora Neale Hurston, but also figures like Josephine Baker, Lena Horne and Dorothy Dandridge, who people may not think of as “revolutionary.” The fact that they were even in those spaces was its own act of rebellion.
What about that period feels resonant now?
The series celebrates Black art and Black history and love at a time when I see all three under attack. Our art is being diminished and our history is being erased before our very eyes. I don’t hold back on the relationship between what I see going on in the world and the books I write.
How does this moment in your career feel?
I didn’t get my first book deal until I was in my 40s, so I think this is the best job I’ve ever had. I’m wanting to make the most of it, not just for myself, but for other people, and I think the temptation is to believe that it will all go away because that’s my default.
Why would it all go away?
Part of it is because we — my family, my husband and I — have had some really hard times, especially early in our marriage when my son was diagnosed with autism, my husband lost his job, and we experienced hard times financially. I’ll never forget that.
When I say it could all go away, I mean things change, the industry changes, what people respond to changes, what people buy and want to consume changes. So I don’t assume that what I am doing is always going to be something that people want.
Why are you so firmly committed to defending the “happy ending” in romance novels?
It is integral to the definition of the genre that it ends happily. Some people will say it’s just predictable every one ends happily. I am fine with that, living in a world that is constantly bombarding us with difficulty, with hurt, with challenge.
I write books that are deeply curious about the human condition. In “Score,” the heroine has bipolar disorder, she’s bisexual, there’s all of this intersectionality. For me, there is no safer genre landscape to unpack these issues and these conditions because I know there is guaranteed joy at the end.
You have a pretty active TikTok account. How do you engage with reviews and commentary on the platform about you or the genre?
First of all, I believe that reader spaces are sacred. Sometimes I see authors get embroiled with readers who have criticized them. I never ever comment on critical reviews. I definitely do see the negative. It’s impossible for me not to, but I just kind of ignore it. I let it roll off.
How does this apply to being a very visible Black author in romance?
I am very cognizant of this space that I’m in right now, which is a blessing, and I don’t take it for granted. I see a lot of discourse online where people are like, “Kennedy’s not the only one,” “Why Kennedy?,” “There should be more Black authors.” And I’m like, Oh my God, I know that. I am constantly looking for ways to amplify other Black authors. I want to hold the door open and pull them along.
How do you define success for yourself at this point?
I have a little bit of a mission statement: I want to write stories that will crater in people’s hearts and create transformational moments. Whether it’s television or publishing, am I sticking true to what I feel like is one of the things I was put on this earth to do? I’m a P.K., or preacher’s kid. We’re always thinking about purpose. And for me, how do I fit into this genre? What is my lane? What is my legacy? Which sounds so obnoxious, you know, but legacy is very important to me.
Welcome to Great Adaptations, the Book Review’s regular multiple-choice quiz about printed works that have gone on to find new life as movies, television shows, theatrical productions and more. This week’s challenge highlights the screen adaptations of popular books for middle-grade and young adult readers. Just tap or click your answers to the five questions below. Scroll down after you finish the last question for links to the books and their screen versions.
In an email interview, she talked about why she followed up a memoir with “Poetry Says It Better” — and when and why she leans on the “For Dummies” series. SCOTT HELLER
Describe your ideal reading experience.
Next to a warm fire in a house in the woods. Barring that, at home in bed.
How have your reading tastes changed over time?
When I first began reading, I read fiction. My favorite novel was “The Magic Mountain,” by Thomas Mann. Over the years I find that I am less interested in fiction and more interested in trying to learn about science and mathematics. I love the “For Dummies” series. I remember reading or hearing many years ago, maybe in high school, that the first law of thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change form. So, I was thrilled to learn there was such a book as “Thermodynamics for Dummies.” It was interesting reading, but I’m afraid I could not quote you anything from that book.
What’s the best book you’ve ever received as a gift?
I received the “Rubaiyat” of Omar Khayyám from someone, probably from my first husband, Bill. It stimulated my love of poetry, beautifully illustrated books and also my fascination with the East and the Mideast.
Why write “Poetry Says It Better” rather than, say, a follow-up to your 2006 memoir?
“Poetry Says It Better” has some references to my life, but I feel I wrote enough about myself in my memoir, and I include some of my personal history in this book.
You write that you’ve memorized poems your whole adult life. What’s the last poem you memorized?
I am working on “Shadows,” by D.H. Lawrence. I am trying to get that securely in my memory. Of course, at 93 I am not as good at memorizing as I used to be, or at holding on to what I have already memorized. But it is good exercise for the memory to use it.
You quote a line from Kaveh Akbar: “Art is where what we survive survives.” Why does that line resonate so much for you?
That line is so meaningful to me because I know that the difficult first 18 years of my life is the emotional library I descend into for every part I’ve ever played, and every poem that has landed in my heart.
Of all the characters you’ve played across different media, which role felt the richest — the most novelistic?
I would have to say Lois in “The Last Picture Show.” She was a character I didn’t really understand right away. I had to dig for her. She was multidimensional. I feel literary characters are like that.
What’s the best book about acting, or the life of an actor, you’ve ever read?
I have to name two. “My Life in Art,” by Konstantin Stanislavsky, and “A Dream of Passion,” by Lee Strasberg.
How do you organize your books?
I’ve collected my library for 70 years. All my classic literature is together, on two facing walls in the front of my living room. On the other end of the room, I have my art books. Facing them are my travel and music books. On the fourth wall are some of my science books.
In the large entrance hall, I have one standing bookcase of the complete Carl Jung collection, and near it another bookcase of poetry anthologies. In my kitchen office are all the books about food. Then I have a writing room that contains books of poetry and science, and my Sufi books. In my bedroom are my spiritual and religious books.
What books are on your night stand?
Currently: “Anam Cara: Spiritual Wisdom From the Celtic World,” by John O’Donohue; “Prayers of the Cosmos,” by Neil Douglas Klotz; “The Courage to Create,” by Rollo May; “Radical Love,” by Omid Safi; Pema Chödrön’s “How We Live Is How We Die”; “The Trial of Socrates,” by I.F. Stone; “Our Green Heart: The Soul and Science of Forests,” by Diana Beresford-Kroeger; and “On Living and Dying Well,” by Cicero.
What book might people be surprised to find on your shelves?
Probably Ken Wilber’s “A Brief History of Everything” and Michio Kaku’s “Physics of the Future.” These are two of my favorite books. I love to read books on science that are not written for scientists but for curious readers like me.
You’re organizing a literary dinner party. Which three writers, dead or alive, do you invite?
Oh, definitely Mary Oliver, my favorite poet of all time, and Edgar Allan Poe. The thought of those two people talking to each other. Finally, Tennessee Williams, who’s written some of the greatest plays ever.
-
Alabama52 seconds agoAlabama gubernatorial candidates focused on November election date just hours after primaries
-
Alaska7 minutes agoGas Pipeline Tax Debate Sends Alaska Lawmakers To Special Session
-
Arizona13 minutes agoGiants end difficult series with eye toward future, not past
-
Arkansas19 minutes agoDave Van Horn press conference: Arkansas baseball coach, players recap SEC Tournament win over Tennessee | Arkansas Democrat Gazette
-
California25 minutes agoNew police video shows deadly standoff after deputy killed in California shooting | Fox News Video
-
Colorado31 minutes agoColorado Supreme Court orders children’s hospital to resume gender-affirming care for minors
-
Connecticut37 minutes agoConnecticut state colleges board meets on interim chancellor search
-
Delaware43 minutes ago‘Takeover’ events on uptick statewide; 4 wanted for Rehoboth incident
