search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND MODERNIZING THE ARMY


What appears to be a single AI entity is actually a team of AI entities working in tandem. These entities, known as AI agents, each specialize in one task and cooperate to provide the best response.


IMPROVING LLM RESPONSES Te AI agents in this system continue improving in accuracy over time as they interact with users. During the troubleshooting session, the conversation is logged for future analysis to determine which responses gave better results, according to user feedback. Improvements can also be made to both the existing documenta- tion and the host products based on analytics such as frequently encountered issues. Each ticket can be further processed by more AI agents to glean valuable insights on common user issues, problematic AI teams that may require additional support, or usage parameters that require adjustment. Furthermore, as systems undergo development, additional documentation can be created and ingested into the database, providing more context for answer retrieval.


However, AI tools are not without flaws. A major drawback to LLMs is their tendency to confidently provide inaccurate answers when they lack a solution. Tese inaccuracies, known as “hallu- cinations,” are especially harmful to uninformed users looking for a quick fix—users who are unlikely to immediately fact-check the response from the LLM. One method to combat hallucina- tions is to utilize RAG, grounding the context within which the LLM can scan for answers. Another method is to prompt, or instruct, the LLM to state that it cannot find an answer. Yet another method is to fine-tune the LLM, modifying and improv- ing the billions of parameters that make up the LLM to make it more accurate, though this is resource-intensive.


CONCLUSION Te integration of AI agents and LLMs into computing systems is revolutionizing the way we interact with technology and obtain support. Tese advancements are transforming customer service and technical support, making interactions faster, more efficient and surprisingly (even alarmingly) human-like. Te combination of specialized AI agents working in harmony and the sophisti- cated processing capabilities of LLMs ensures that users receive accurate, contextually rich responses almost instantaneously. As this technology continues to evolve, the lines between human


and AI interactions will blur even further, opening new possibil- ities for AI-driven assistance in a variety of fields.


Te future of AI is not just about creating smarter machines, but about enhancing our own capabilities, making expert knowledge and support more accessible to everyone. With ongoing innova- tions and increasing accessibility, AI-driven solutions are set to become an integral part of our daily lives, simplifying complex tasks and providing invaluable support wherever and whenever it is needed.


For more information, contact the Data Engineering, Architec- ture and Analysis (DEA2) team with Project Manager Mission Command (PM MC) at peoc3t.pmmc.tmd.dea2@army.mil.


SUNNY ZHANG is a systems engineer for the DEA2 team within PM MC, assigned to PEO C3T at Aberdeen Proving Ground. He holds a B.A. in arts, technology and emerging communications from the University of Texas at Dallas.


TURHAN KIMBROUGH is a systems engineer for the DEA2 team within PM MC, assigned to PEO C3T at Aberdeen Proving Ground. He holds an M.S. in computer science and a B.S. in computer science, both from Towson University.


ANDREW ORECHOVESKY is a senior systems engineer for the DEA2 team within PM MC, assigned to PEO C3T at Aberdeen Proving Ground. He holds a Doctor of Science from Capitol Technology University, an M.S. in cybersecurity from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and a B.S. in information technologies from the University of Phoenix.


https://asc.ar my.mil


41


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120