Country nobly. Welcome. I have a great pleasure of having Anders Rasmussen with us, former danish primer to, chairman of the Danish Liberal Party and secretarygeneral of nato. Most recently he is the ceo of rasmussen global as well as the founder of the alliance of democracies which we will get to a little later. Thrilled to see my old friend haynes here, the former Deputy National security adviser, more importantly the Deputy Director of the cia and she is currently at columbia university. Also with us today is michelle flournoy, the under secretary of defense for policy, the cofounder and ceo, the managing partner at west executive advisors helping a lot of small companies. I told them to make opening remarks. I will keep them very very brief because we had a long day and covered a lot of ground. I think we talked about research and applications and talent. This notion of the Global Positioning or geostrategic positioning is one that is founded on the notion of norms and values and the way Democratic Free societies are going to embrace these norms and values. We will talk more about that as we go through it. That said the developments in ai, the advantages that will be attended cant be separated from emerging strategic competition we have. We talked a lot about it with china and russia. Some of these challenges are never going to go away, at least in our lifetimes. There is a broader geopolitical landscape and geostrategic landscape we need to talk about and that is who are the friends and allies we need to cooperate with and what does that conversation need to look like to assure american positioning. Our particular group within the commission was looking at the United States need to develop a holistic strategy to ensure longterm competitiveness in this emerging environment. I am told i should reinforce the 5 initial judgments that were made by this particular group. The first one is the need to foster Cooperation Among us allies and partners and doing so is essential to retaining a longterm competitive advantage. The second is the notion that the United States and our allies should seek to preserve existing advantages in ai related hardware. We dont talk about hardware a lot today, we talk about software but it has to run on something. Thirdly and i presents significant challenges for military interoperability and when we look at this, the United States and its allies do not coordinator early and often on ai enabled capabilities the effectiveness will definitely suffer. Forth. We should also be open to possible cooperation with russia and china on issues of mutual Strategic Interests such as promoting ai safety which we will talk about a little more and managing ais impact on strategic stability. A group like this we often think about military applications but those in the private sector would agree we are looking for things like health, climate and a number of other enduring problems mankind faces. Finally the United States should lead in establishing a positive agenda for cooperation with all nations on ai advances that promise to benefit humanity. With those judgments, i would like to open it up to the panel to give their thoughts on what doctor kissinger was really teasing at, 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 . Anders, why dont you start. Thanks for the commission and Chris Mcguire from the state department, a little shout out to the former team and would like to echo chriss comments about the work of the staff in the work of the commission. If you havent read the report read the report. A lot of amazing panels to go back to your comment. What is the next thing . We need to implement the things we already raised. Read through the report. If we could read through half of those come to fruition we will defeat china and we will be the first out of the block. Three Things Foundation only at the state department, traveling, meeting with partners and allies, talking about ai and cyber and other commonalities, it comes back to people and processes and partners. We talked about software. The panel earlier today about Talent Management, we talked about processes and this afternoon the last panel will talk about partners. We are facing these common concerns, whether im in an indo pack or in africa, partners and allies are raising these concerns. This is not unique to us. Lets implement what we are seeing. Ai is new but the challenges are not new. The principles behind it are not new. We saw it with cyber, standing up for the services. We learned through some of those applications that foundational elements are the same. Thank you very much and thanks to the commission. It is essential work. Im definitely not an engineer but when Vladimir Putin stated that Artificial Intelligence is the future and whoever becomes the leader in this fear wouldnt become the world, he got my attention. It demonstrates why it is 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 free world. Against that backdrop, i would like to make three points. What we need is what i would call a Technological Alliance of democracies. Democracies must be in the lead, to be sure, the we set the right norms and standards leading up to the principles upon which we 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 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. If the employees in those Big Tech Companies want to make sure it is their ideals that would be the winners, they also need to cooperate with the government. I will call it patriotic duty to cooperate in this field and in this respect i would like to thank you very much for your work. It is a prime example of getting Artificial Intelligence right. We need much more of that. That leads me to my second point. Namely we need a stronger transatlantic corporation. We should stop the fight between europe and america. There is too much at stake. What we need is cooperation to counter advancing autocracy. That is what it is about. Europe could do much more constructively, increase its own investments. The European Union should increase funds in its own European Defense fund a couple years ago. It is only around 600 million a year, you go to that fund. It is tiny compared to what the chinese invest in this area. Gradually nato allies are investing more in defense. In 2014 we decided within the next decade all nato allies will invest at least 2 of gdp in defense. At that time only three will fit that criteria. By the end of this year eight countries will do and to his credit donald trump has done a lot to raise awareness, but there is another goal that is equally important, namely 20 . According to nato standards nato allies should devote at least 20 of their estimates to investment in equipment, research and development and that needs to be erased further. The us currently spends an amount equivalent to 27 , i think. Of its Defense Budget in the investing in equipment and research and development. Why not raise that to 30 for all allies including the us . I would encourage more president ial tweets on the 30 . I think that would help. My third and final point. We may have already had one by now. We need to strengthen nato. In that respect we also need awareness in the United States to take leadership in sharing data and intelligence and sometimes, based on my films at nato sometimes the United States is too reluctant to share data and intelligence with other allies but it creates lack of confidence. It creates some mistrust and we should avoid mistrust. We should strengthen our alliance and we should make it natural to trade across the atlantic without suspicion into 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 its allies then at the end of the day we have growing interoperability problems. If the us is here and the rest of the crowd is here we cannot cooperate. It can weaken the alliance, we can strengthen the alliance, you should do what you can through American Leadership to get other allies to increase investments in Artificial Intelligence. We also need nato funds to invest in new Technology IncludingArtificial Intelligence. Nato only devotes around us 600 million a year for investment in equipment. The rest is National Responsibility and it will remain National Responsibility but i do believe 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 decisionmaking processes in nato. When nato took responsibility for the operation in kosovo in the 90s nato spent 6 months to take that decision. When in 2011 we took responsibility for the operation in libya we spent six days. In the future i think we will have maximum 6 minutes. Ambassadors, discusses at length in brussels. We have to speed up the decisionmaking processes and my final remark would be i think the us should take leadership in preparing International Conventions to regulate the use and production of Artificial Intelligence because otherwise we might risk the autocracy would misuse it in a way we cannot accept. I know this will be a challenging task, but i think we should explore areas where we could cooperate. In short, what we do need is a strong and determined American Global leadership. Do you want to weigh in on this . Thanks for staying for the 3. 5 panel. You set us off on the idea of reacting, from my perspective, an interesting question of right now we see autocratic governments and others using Artificial Intelligence in ways that are helpful to them to essentially achieve their own agenda. In some context that is weaponization of information or altering surveillance or doing a variety of things. We know Artificial Intelligence can be used in other ways, to bolster our own agenda and we are not investing in that are keeping up in the competition essentially to do that and to push back in this context but overall the purpose of our strategy would be one that should be focused on the prosperity of our own system and security and promoting values and pushing back in that context. If that is what we are trying to achieve in terms of the overall they do an excellent job identifying the steps that are needed to pushing on these issues the question that is worth digging into is how do you achieve those things most effectively with strategy internationally, how do we actually promote the kind of International Landscape that helps us to do that . That is certainly cooperation and coordination and it is more than that. It is about shaping the development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence more generally. I believe the secretarygeneral noted there are a series of ways we can do that through the context of working with allies and partners and there is no question we are stronger when working with our allies and partners to push back against russia and china and a variety of others but begin to shape that environment. It comes in a series of different areas and i think the commission can do a lot of lot of good by mapping that out a lot of respect. Theres the question of building norms which are talked about in the interim report. There is a different series of ways to do that. I would not recommend trying to negotiate a treaty at this moment. I dont think that is the most effective way at this point but i do think having discussions internationally with other states and developing ideas, what are the things that are acceptable . What is in the gray area . How should we think about that . The question of developing standards and thinking about them through the lens of safety, trust, trying to develop those kinds of things that really doing it in a body the United States trusts. And International Body where they have a productive conversation about this and establish standards, thinking about whether you want a thirdparty mechanism to be evaluating, whether people are keeping up to the standard you are setting, thinking about how it is you provide some accountability for not dealing with those standards. Those are things you might want to do. You want to set up International Structures in terms of organization, bellybutton is in nationstate dealing with these issues, you dont have to remake the wheel are set up new institutions but you do have to identify who is doing the a labor rating, how to establish collaborating relationships, should be done on a bilateral basis or multilateral basis. What guidelines are useful . Is there an area want to work in 2 or think about the defense pieces, interoperability pieces, this will not be in one place. It will be a series of different places and i think those are the things that can be usefully thought of in the context of the work we are doing but trying to promote in all these areas that are so integrated the work that needs to be done to promote that. We have been hearing all day secretary kissingers remarks about the strategic and profound implications of the competition and how it comes out economically, politically and militarily. I would focus on my three points. The importance of marrying whatever we are doing in the development of ai applications is a larger frame of American Leadership and leveraging our allies, truly strategic and unique advantage. One of the mistakes we have made in competition with china is bilateral competition as opposed to competition between authoritarian state trying to spread that model. The coalition of likeminded democracies which include the richest countries of the world that we together as democracies across north america, europe and asia. If we really go at this together, we could be much more competitive. Let me give three different ideas. The first rule for all of us is the best way to shore up our competitiveness, to invest in the driver of that competitiveness at home. Research and development, access to Higher Education, 20thcentury infrastructure, smart immigration policy that attract the best talent from around the world and does Everything Possible to keep it. This is a moonshot moment for all the democracies but we are not acting like it. The National Security effort is awake and our societies have not been inspired to the kinds of publicprivate collaboration we are going to need to be successful. It should be us, the United States and its democratic allies that lead to the development of norms in this domain. The principles on ai, a great place to start. Theres a lot of good work being done as companies try to figure out what norms are going to guide their work. We are in great position to lead an International Dialogue not with the expectation that russia and china will necessarily sign on to that consensus but to the extent you build that International Consensus and create buyin, then you have basis for pushing back on behaviors that violate those norms and impose consequences for those violations. And third i do think it is very important even now to be reaching out to china and russia to have a dialogue about this which i wouldnt construe it narrowly on ai but we need a new dialogue about strategic stability. That used to be in a world of potential for early Cyber Attacks that has strategic import or the world in which ai can escalate very quickly, up the escalation ladder. We need to be having conversations with countries like china and russia about strategic stability in an era where there is potential conflict in space, in cyber, enabled those are three specific ideas where i would start. You own the nuclear priestesshood. How is this a different conversation . Is a dual use technology, a more nuanced technology. How do you engage that dialogue internationally, how would you engage and hold that conversation . I agree with the points that were made and the dialogue discussions we have had. To answer the question, they happen bilaterally and multilaterally but we are having those discussions, giving a shout out to the state Department Family again. Every time we travel, every time i engage with my counterpart on the undersecretary level we talk about cybernorms, irresponsible behavior and ai because you are exactly right. Partners and allies looking to the United States for that leadership. They want to know what we are doing, what our private sector is doing and what our strategy is. We learn from each other. We had discussions over the counterparts with nato. We had those discussions in indo pack and i would say on the periphery they are happening because it did lead to 12 days ago to arms control interNational Security for the nonproliferation so by nature most of my counterpart to those same people and most partners, people leading the emerging Technology Many are in the same sector. You have to have increased information sharing as the secretarygeneral mentioned, we did that as an example. We did incredible work. The Intelligence Community did incredible work to share it. When we went to nato we could show this is where it was fired and where it was fired and that is an example of what we need to do with ai, we need to share information and share with our partners and need to have dialogue with competitors. The most recent example in july, in geneva on the strategic stability talks. We can have these discussions. The door is open. It was not open with china yet. The president has been clear he wants to multilateral eyes and have those discussions. We need to have talks with russia and china as well. They will be part of the solution. You brought up sharing data to change the context a little bit. Data is underpinning ai, gdp are, the privacy conversations going on in europe are going to impact europes ability to lead in ai in many ways. The chinese are collecting way more data 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 rights of privacy and the needs of the defense community. For a long time europe was not aware of the risks, europe has been a bit naive. It is necessary to focus more on what was called the strategically important sectors. This is why the European Commission introduced the screening mechanism to investigate whether potential Chinese Investment or any other Foreign Investment might be done with the intention to make strategic decisions. 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 and criticize the violation of human rights in china. Because all decisions in that theater by unanimity and theres always at least one country dependent on china that is opposed to such criticism. So europe is, i would say, more awake now still a lot to do. For instance, on 5g and huawei some European Countries have refused to cooperate with huawei. 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 did we have a dialogue about these sorts of things . You have the military civilian infusion china. I think those of general shanahan referred to may even be potentially can a canary in a e and being a concern. How do we have conversation both within the United States and outside the United States in this concept of norms and values and what that would mean to the longterm way of life that we have become so accustomed to in the free world . How does that conversation go on, and who leads it . I think at least from my perspective and andrea said as well, able to look to the United States for leadership on these issues. I think its to our advantage of this conversation and its to our advantage to leave this conversation. I think the first step of it in the norms and values space is personal to recognize thats got to be a call of every aspect frankly what were looking at in terms of Artificial Intelligence because he comes across every area which Artificial Intelligence is going to be used for the purpose of whether military or economic purposes or other aspects of it. Thats something thats got to be built in. I also think that, its not only a part of the sort of arms control in the sense, conversation having, but its also built into things like technical standards that are applied to cross ai and holsters of ranges. One way in which you have this conversation it seems to me is when youre talking about what are the standards that you apply to ai systems in the development and deployment you also want to think about so if theyre using algorithms that may be in fact, legitimizing and reinforcing biases, how do we address that in the context of the development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence . Or if were dealing with systems that have privacy information, how do we think about, i dont know if encryption or other ways to manage those types of issues in the context of what might be a broader system that also involves ai. Theres a whole series of ways in which its got to be a part of the discussion and to think its sort of, i think you cant do it in isolation around ai. Its your norms and values and whole series of scenarios to injecting into the technology piece but i think it does, there was a prior panel and i think sue gordon was talk about this. I think it is, it is, behooves us to recognize we have two very actively addressing this in a way that promotes a conversation on it they goes across the technical, the civilian and the military, all the sectors the talk about these things suggest ways. Its not just about making policymaker smart about technology. Its helping technologist get smarter about policy. If we dont start objecting conversation in this we will lose track of. Michelle, drawing a youre expecting the ut policy to think about export controlled finnic context of ai . How should we be looking at export controls as one of the tools in the toolbox for ai, or should we at all . Its a really hard question that this is where we could use the department could benefit from people doing some serious analytical work looking at alternatives. Im not a technologist but i have a hard time understanding how we would try to control algorithms. So for me alone full in the the tent is a data, and making sure particularly when it comes to military or security sphere, the data and the platforms that are going to be enabled by ai or to become autonomous or semiautonomous, to me at first blush the seem to be the primary levers and we already, we already do the second. But that first one figure out how to actually do that is important. It also ties to the broader question of how we approach a chinese or competitors money, people, et cetera, in our innovation ecosystem. My worry is, i mean, theres definitely cause for some concern, others also some substantial benefits that we reap from Certain International collaboration. Right now my concern is were taking a sledgehammer to this as when we need a a scalpel. Ill give you an example. Right now if you put a slide in front of a potential dod buyer that shows there was some chinese seed money in the company that they want to invest in, or not invest in, but to buy from, thats the mediate immedk out, forget it, no way. Whereas i think you need to draw a distinction between passive investment where its just another investor getting roi and theyre still access to nonpublic ip, no board seat, no controlling interest, nothing. Its just bloodstream of Silicon Valley. We should not give a hoot about that. Thats as using their money to our advantage, right . Its very different if its a controlling interest, if they get aboard to come access to ip. Those are the distinctions we need to be making. Similarly, yes, we need to worry about talent coming into dod funded 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 sophisticated process for doing to diligence, for vetting people, money, and so forth. On the one hand, and much more much more clear eyed perspective from academia and Silicon Valley. Lets not be naive. Theres a real concerted effort to get inside our ecosystem, but on the other hand, also realizing that without the benefit of foreign talent we dont win this race. Our strength as an immigrant nation has always been attracting the best talent in the world and keeping it. So many founders stores in Silicon Valley, so many stories of the space race, you know, how we won that and so forth. I think we have to have a very nuanced, clear eyed approach to this, and i dont think we are there yet. So with that i i mindful tht it will have 91 half more hours to go with this panel, and i could keep them up here for that whole amount of time but i butd like to open it up to questions from the audience because i think, ive got a slew of them. When at the very back, one in the middle. The first one with the mic wins. The gentleman in the back. Thank you. For all the panelists, you all serve in very senior National Security positions. One of the refrains weve seen across the Department Senior leaders to always fully understand or appreciate exactly what new technology can and cannot do. If you were to go back into come in a senior National Security position, what would you do differently to give tech a bigger seat at your decisionmaking table . The one example that we have at the state department, and just talk about evolution. I havent seen it through. I departed for a came to fruition, but many in the room received a phone call from the to get you on board. We have a security advisory board. Traditionally it has been used for arms control and nonproliferation experts. I approached the secretary roughly last year and said, i want to carve out lisa corder, possibly a third of that board for the tech industry. I want advisories, services to come in on my emerging tech whether it is ai, cyber, quantum, hypersonics, crispr, et cetera, and i said i will never have all the experts i need within the ranks of the state department. What we will within our borders, our boundaries. Most of the experts come from the outside. So that is moving along. So thats what example. If i could do it over again i would have started much sooner to get the folks on board. I hope that is one of the areas that continues beyond my legacy is to get it stood up to address emerging technologies, and hope that the high paying folks at in the private sector that want to contribute, maybe not leave the company who want to contribute will say i will come quarterly, will address them when you get a phone call from state department this is we have diplomatic challenge within ai. We are talking about norms. Setting up an International Body with a legal partners. How would you do it . Said yes, how could i help . I would say first and foremost, keep the great external advisory bodies that have been formed foreign like e Defense Innovation board. Its a treasure. Some of the best highest priced out in the nation working for free to help the department. Keep that. Dont try to disestablish it. Second, i think we need to build and more tech advisors internal to the system. Senior technologist who get a seat at some of the decisionmaking tables at dod, get a seat in the situation room when the nfc is debating an issue with huge technological elements or implications. Boot camps for staff. I would certainly try to bring in more technologies, more probably but even for the nontech staff that has to do with some of these issues, getting them smart on being at least fluent in what they are dealing with. I think about what ive learned in just the two years ive been doing the work, working with small cutting Edge CommercialTechnology Companies that want to play in the National Security space. Im only now, how aware i didnt know and still have much to learn because its a whole other world out there. We need to be looking for opportunities to provide people on the policy side with those kinds of exposure and experiences. Granted, there will never become technologist but at least build fluency, and vice versa. Avril, d. C. Ia next monday. What do you do differently . As you know, we did a number of things and made an abrupt change in less figures and make many of them are continuing and Getting Better over time. One of them was including, for example, a whole nother director on Digital Innovation that was working across the whole system and that is a part of it. But also it is and we had somebody who did this having a Senior Leader in your Senior Leadership team that is a Technology Person that is constantly injecting things into the conversation. We also had during my time sprint teams that are capable of going across agencies and the purpose to work on different issues and at the sap found that to be one of the most effective things but it is not easy to do. A lot of the challenges that i found we kept on running into in the context of developing different structural ways to improve basically the opportunity for Senior Leaders but also frankly every aspect of agencies and departments to Leverage Technology effectively have to do with Talent Management and actually have the opportunity to bring people in easily and quickly to address the issues that you thought youd be addressed. Honestly, im on a commission, a National Commission on military and National Public service, and were looking at this issue and with a lot of recommendations. Some of them i suspect will overlap with where you are on these issues, too. So really challenging space. Anders, it might not be a fair question, but if you were to be secretarygeneral again are the things you would do differently . Yeah. As secretarygeneral i established a new division called the emergency could he challenges division to do with cybersecurity and difficulty and so on. So far so good. Today i would focus much more on our Artificial Intelligence. I would create an office for Artificial Intelligence. I would provide it, or try to provide it, with a big budget, really substantial budget. I would encourage nato allies to actually within the nato framework to create a Commission Like you have, created a National Commission. I 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 decisionmaking 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 decision. Of course you would afterwards have to be accountable to the nato council, but in the future you cannot discussed at length in brussels whether you are going to counter an Artificial Intelligence attack from an adversary. You have to make immediate decisions, and we should provide authority to our military leaders to take those decisions. This is what its good for the commissioners to be on a listening tour for the last nine months, is get these ideas about maybe nato has a commission so we can make recommendations perhaps. Ive got a question at the back and then there is one over here. I think we touched briefly on gdpr, and weve had some conversations about europe may be creating a third way around ai beyond the u. S. And china. The first question is, could that be a way to attract ai practitioners to work on, for instance, nato Security Issues . And my second question is, does there need to be a third way . While be competing with our companies and say eu regulations . Why network together to create a better ai framework . Anders, i think thats all yours. I think so. I fully agree. I think your is wasting a lot of resources , europe is wasting a lot of resources and attention by attacking big american Tech Companies for dominating the european market. Europe should do much more itself in a positive and 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 i will 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 confronting 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. 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. This strategy of two legs, so, so to speak, i think could make it easier for american Tech Companies to improve their image in europe. I think ive got a question over here. Thank you. I am a professor at the 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. Theres something im writing for the World Economic forum but actually this would be a good time to run it by you guys also. To keep americas lead, the five or Six Companies that we are, google, apple, amazon, microsoft and our ai leaders, facebook and so forth, and from china, we need to have a global Ai Consortium based on oecd principles of Corporate Governance in a nutshell that shares american transparency of democracy, fairness. If we take the position to lead the consortium to create the consortium, also funded not from a u. S. And nato and other allies, we have to understand twopart solution. This is one, whoever gets to the place that only the race, but actually leading and so others follow our example. Thats one part. Case study that comes to estonia which is a European Union small eastern country that is invalid a lot of ai in society, Autonomous Cars and some other Digital Health and so forth already implemented for its european citizens. When you look at it to our countrys and models with the eye. The next auto is going to be change. If the us wants to keep it sleep we have to advance it. Thats what i wanted to run it by you guys come which are thoughts are. And i, you is creating a Global Consortium and invading it and keeping it up the advantage so theres a fairness of not only the code level, the logic level and in the data set level, not only japanese or chinese or german base corridors or american base corridors but someone that is cooperative to set a level we share what we need to share and we keep our advantage when you to keep our advantage. Thats the comet. Anybody on the panel . Thank you. Avril, you want to take this in from a standards perspective . It sounds like it might fit that scene. [laughing] sure. Its hard to react without really understanding exactly what this kind of consortium would do. I dont think that its a binary choice between either were all in and cooperating with everybody or we are, you do, sticking in her stovepipes, somewhere in between. But i do think that oecd could play a role on some aspects of ai. I dont think its the right place for everything essentially acrosstheboard. It was just depend on what the particular issues are and then getting the right people at the table on that. Anyone else want to weigh in on that one . I think were time for one more question. If there is one more quick question. If not, i get to ask it. I lost. Got one over here. Thank you for your question earlier and your answer on export control, one of my favorite topics when it comes to ai since it conjures up the 1970s image of preventing the social getting american microelectronics which didnt work out so well. From the peer competitor or adversarial perspective, 20252030 or 2035 will be really important. For the reasons individually both the chinese and russians over that time as being critical come in a in a critical inflecn point for the matching of their own military doctrinal innovations with military hardware and, therefore, the capability to execute missions that theyre building toward but have quite yet reached full capability. The russians are a little more explicit than the chinese are but, of course, everyone is aware of chinas longerterm strategy to achieve scientific, technical, financial, and also read dot mil dominus dominancea number of High Technology areas including in the 20252030 timeframe including Artificial Intelligence. Therefore from the American Perspective we have to look at the challenge from their eyes. When are they going to feel the most simple to act based on their doctrine, the military dominance in the dominance of hightech areas . Thats six use a to 16 years from now. One thing we mentioned a couple times today day but have a focus on is american demographics. Ten year old 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 Energy and math, patrick we weave a a thermal chinese tubes the private american universitys are training in the United States suggesting somehow we cant let them leave the u. S. And some are very benevolent comments tht induce people to stay or ive also heard comments from senior dod officials, people in the government now, lets not train Chinese Students in ai. Lets trained him in history archaeology and English Literature but not ai, computer science. Or liberal arts. Sorry for the long thing but its the last comment. We need to address this demographic issue in a in a ses way. Other countries do. Idf puts a lot of money into israeli high schools in grade schools. What are we going to get . Lets stick with the Tipping Point question. Go ahead. I think the time for an issue you raise is very, very important because we and our own planning and thinking and acting have to think in two time frames. One is, i think the next five to ten years where the risk of miscalculation by china or russia but particularly china in terms of underestimating our resolve and believing that it might be able to act before we fully realize the capabilities we aspire to have, that that could be a real challenge for deterrence. We need to think about what other things we can do now to show up deterrence in the near two midterm, including 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 longerterm frame of thinking the big bats we are making for the 2025 year time horizon. But on the Human Capital peace, the same thing. What are the things we should be doing now so that the kid who is in middle school or a secondary school ends up, you know, we have had the kind of s. T. E. M. Talent we need for the future, but i also think again pulling it back to the near term interim period, thinking not just about Higher Education but upscaling. We have a workforce. I know were starting to do this. Can we test people for aptitude and start upscaling the workforce 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 ecosystem and turn that into a superhighway . What are all of the different incentives, programs, efforts that we can make to do that in the near term even as we make the necessary investments in growing that talent longerterm . We really do have to challenge ourselves to think and to make different time dimensions, because the near term quicker fixes are very different than the longterm investments, and sometimes in some cases they may actually compete for resources in bandwidth as well. Unfortunately, our time is up. Its been an absolute honor for me to be on stage with this esteemed panel, so thank you all very, very much. Please join me in thanking this panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations] is again my opportunities a friend and colleague, jason would come up to close out the afternoon and the day. So stay with us. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] live coverage will continue this afternoon with acting National CounterterrorismCenter DirectorRussell Travers will talk about the Trump Administration counterterrorism policy. That will be live from the Washington Institute starting at 12 30 p. M. Eastern. Watch the cspan Networks Like next week as the House Intelligence Committee holds the first public impeachment hearings the Committee Led by chairman adam schiff will hear from three state department officials, starting wednesdayt 10 a. M. Eastern on cspan3 top u. S. Diplomat in ukraine William Taylor and Deputy Assistant secretary of state george kent will testify. Then on friday at 11 a. M. Eastern on cspan2, former u. S. Ambassador to ukraine Marie Yovanovitch will appear before the committee. Follow the impeachment inquiry live on the cspan networks, online cspan. Org or listen live with the free cspan radio app. At cspan. Org were where mt easier for you to watch cspans coverage of the impeachment inquiry and the administrations response. If you missed any of our live coverage go to our impeachment inquiry page at cspan. Org impeachment for video on demand. Weve added a tally from the Associated Press showing what each House Democrat stance on the impeachment inquiry against president trump. Follow the impeachment inquiry on our webpage at cspan. Org impeachment. Which are fast and easy way to watch cspans unfiltered coverage anytime. Sunday night on booktv at nine eastern on after words former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich with his latest book, trump versus china. I dont think the chinese have any great planning certainly in the next 20 or 25 years to try to take us on militarily in the convention, traditional sense. I do think theyre trying to build the kind of Cyber Capabilities and i think this part of where huawei is an Extraordinary National asset for them. And i think theyre trying to build a capability in space both of which have global implications. What im not optimistic about is white americas ability to see past the fiction of african americans, as latin x people, the centuries old the meaning images of people and how that has much to do with the lack of diversity. Watch booktv every weekend on cspan2. Live now to the Washington Institute for near east policy here in washington, d. C. Russell travers, acting director of the National Counterterrorism center, discusses counterterrorism policy. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] again we are waiting to hear from the acting director of the National Counterterrorism center Russell Travers who will discuss the changing terrorist landscape and some of the key issues that need to be considered. We are live from the Washington Institute for near east policy here in washington, d. C. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]