We are excited to launch SCSP’s latest report, AI’s Impact on the Army Officer Corps. Director of Defense James Ryseff argues AI will not replace soldiers in the immediate future, it will transform how they work. This necessitates a deliberate strategy of automation and augmentation to ensure every technological gain strengthens the Army’s core mission to fight and win the nation’s wars.
President’s Tech Brief 🔴
Additionally, the President’s Tech Brief is live tomorrow at 11AM EST. We are sharing the latest in Iran, China’s Two Sessions, the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, and unpacking the latest SCSP publications (Tech Scorecard Methodology and the Army Officer Corps paper in today’s newsletter).
Quantum Commission Announcement
SCSP has officially launched the Commission on U.S. Quantum Primacy (CUSP), a bipartisan initiative designed to ensure the United States leads the high-stakes global quantum race. Co-chaired by U.S. Senator Todd Young (R-IN), and U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and Ylli Bajraktari, the 14-member commission brings together elite minds from Congress, national laboratories, and the private sector. CUSP is tasked with developing a national roadmap focused on three pillars: building a secure industrial base, maintaining information advantage, and accelerating the integration of quantum and classical technologies to strengthen U.S. national security and economic might.
AI’s Impact on the Army Officer Corps
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how work is performed across nearly every sector of the economy — and the U.S. military will be no exception. Unlike earlier waves of automation that primarily mechanized physical labor, AI reaches into the cognitive domain, reshaping how humans collect and intake information, how they make decisions, how teams operate, and how organizations allocate human effort. These changes will affect not only which jobs warfighters perform, but how they perform them, requiring the U.S. military to rethink how it organizes, trains, and equips its future workforce, as well as how it designs its forces.
This study represents one of the first systematic, outside efforts to assess how AI might impact the work performed by Army officers. Using occupational data from the Department of Labor’s O*NET database, the study mapped 131 Army officer Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) to their closest civilian equivalents to calculate an “AI impact percentage” for each. Additionally, the study team surveyed officers in two combat arms specialties—Infantry and Field Artillery—to assess AI’s potential effect on both their peacetime and wartime responsibilities.
Our analysis found that AI has the potential to affect every Army officer MOS and their respective tasks. Estimated impacts for AI’s impact on the workload of each Army MOS range from 25% to 64% across the individual MOSs - i.e. between 25% and 64% of the daily work performed by individuals in these occupations could be impacted by AI. These estimates are broadly consistent with similar estimates of AI’s impact on the range of occupations for the civilian workforce. The two combat arms surveyed were in the lowest quartile of Army MOS studied–however, they still had over a quarter of their tasks highly impacted by AI. Notably, the study found that for combat arms AI may have a greater potential effect on tasks performed during deployment rather than those that are performed during time in garrison.
While these findings provide an important early view, two limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study relied on a task taxonomy designed for the private sector, which may not precisely capture uniquely military work. Second, the sample size for surveys of infantry and field artillery roles was small, and participants were recruited from LinkedIn, which could bias responses toward individuals with private sector exposure or ambition. Respondents were also unpaid, possibly attracting those already motivated by the subject matter. These factors mean that results for the combat arms should be interpreted as a promising hypothesis to more carefully explore in further research as opposed to a definitive conclusion.
Nevertheless, when taken together, these findings point to several broader implications for how the Army should prepare its workforce for an AI-enabled future. To begin with and at the risk of stating the obvious, the Army Officer Corps will not be immune to the effects of AI. In fact, AI will influence every officer MOS in some capacity. Additionally, Army leaders should think holistically about AI’s implications across the entire personnel lifecycle. Next, AI will have significant implications for future force design, even if it is premature to draw firm conclusions about the exact size or composition of the Army’s future end strength in response to impact from AI. Finally, the Army should begin anticipating which new MOS Page 4 may emerge and how existing MOS will evolve as AI becomes more deeply integrated into military operations.
Based on these insights, four policy priorities emerge. First, the Army should carefully examine how to reinvest any time and efficiency gains from AI into warfighting capability—ensuring that automation strengthens lethality rather than merely making room for additional administrative tasks. Second, for roles with clear private sector counterparts, the Army should align internal work processes and training to leverage external, commercial AI advancements, reserving military-specific AI development for uniquely military occupations. Third, the Army should consider increasing its investment in AI applications that enhance wartime tasks, where AI’s operational payoff may be greatest. However, the Army should also conduct further research using work activities specific to its MOS to identify the most promising use cases for AI. Finally, using AI to reduce the administrative burden on junior officers could alleviate burnout and improve retention, helping the Army preserve its most capable leaders.
In the immediate future, AI will not replace the Army’s people, but it will transform how they work. Preparing for this future and what comes next requires a deliberate strategy that utilizes both automation that saves time and augmentation that enhances combat power—ensuring that every technological gain strengthens the Army’s core mission: to fight and win the nation’s wars.