![](\"https:\/\/media.wired.com\/photos\/5dc0903041c1680009813bd9\/master\/pass\/Biz-Schmidt-h_15275095.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Credit to Author: Tom Simonite| Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 12:00:00 +0000<\/strong><\/p>\n It also warns that AI-enhanced national security apparatus like autonomous weapons and surveillance systems will raise ethical questions.<\/p>\n America\u2019s national security depends on the government getting access to the artificial intelligence breakthroughs made by the technology industry.<\/p>\n So says a report<\/a> submitted to Congress on Monday by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The group, which includes executives from Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and Amazon, says the Pentagon and intelligence agencies need a better relationship with Silicon Valley to stay ahead of China.<\/p>\n \u201cAI adoption for national security is imperative,\u201d said Eric Schmidt, chair of the commission and formerly CEO of Google, at a news briefing Monday. \u201cThe private sector and government officials need to build a shared sense of responsibility.\u201d<\/p>\n Monday\u2019s report says the US leads the world in both military might and AI technology. It predicts that AI can enhance US national security in numerous ways, for example by making cybersecurity systems, aerial surveillance, and submarine warfare less constrained by human labor and reaction times.<\/p>\n But the commission also unspools a litany of reasons that US dominance on the world stage and in AI may not last, noting that China is projected to overtake the US in R&D spending within 10 years, while US federal research spending as a percentage of GDP \u201chas returned to pre-Sputnik levels\u201d and should be increased significantly.<\/p>\n Robert Work, vice chair of the commission and previously deputy secretary of defense under Obama and Trump, continued the Cold War comparisons in Monday\u2019s news briefing. \u201cWe've never faced a high-tech authoritarian competitor before,\u201d he said. \u201cThe Soviet Union could compete with us in niche capabilities like nuclear weapons and space, but in the broad sense they were a technological inferior.\u201d<\/p>\n Created by Congress in August 2018 to offer recommendations on how the US should use AI in national security and defense, the NSCAI has strong tech industry representation. In addition to Schmidt, the 15-member commission includes Safra Katz, CEO of Oracle, Andy Jassy, the head of Amazon\u2019s cloud business, and top AI executives from Microsoft and Google. Other members are from NASA, academia, the US Army, and the CIA's tech investment fund.<\/p>\n Monday\u2019s report says staying ahead of China depends in part on the US government getting more access to AI advances taking place inside tech companies\u2014like those several of the commissioners work for. The document describes the Pentagon as \u201cstruggling to access the best AI technology on the commercial market.\u201d<\/p>\n The Department of Defense has in recent years set up a series<\/a> of programs<\/a> aimed<\/a> at forging closer relationships with Silicon Valley companies large<\/a> and small<\/a>. Monday\u2019s report suggests that pressure to find new ways to deepen relations will continue to grow, says William Carter, deputy director of the technology policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. \u201cThe report clearly articulates that DOD continuing to do business the way it always has and expecting the world to go along with it is not going to work,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n The commission won\u2019t send its final recommendations to Congress until late next year, but Monday's interim report says the US government should invest more in AI research and training, curtail inappropriate Chinese access to US exports and university research, and mull the ethical implications of AI-enhanced national security apparatus.<\/p>\n So far, attempts to draw tech companies into more national security contracts have had mixed results.<\/p>\n Employee protests<\/a> forced Google to promise not to renew<\/a> its piece of a Pentagon program, Project Maven, created to show how tech companies could help military AI projects. Microsoft has also faced internal protests<\/a> over contracts with the Army and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.<\/p>\n Yet Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and his Amazon counterpart Jeff Bezos have issued full-throated statements in support of the idea of taking national security contracts. Last month, Microsoft won a $10 billion Pentagon cloud-computing contract motivated in part by a desire to improve the department\u2019s AI capabilities. Deals like that could become more common if the commission proves to be influential.<\/p>\n Work said at Monday\u2019s briefing that the fallout from Google\u2019s high-profile Maven reversal<\/a> had been minor. \u201cThe department was a little worried that when Google removed itself from Project Maven, that would start a stampede with other high-tech firms,\u201d he said. \u201cThat did not happen.\u201d<\/p>\n Google\u2019s response to the Maven protests included releasing a set of ethical guidelines for future AI projects that explicitly allow military projects but forbid work on weapons. Monday\u2019s report warns that national security AI projects will raise their own ethical questions for the US government. The report doesn't set out firm limits or guidelines but says US agencies should take time to think about how AI national security tools can be made reliable and used in ways that respect human rights. This comes a few days after a Pentagon advisory board proposed ethics guidelines for military AI projects<\/a>.<\/p>\n Although the ethics discussion is light on detail, it is notable that the report includes it at all, says Heather Roff, a senior research analyst at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and an adviser to the commission.<\/p>\n Ethical questions raised by new national security technologies such as nuclear weapons, blinding lasers, or wide-scale surveillance have usually not received much acknowledgement until after they were used or developed, she says. \u201cIf there was a discussion about ethics, it didn't really happen until after the fact,\u201d Roff says. \u201cThis is much more proactive.\u201d<\/p>\n