[applause] thanks, chris. Can you hear me . By the way, the staff for this commission is so good. [applause] they produce 120 questions for me [laughing] to interrogate this panel with. So this is actually a ten hour session, not a one hour session. I am thrilled to be here with this panel, some old friends and new friends are with me on stage. Stage. To my immediate left his Andrea Thompson known to many of you. She was the former under secretary of state for arms control. She was the National Security adviser to the Vice President , and most importantly, 25 years of service, time in combat zones and certainly served her country nobly. So andrea, welcome. I have the great pleasure of having islanders with us, the former danish prime minister, chairman of the Danish Liberal Party and formerly the country generally of nato. Most recently though he is the ceo of rasmussen global as well is the sound of the alliance for democracies, or of democracies can which we will get you a little bit later. Thrilled to see my old friend gabrielle ab real pains here, as many of you know she was the former deputy National Security adviser. More important than that though she was the Deputy Director at cia, and she is currently at columbia university. Also with us today is michele flournoy. Michelle was the undersecretary of defense for policy. She was the cofounder and ceo at cms and right now is the cofounder and the managing partner at west exact advisors are helping about a small compass, so thank you very much for that. Im told i to make opening remarks. I will keep them very, very brief because weve had a long day and we have talked, with covered an awful lot of ground. I think were talked about research. We talked about applications. Were going to talk more about at that as we go through it. That said, that the developments in ai, the advantages that will be attained through ai cant be separated from the emerging strategic competition that we have and weve talked a lot about with china and russia. Some of these channels are just never going to go away not in our lifetimes. Theres a broader geopolitical landscape and geo strategic landscape we need to talk about, who are the friends and allies we need to cooperate with and what does that conversation need to look like in order to assure american positioning. Our particular group within the commission was really looking at the United States need to develop a holistic strategy to ensure longterm competitiveness in this emerging environment. And im told that i should reinforce the five initial judgments that were made by this particular group. The first one is the need to foster Cooperation Amongst the u. S. Allies and partners. And doing so, be essential to retaining a longterm competitive advantage. The second is really this notion that the United States and our allies should seek to preserve existing advantages in ai related hardware. We havent talked about hardware an awful lot today. Weve talked a lot about software, but the softwear has to run on something. Thirdly, ai presents significant challenges for military interoperability and when we look at this, the United States and its allies do not coordinate early and often and ai capability, the effectiveness. And fourth, we should be open to cooperation with russia and china on issues of mutual strategic interest, such as promoting ai safety which well talk about more and managing ai impact on strategic stability. I think that within a group like this, we often think about the military applications. But i think those in the private sector would agree that were looking at ai for things like health, climate, and a number of other enduring problems that mankind faces and finally, the United States should lead in establishing a positive agenda for cooperation with all nations on ai advances that promise to benefit humanity. So with those judgments being so read, i think id like to open it up to the panel to give their thoughts on what dr. Kissinger was really teasing at and this is this notion that ai is the philosophical challenge of our generation and when it comes to negotiating treaties and engaging in agreements around ai, how do you do that with such a complex nuanced technology . So, andrea, let me tee it up for you. Why dont you start . Thanks, chris and thanks to the commission and thanks to Chris Mcguire who was detailed from the state department, a shoutout for my former team from part of the family thats part of the compligs and echo chriss work of the commission. If you havent read the report. Read the report. Weve a lot of amazing panels this afternoon and to get back to chris, your comment on dr. Kissinger. What do we need to do . What are we missing . We need to implement the things weve already raised. Read through the report, if we could make half of those come to fruition, we will defeat china. Well be the first out of the block, but three things foundationally and this is what ive soon the last two years at the state department travelling and meeting with partners and allies and talking about ai and emerging technologies. Theres some commonalties there, and it comes back to people and processes and partners. Weve talked about software. The people the panel earlier today about Talent Management, weve talked a bit about processes and this afternoon, the last panel will also talk about partners. So, we are facing these common concerns. Whether im in a nato partner or whether im in an indo pack, whether im in africa, our partners are raising these concerns. Lets implement what weve seen. Ai is new, but the principles behind it are not new. And we saw it with fiber, as just mentioned, standing up fiber com and the services. Weve learned through the applications. The foundations are the same, but we need to implement what weve already been talking about. Thank you very much and also, thank you to the commission. And the center work. Im definitely not an engineering, but when president putin stated that Artificial Intelligence is the future and whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world, he got my attention. And demonstrates why its so essential that america is the leader, but american National Security is strongly linked to strong partnerships and alliances. So, i would say, what we need is leadership of the whole freeway world. And against that backdrop, i would like to make three points. Firstly, what we need is what i will call a Technological Alliance of democracies. Democracies must be in the lead to be sure, that we set the right norms and leading up to the principles upon which we have built our free societies. And we must realize that Artificial Intelligence is an integrated part of our National Security. So we need strong cooperation between government, industry, and academia and i do not share the skeptics view, the skeptics who are reluctant to cooperate with the government. I think they miss the point. If we do not have the strong cooperation between the private sector and government, the chinese will be the winners. It is as easy as that. So if the employees in those Big Tech Companies want to make sure that its their ideals that will be the winners, they also need to cooperate with the government. I would call it a patriotic duty to cooperate in this field. And in this respect, by the way, chris, i would like to thank you very much for your work in inqtel. I think its a prime example of getting Artificial Intelligence right. We need much more of that and we also need much more of that in europe. That leads me to my second point. Namely, we need a stronger transatlant transatlantic cooperation. We should stop the fight between europe and america. There is too much at stake. What we need is cooperation to counter the challenge from the advancing autocracies. Thats what it is about. Europe much do much more constructtively, increase its own investment. The European Union should increase funds in its European Defense fund that was established a couple of years ago. Its only around 600 million a year devoted to that fund. Its tiny compared to what the chinese invest in this area. Gradually, nato allies are investing more in defense. In 2014, we decided that within the next decade all nato allies will invest at least 2 of gdp in defense. At that time only three fit that criteria. By the end of this year, eight countries will do it. And i think to his credit, President Trump has really done a lot to raise awareness of the 2 . But there is another goal that is equally important, namely 20 . According to nato standards, nato allies should devote at least 20 of their defensive estimates to investments in equipment and research and development. I think that needs to be raised further. The u. S. Economy spends an amount equivalent to around 27 , i think of its Defense Budget in investing in equipment and research and development. Why not raise that figure to 30 for all allies, including the u. S. So i would encourage more president ial tweets on the 30 . I think that would help. [laughter] my third and final point we may have already had one by now. That we need to strengthen nato. In that respect, you also need an awareness in the United States to take leadership in sharing data and intelligence. Sometimes and i always speak based on my feelings on nato. Sometimes the United States is too reluctant to share data and share intelligence with other allies, but it creates a lack of confidence, if creates some mistrust, and we should avoid mistrust. We should strengthen our allies and we should make it natural to trade across the atlantic without suspicion and to that end, you also need to be more open. Primarily because if the United States do not share data and intelligence and Technological Progress with these allies, then at the end of the day, we will have growing interoperability problems because if the u. S. Is here and the rest of the crowd is here, then we cannot cooperate. It will weaken the alliance. We should strengthen the alliance. You should do what you can through American Leadership to get other allies to increase the investment in Artificial Intelligence. We also need bigger nato funds to invest in new technology, including Artificial Intelligence. Today nato as such, nato as such only devotes around 600 million, 600 million u. S. Dollars a year for investment in equipment. The rest of it is National Responsibility and of course, it will remain National Responsibility, but i do believe that we would make a leap forward if we devote more resources for nato funding of Artificial Intelligence and other hightech investments, and we should speed up Decision Making processes in nato. When nato took responsibility for the operation in kosovo in the 90s, nato spent six months to take that decision. When we in 2011 took the operation in libya, we spent six days. In the future, i think we will have maximum six minutes. So ambassadors cannot discuss this at length in brussels. We have to speed up the Decision Making processes. And my final remark will be, i also think the u. S. Should take leadership in preparing International Conventions to regulate the use and production of Artificial Intelligence. Because otherwise, we might risk that the autocracies with misuse it in a way that we cannot accept. I know this will be a challenging task, but i think we should explore areas where we could cooperate. So in short, what we do need is a strong and determined American Global leadership. Do you want to weigh in on this . Sure. Thanks so much and thanks, by the way, for staying for the 3 45 panel. You set us off, chris, on this idea of reacting in a way to kissingers comments of implication versus application. And from my perspective, i think, you know, its just an interesting question of right now, we see autocratic governments using Artificial Intelligence to use it, whether bolstering surveillance we know that Artificial Intelligence can be used other ways to bolster our own agenda and were not investing enough, were not keeping up in the competition to push back in this context. Overall, id say that the purpose of our strategy would be one that really should be focused on the prosperity of our own systems, right . On our security and on promoting our values and pushing back where we need to in that context and if thats what were trying to achieve in terms of the overall implication and the steps needed to really push in on these issues, then i think the question that i think maybe is really worth digging into is how do you achieve those things most effectively with the strategy internationally for this panel . Right . Like how do we actually promote the kind of International Landscape that helps us to do that . And i think thats about certainly cooperation and coordination, but i think its more than that. I think its about shaping the development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence more generally. And i believe that, you know, as secretarygeneral noted, there are a whole series of ways we can do that through the context of working with allies and partners in europe and theres no question that were stronger when were working with our allies and partners, certainly to push back against russia and china, a variety of others, but really, to begin to shape that environment, but i think it comes in a whole series of different areas, and i think the commission can do a lot of goodbye mapping those out in some respects. I think theres the question of building up norms and standards, which are things that are talked about in the interim report a bit. There are a whole different series of ways in which you can do that. For example, i would not recommend going out and trying to negotiate a treaty at this moment. I dont think thats the most effective way at this point, but i do think, having discussions internationally with other states and developing ideas for what are the things that are acceptable, what are the things that are not. Whats in the gray area, how should we be thinking about that . I think the question of developing standards, and thinking about them through the lens of safety, trust, trying to develop those types of things, but really doing it at a body that the United States trusts, in other words, the International Body where we think they can have an actually productive conversation about this and establish standards. Thinking whether or not you want a third party mechanism, whether or not people are keeping up to the standard that youre setting. Thinking about how you provide accountability for not dealing with those standards. All of those things are things you might want to do. You might want to set up obviously International Structures in terms of organization and these state dealing with the issuines. You dont have to reinvent the wheel, but you have to identify who is doing the collaborating. How should you have the collaborating relationships. Should it be a bilateral basis, or multilateral basis. What is the area you want to work into. How do you want to think about the defense pieces, the interoperability pieces . Its not going to be in one place. Its going to be in a series of different places and i think those are things that can be usefully thought of in the context of the work youre doing, but really trying to promote in all of these areas that are so integrated. I think the work needs to be done to promote that. Michelle. So, i think youve been hearing all day, weve been hearing all day, ripping secretary kissingers remarks about the strategic and profound implications of the ai competition and how it comes out economically, politically, and militarily in terms of relative balance of power. I guess i would focus my three points on is the importance of marrying whatever were doing in the sort of ai, development of ai and much larger frame of American Leadership and leveraging our allies as truly strategic and unique sources advantage. I think one of the mistakes weve made so far in the competition with china is framing it as a bilateral competition, as opposed to a competition between the authoritarian, authoritarian state that trying to spread that model and the coalition of likeminded democracies, which includes the richest countries of the world. And that we, together, as democracies across, you know, north america, europe, and asia, if we really go at this together, we could be much more competitive with visavis china. Let me give three particular ideasment number one, i think the first rule for all of us is to the best way to shore up our competitiveness is to invest in the drivers of that competitiveness at home. Research and development, find some technology, access to higher education. 21st century infrastructure. Smart immigration policy that attracts the best talent from around the world and then does Everything Possible to actually keep it. This is a moonshot moment for all of the democracies. Were not acting like it. Were still sort of asleep. I think the National Security apparatus is awake and theyre thinking of it in these terms, but our societies are not, have not been led, have not been inspired to the kinds of publicprivate collaboration that were going to need to be successful. Number two, it should be us. The United States and its democratic allies, that lead the development of norms in this domain. I think the principles on ai that were offered to the department as a great place to start. Theres a lot of good work being done out in industry as companies try to figure out what norms are going to guide their work. I think were in a great position to lead in international dialog. Not with the expectation that, you know, russia and china will necessarily sign onto that concensus, but to the extent you can create buyin, then you have the basis for pushing back on behaviors that violate those norms and imposing consequences for those violations and then third, i do think its very important, even now, to be reaching out to china and russia to have a dialog about this. I wouldnt con stray it narrowly on ai. What we really need is a new dialog about strategic stability. That used to be the realm of the nuclear precip. In a world of potential for early Cyber Attacks that have strategic imports or the world in which ai can inadvertently escalate very quickly the speed, up the escalation ladder, we need to be having conversations with countries like china and russia about strategic stability in an era where theres potential conflict in faith and cyber and using tools enabled by ai. So those are three specific ideas of where i would start if it was up to me. So, andrea, you owned the nuclear priestesshood. How is this a different conversation . It is a dual use technology. It is a more nuanced technology. How do you engage that dialog internationally . What are the different forums that you would engage and how would that conversation go . Absolutely, and i agree with the points that were made and if i could give some dialog on discussions that weve had. To answer the question, it does have to happen bilaterally and multilaterally and were having the discussions and robert is still here, giving a shut out to the state Department Family aga again, a shout out. Every time, we talked about cyber norms responsible behavior and we talked about ai because youre exactly right. Partners and allies are looking to the United States for that leadership. They want to know what were doing. They want to know what our private sector it doing, what our strategy is and we learn from each other so weve had those discussions. Weve also had those discussions multilaterally, had discussions over with, again, with counterparts with nato. Weve had those discussions in the indo path, weve had those discussions and those are happening and i would say kind of on the periphery. Theyre happening because up until 12 days ago, whatever it is, arms control and interNational Security to include the nuclear nonproliferation. By nature most of my counterparts are that same people and my partners, leading the emerging technology piece, many are within that same sector so were having those suggestions. I agree, you have to have increased information sharing as the secretarygeneral mentioned. We did that and as an example it may come out as a partisan take with imf. The ic, Intelligence Community did incredible work to get intel downgraded that we could share it beyond the five eyes. When we went to nato, this is when it was fired, where it was fired, thats an example of what we need to do with ai. We need to share information, we need to get best practices, share with our partners and yes, we need to have dialog with our competitors, to a the most recent example in july, the date was in july when we went to geneva and that was my russian counterpart on the strategic stability, Strategic Security talks. We can have these, folks. We can have the discussions. The door has been opened, not as of china yet, the president has been clear that he wants to multilateralize and to have those discussions, we need to have the talks with russia and china as well. Theyre going to be part of the solution if were going to accomplish this together. You brought up data, its an underpinning of the ai and gdpr and the privacy conversations that have been going on in europe are going to impact europes ability to lead in ai in many ways. Theyre just the chinese are collecting way more data today than anybody else. How is europe thinking about china from a strategic competitors perspective around ai . And where are they going to draw the line between the right to privacy and the needs of the Defense Community and the military communities . Well, for a long time i would say, europe has not been aware of the risks, the strategic risks. Europe has been a bit naive, maybe, but recently, europe has realized that it is necessary to focus more on what has been called the strategically important sectors. This is why the European Commission has introduced a so called screening mechanism to investigate whether a potential Chinese Investment or any other Foreign Investment might be done with the intention to make Strategic Decisions in your let me mention, the example, the chinese invested in the greek ports. They are in consideration investing in portugese energy plant. They have created a socalled 16plus one format in which they gather the Eastern European countries. So what the chinese are doing is to focus on European Countries in economic need and they offer their money and we have seen how the European Union has been faced with increasing problems, increasing violation of human rights in china. Because all decisions in that sphere by unanimity and as always, one country opposed, with sharp criticism. Europe i would say is more awake now, but still a lot to do. For instance, on 5g some European Countries have refused to cooperate with huawei, others are more reluctant to prohibit cooperation with huawei. I would prefer a common european approach to that. I share the concerns concerning cooperation with huawei. So its a mixed picture. So avril, ill tackle you with this one. How do we have a dialog around this . Youve got the military infusion in china. I think it was general shanahan referred to may even be potentially a canary in a coal mine and being of concern. How do we have a conversation both within the United States and outside of the United States and this concept of norms ap values, and what that would mean to the longterm way of life that weve become so accustomed to in the free world . How does that conversation go on . And who leads it . I think, you know, at least from my perspective, i mean, anders said it as well, people look to the United States for leadership on these issues and i think its it is to our advantage to have this conversation and its to our advantage to lead this conversation. And so you know, i think the first step of it in the norms and values space is, first of all, to recognize that thats got to be a part of every aspect, frankly, of what were looking at in terms of Artificial Intelligence, right. Because it comes across every area in which Artificial Intelligence is going to be used for the purpose of whether its military or economic purposes or other, you know, aspects of it. So i think thats something thats got to be built in. And i also think that its not only a part of the sort of, you know, arms control in the sense, you know, conversation that youre having, but its also built into things like technical standards that are applied across ai and a whole series of ranges. Right . So, one way in which you have that information, it seems to me is when youre talking about what are the standards that you want to apply to ai systems in their development and deployment, you also want to think about, well, so if theyre using algorithms that may be in fact legitimizing and reinforcing, how do we address that in the context of development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence. Or with were dealing with systems with privacy information how do we think of, you know, encryption or other ways to manage those types of issues in the context of what might be a broader system that also involves ai. But there are a whole series of ways in which its got to be a part of the discussion and its sort of i think you cant do it in isolation around ai. I think its your norms and values and the whole series of scenarios that youre injecting into the technology piece but i think it does, you know, there was a prior panel and i think sue gordon was talking about it. I think it is it is behooves us to recognize we have to address this in a way that promotes a conversation on it that goes across the technical, the civilian, the military and all of these sectors that talk about it in different ways. Its not just making policy makers smarter about technology, its helping technologists get smarter about policy. If we dont inject early, were going to lose track of it. Host michelle, how do you think of export control in the context of ai. How should we be looking at export controls as one of the toolboxes in ai or should we at all . I think its a really hard question as this is where we could use im sure the department could benefit from people doing some serious analytic work looking at alternatives. Guest im not a technologist, but i have a hard time understanding how we would control algorithms. To me, the data making sure, particularly when it comes to the military, our security sphere, the data and the platforms that are going to be enabled by ai to become autonomous or semiautonomous. At first blush, they seem to be the primary and the second we already do the second. The first one figuring out how to actually do that is important. I think it also ties to the broader question of how we approach a chinese or competitors money, people, et cetera in our enno evaluation eco system and right now, my worry is i mean, theres definitely cause for some concern, but theres also some substantial benefits that we reap from Person International collaboration. So right now my concern is that were taking a sledgehammer to this when we need a scalpel. And ill give you an example. Right now if you put, you know, a slide in front of, you know, a potential dod buyer that shows there was some chinese seed money in a company that they want to invest in or not invest in, buy from, its usually thats the immediate freakout, forget it, no way. Whereas, i think you need to draw a distinction between a passive investment where its just, you know, another investor getting roi and theres no access to nonpublic ip. Theres no board seat, theres no controlling interest, nothing, its just blood in the bloodstream of Silicon Valley. We should not give a hoot about that. Thats us using their money to our advantage, right . The very difference, if its a controlling interest. If they get a board seat, if they get access to ip. These are the kinds of distinctions we need to be making, similarly, yes, we need to worry about talent and coming in to dodfunded labs and that kind of thing. But does that mean we need to treat every Chinese Student as a spy . No, we need to have a very sophisticated process for doing due diligence, for vetting people, money, and so forth. On the one hand, a much more the chinese, a much more clear eyed view of Silicon Valley. Theres a concerted effort to get inside our eco system, but also realizing that without the benefit of foreign talent, we dont win this race. You know . Our strength as an immigrant nation has always been attracting the best talent in the world and keeping it and thats, you know, the so many founder stories in Silicon Valley. So many stories of the space race, you know, how we won that and so forth. So i think we have to have a very nuanced, cleareyed approach to this and i dont think were there yet. With that, im mindful that i only have nine and a half more hours to go with that panel and i could keep them up here for that whole amount of time, but i would like to open it up to questions from the audience because i think, yeah, ive got a slew of them. One at the very back, one in the middle, first one with the mic wins. All right. Gentleman in the back. Thank you. Im ben on the staff of the board. For all the panelists youve served in senior National Security positions. One of the refrains weve seen across the department, Senior Leaders dont always fully understand or appreciate exactly what new technology can and cannot do. If you were to go back into in the senior National Security position, what would you do differently to give tech a bigger seat at your Decision Making table . The one example that they have at the state department and just talking about the evolution, i havent seen it through, i departed before it came to fruition, but many in the room received a phone call from me to get you on board. So we have a security advisory board. Traditionally its been used for arms control and nonproliferation experts. I approached the secretary roughly last year and said i want to carve at least a quarter, possibly a third of that board for the tech industry. I want advisories, services to come in and my ai, cyber, quantum, hypersonics, whatever. I will never have in the ranks of the state department, but within our borders, within our boundaries. Most of the experts will come from the outside. So thats moving on. So thats one example. If i could do it every again, i would have started much sooner and to get the folks on board. I hope thats one of the areas that continues beyond my legacy to get it stood up to address emerging technologies and i hope that the high paying folks out in the private sector that want to contribute, maybe not leave their company, but want to contribute, ill come quarterly, when you get a phone call from the state department, we have a diplomatic challenge with ai. Talking norms, setting up an International Body with a league of the partners. Yes, how could i help. Michele, what would you do . First, keep the great external bodies formed like the Defense Innovation board, i mean, its a treasure. Some of the best, highest priced talent in the nation working for free to help the department. Keep that, dont try to take it dont try to disestablish it. Second, i think we need to build in more tech advisors internal to the system. Senior technologists who get a seat at the Decision Making tables. A seat in the situation room when theyre debating an issue with technological elements or implications. Boot camps for staff. Id try to bring in technology more broadly, but even some of the nontech staff getting them smart on at least being fluent in what theyre dealing with. I think about what ive learned in just the two years ive been doing the work, working with small cutting Edge Commercial Technology Companies that want to play in the National Security space. You know, im only now aware, aware of how much i didnt know and still have to learn in technology because its a whole other world out there, but i mean, you need to be we need to be looking for opportunities to provide people on the policy side with those kinds of exposure and experienc experiences. Granted theyll never be technologis technologists, but fluency and vice versa. And dcia next monday. Yes. What do you do differently . Well, you know, as you know, chris, we did a number of things, made a number of changes in the last few years and i think many of them are continuing and Getting Better over time. But one of them was including, for example, a whole other direct directorate on innovation and also it is, we had somebody who did this having a senior leader, in your Senior Leadership team that is the Technology Person thats constantly injecting things into the conversation. We also had, during my time, sprint teams that were capable going across departments to work on different issues. I found that would be one of the best things, but its not easy to do and one of the challenges i found in the context of developing different structural ways to improve basically the opportunity for Senior Leaders, but also frankly, you know, every aspect of your agency and departments to be able to Leverage Technology effectively had to do with Talent Management and actually having the opportunity to bring people in easily and quickly to address the issues that you thought needed to be addressed and honestly, im on a commission, National Commission on military national and Public Service and were looking at this issue and we have a lot of recommendations that go to this issue. I think some of them i suspect are going to overlap with where you are on these issues, too. Its a really challenging space. Anders, it might not be a fair question, but if you were to be secretarygeneral again, are there things you would do differently . Yeah, i as secretarygeneral of nato, i established a new division, the emergency challenges competition to deal with Cyber Security and difficulty and so on. So far so good. Today i would focus much more on Artificial Intelligence. I would create an office for Artificial Intelligence. Would provide it or try to provide it with a big substantial i would encourage nato allies to actually within the nato framework to create a Commission Like you have created a National Commission. He think nato should do exactly the same, to take nato allies on board in this very important discussion and that would also serve as a forum for exchange of data. And finally, i would take steps to improve the Decision Making process with a particular view on speeding up the process. One of the suggestions could be to give the military leaders Sector Authority to take decisions. Of course, you would afterwards have to be accountable to the nato council, but in the future, you cannot discuss at length in brussels whether youre going to counter an artifical intelligence attack from an adversary. You have to make immediate decisions and we should provide authority to our military leaders to take those decisio decisions. This is why its good for the commissioners to be on a listening tour for the has nine months, is we get these ideas about maybe nato has a commission so we could make recommendations, perhaps. I think ive got a question at the back and then theres one over here. Thank you, i think weve touched briefly on gdpr and weve had some conversations about europe, maybe creating a third way around ai, beyond the u. S. And china. So the first question is, if you have that third wave, could that be a third way to attack ai practitioners that work on nato Security Issues . And my second question, does there need to be a third way . Why are we competing with companies and the au regulations and why not work to create a better ai frame work . Anders, i think thats all yours. Yeah, i think so. And i fully agree. I think europe is wasting a lot of resources and attention and by attacking big american Tech Companies for dominating the european market. I think europe should do much more itself in a positive constructive way because the risk is if europe is focusing on attacking big american Tech Companies without having any alternative itself, and europe doesnt, then we are weakening the whole, what call the whole democratic alliance, tech alliance, to counter the autocracies. So i think thats the overall strategic mistake. So i fully agree. We should cooperate instead of confront each other, on the data privacy issue, i would say, my advice to american Tech Companies would be to be at the forefront when it comes to the data protection. You should realize that for historical reasons, the protection of personal data is an essential issue in europe. In germany, for obvious reasons. In Eastern Europe for similar obvious reasons, people are very much concerned about government control and government supervision. So i think you should realize how important data privacy is in the european context. So my advice would be on the one hand to be at the forefront when it comes to protection of data, personal data, but at the same time, at the forefront when it comes to protection of free speech. And this strategy of two legs so to speak, i think could make it easier for american Tech Companies to improve their image in europe. I think weve got a question over here. Hi, the Global Advisors field and also cooperate governance and introduction who i am, some people werent here, and professor at university of Maryland Smith School of business and germanys school. Anyway, im really glad to hear the cooperation that im hearing across so we dont have to be just looking internally within the United States, but actually a Global Cooperation at the world level. So, theres something im writing for a forum, but actually be a good time to run it by you guys, also. To keep americas lead, you know, four, five, Six Companies that we are, google, apple, amazon, microsoft, ai leaders and facebook and so forth, and from china, they do so forth. We need a Global Consortium based on Corporate Governance in a nutshell, and transparency, if we take the position to lead the consortium, the greater consortium, then also fund this, not only from a u. S. And nato and other allies, we have to understand twopart solution. This is one, whoever gets to the place on the race, but actually leading and so others follow our example. Thats one part. Case study that comes to a European Union, small eastern country that implemented a lot of ai, Autonomous Cars and so many other Digital Health and so forth already implemented for its european citizens. When you look at it, there are countries and models with ai and the next auto is definitely going to be changed with ai and if the u. S. Wants to keep its lead we have to advance it thats why i wanted to run it by you guys, your talks, u. S. Creating an Ai Consortium and then leading it and keeping up the advantage so theres a not only the code level, logic level, not just japanese, chinese or german or americanbased coders, but someone cooperating so we share what we need to share and keep our advantage where we need our advantage. Thats the comment. Anybody on the panel . Do you want to take this from a standards perspective . It sounds like it might if fit that scene. [laughter] sure. Its hard to react without really understanding exactly what this kind of consortium would do. And i, you know, i dont think that its a binary choice between either were all in and cooperating with everybodying everybody, or were sticking in our stove pipes, somewhere in between. But i do think that oacd could play some role on ai. I dont think its the right place for everything essentially across the board and you know, it would just depend on what the particular issues are and then getting the right people at the table on that. So anyone else want to weigh in on that one . I think weve got time for one more question if there is one more question. If not, get to ask it. Well, lost. Got one over here. Im jeff starr, air force. Thank you for your question earlier and your answers on export control, one of my favorite topics when it comes to ai since it conjurings up a 1970s preventing the soviets from getting the microelectronics which didnt work out so well. The peer or the adversarial perspective, from 2025, 2035 will be important, for their own reasons, both the chinas and russians look at that time period being a critical Inflection Point for the matching of their own military innovations with military hardware and therefore, the capability to execute missions theyre building toward and havent yet reached capability. The russians are a little more expoliplicit than the chinese everyone is aware of chinas longer term strategy to achieve scientific, technical, financial, and also read dot mil. When are they going to be em boldened by their dominance and dominance of hightech areas. Six years from now, 16 years from now, expert control is it not going to do it if it can do it anyway. And one of the things we havent for cussed demographic. Tenyearold kids will be out of college in ten years, 2030. What are we doing to make sure that a higher percentage of those kids go into science, technology, engineering math. Ai. We worry about the number of Chinese Students at american universities training in the United States, suggesting they couldnt leave the u. S. And some villwock vanilla comments, induce them to stay or dod officials, in the government now, lets not train Chinese Students in ai, lets train them in history and archeology and English Literature and not ai. Liberal arts. Sorry for the long thing, the last comment. We need to address this demographic issue in a serious way. Other countries do. Idf puts a lot of money in israeli high schools and grade schools, what are we going to do. Lets stick with the tippingpoint question, go ahead. I think the time frame issue you raise is very, very important because we in our own planning and thinking and acting have to think in two time frames. One is the i think the next five to 10 years where the risk of miscalculation by china or russia, but particularly china in terms. Underestimating our resolve and believing that they might be able to act before we fully realize the capabilities we aspire to have, that that could be a real challenge for deterrents. So we need to think about what are the things we can do now to shore up deterrents in the near to midterm, added urgency to the ai applications that could be fielded very quickly, you know, using mostly current capabilities and new ways and new concepts. Then theres the longer term frame of thinking the big bets were making for the 20 to 25 year time horizon, but on the Human Capital things the same piece. What are things we should be doing now. The kid in middle school or a secondary school ends up, you know, we have the kind of stem talent we need for the future, but i also think, again, pulling it back to that nearterm interim period, thinking not just about higher education, but upscaling. We have a work force. Can we i know were starting to do this, can we test people for aptitude and start upscaling the work force that we have . Can we take the soda straw of talent that flows between places like Silicon Valley and dod and the broader National Security eco system and turn that into a superhighway. What are the different incentives, programs, efforts, that we can make to do that in the nearterm even as we make the necessary investments in growing that talent longer term. So we really do have to challenge ourselves to think in two different time dimensions, because the nearterm, quicker fixes are very different than the longterm investments and sometimes, in some cases, they may actually compete for resources and bandwidth as well. Unfortunately, our time is up. I have to its been an absolutely honor for me to be on stage with this esteemed panel. Thank you very, very much. Please join me in thanking this panel. [applaus [applause]. [inaudible conversations] its again my honor to introduce a friend and colleague, Jason Matheny will be coming up to close out the afternoon and the day. So stay with us. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the house will be in order. For 40 years cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events from washington d. C. And around the country so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Government. The u. S. Senate will be gavelling in shortly to continue debate today on judicial nominations, including District Court nominees for arkansas and pennsylvania, as well as Appeals Court nominations for the 9th circuit covering the western u. S. And the 2nd circuit which includes connecticut, new york and vermont. And now to live coverage of the u. S. Senate here on cspan2. The president pro tempore the senate will come to order. The chaplain, dr. Black, will lead the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Eternal god, thank you for not leaving us
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.