Journal on Baltic Security

This review assesses Ethan Mollick’s Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI (2024), which conceptualises artificial intelligence as a collaborative “co-intelligence” rather than a mere tool or autonomous agent. While recognising the book’s clarity, accessibility, and balanced treatment of AI’s potential and limitations, the review adopts a cautious, albeit critical, perspective in an effort to balance against Mollick’s overarching optimism. It foregrounds concerns related to safety, equity, sustainability, and risk. The book’s discussion of education is identified as a key strength, particularly its emphasis on AI literacy and human oversight. Considered through the lens of Professional Military Education (PME), Mollick’s advocacy for experimentation is shown to sit uneasily with risk-averse, high-stakes environments. Nonetheless, the review concludes that Co-Intelligence offers a timely, pragmatic, and valuable contribution to debates on human-AI interaction.

NATO’s 2030 digital transformation demands innovative approaches to harness specialised capabilities and ensure readiness against hybrid threats. Cyber reserves are pivotal in bridging military and civilian technologies, enabling digital objectives, and countering sophisticated tactics like cyberattacks and GPS jamming. These reserves integrate military training with civilian expertise, leveraging private sector knowledge – controlling 90% of critical infrastructure – as a strategic asset. They serve as a force multiplier in digital transformation, connect industry and technology to military planning, and enable rapid deployment of advanced capabilities like cloud, AI, and data analytics. Cyber reserves enhance a country’s response to hybrid threats by improving vulnerability assessment, attribution, and civil-military coordination, emphasising societal resilience and military preparedness. They foster digital literacy, cultural change, and partnerships with industry and academia to strengthen holistic defence. However, challenges include standardising training, securing information exchange, and ensuring flexible service models that respect civilian commitments and national sovereignty. By addressing these, a military can calibrate cyber reserves to bolster defences and accelerate digital transformation, creating a full-spectrum, multi-domain force capable of countering 21st-century hybrid threats in both digital and physical spaces.

As the global competition for the mastery of artificial intelligence (AI) intensifies, militaries are assessing AI’s future role for the conduct of warfare. Our article analyses and compares recent Chinese and Russian (academic) debates on the impact of AI for warfare, and for the prevailing ‘paradigm of warfare’. By paradigm of warfare we mean a socially constructed conception, shared within a state or among a group of states, on the prevailing characteristics of warfare and on the nature of military power. This includes ideas concerning technologies and operational approaches, the nature of military threats, and even legitimate uses of military force. We argue that the paradigm of warfare stands on a limited number of ‘core assumptions’, which can be distilled from a manageable sample of research data. In our article we analyse and compare the core assumptions prevalent in Chinese and Russian debates, through the role of AI, and discuss whether a shared paradigm of ‘intelligent warfare’ is emerging between the states.