Army Doctrine Writers Embrace AI to Speed Knowledge to Force

The process of writing Army doctrine, traditionally measured in years, is getting a 21st-century upgrade. Thanks to digital tools, some enabled by artificial intelligence, authors at the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate are examining processes and gaining efficiencies without sacrificing their high standards for quality and precision.

 
“We have had people ask us about using AI and large language models to speed up the doctrine development process for years,” said Richard Creed Jr., CADD director. “So, when some of these tools became available, the first thing we did was figure out their capabilities. That meant that we needed to identify people on our team with some AI experience from using civilian applications who could help us figure out what was possible.”  
 
Two officers, Army Lt. Col. Scott McMahan, a doctrine writer assigned to the Operational Level Doctrine Division, and Army Maj. Matthew Martinez, CADD’s information management officer, took guidance from leaders and developed a four-pronged strategy to equip every doctrine writer with the skills and tools to use AI effectively. The strategy began with foundational training for all CADD members, allowing them to apply approved AI tools to their work immediately.
 
To foster expertise, the plan also calls for training a “master gunner,” someone highly qualified in using AI tools, within each doctrine division. These experts can then help their teams tackle more difficult challenges and find advanced applications for the technology. Furthering the integration, AI best practices are being formally incorporated into the Doctrine Developer’s Course, ensuring future writers are introduced to these techniques from the start.  
 
Finally, CADD leaders are working with the Combined Arms Command and industry partners to build a purpose-made AI tool. This new software will be designed for all Army doctrine writers, but it will be especially helpful to authors at the Centers of Excellence, where personnel and time are often scarce.
 
According to McMahan, the answer is not in “letting AI write the books” that guide the force. Instead, it is about providing human experts with powerful new assistants.  

“You treat it like a resourceful and motivated young officer who might not know all the information, but they can certainly assist you in cutting some corners and being a little more efficient,” he said. “The bottom line is that eventually it should, even if you’re just shaving at the margins, it’s going to speed up the time when doctrine will reach soldiers in the field.”
 
Creed said his guidance was always to treat technology as a tool, not a panacea.

“Because we have such good people, I expected that we would stay abreast of developments and be ready when the tools were ready,” he said. “They came up with an approach that would make one person in each doctrine division an AI subject matter expert while training everyone else in the basic use of AI for tasks related to their job. It was no different than ensuring all soldiers are combat lifesavers while assigning an actual medic to each platoon.”  
 
So far, changes have been small, but they add up when looking at multiple individual and project tasks. One example is an internally developed tool that enables writers to quickly search across hundreds of texts for historical vignettes that illustrate a complex doctrinal point. This task could once have taken days of research, especially for a new doctrine author.
 
“The large language model tools under development now have access to the databases we needed access to in the past. Access to the data is the foundational measure of whether the tools are useful to us. We tip our hats to those who figured out how to do that,” Creed said.  
 
Another use of AI is something McMahan calls “breaking the blank page.” The tool can help writers get through creative blocks and generate ideas.  

“[When] we were looking for some more meat for an idea, we were able to feed this tool some initial thoughts, and of the three paragraphs it spit out, one sentence was used, but that was a really powerful and useful sentence,” he said.  
 
Blending technology and in-house experience is reducing administrative burdens for doctrine authors and staff in several ways. For instance, digital tools that assist with grammar and readability free authors to focus on the complex aspects of their work, which in turn saves valuable time for CADD’s high-demand editors. This efficiency extends beyond writing, as leaders have improved the publications tracking process with automated forms and the use of power business intelligence tools, and individuals are creating their own self-study tools to prepare for internal certification.  
 
McMahan recognizes that the technology is not perfect, but notes that it is improving over time. He said that AI models can “hallucinate” by inventing facts or confusing source materials when asked a question. These are critical flaws in a field where accuracy is paramount. In one case, an AI-generated question for a doctrine test was based on an outdated manual, an error that was only caught because the user creating the test was an expert on the topic.  
 
Situations like this drive home the importance of subject matter expertise.  

“We made it perfectly clear that AI tools were not intended to be a crutch for not doing the work we expect from our people,” Creed said. “Humans will review every line of what a [large language model] produces for accuracy. To make sure that happens, one must make sure your people know their business.”