Patrick Tucker had a thought-provoking article he posted on the November 1, 2017 online edition of DefenseOne.com, on Google Founder Eric Schmidt’s outlook on the future of artificial intelligence (AI). Mr. Tucker begins by noting that in April this year, “Eric Schmidt watched a computer program defeat China’s top Go Player, in a ground-breaking match” in the Chinese city of Wuzhen. Mr. Schmidt was struck less by the considerable innovations displayed by humans and machine — than by the audience,” Mr. Tucker wrote. “To me, the more interesting thing [was that] all the top computer science people in China had shown up,” Mr. Schmidt remarked.
“It showed,” Schmidt said, “the importance placed on AI development by both the Chinese government and the people; and, was a postcard from the future competition for AI dominance.”
“I’m assuming our [U.S.] lead will continue over the next five years; and then, that China will catch up extremely quickly,” Mr. Schmidt told the Center for New American Security’s Paul Scharre, at the Artificial Intelligence & Global Security Summit, held on November 1, 2017, in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Tucker notes that “in July [2017], China unveiled a massive national plan for the future of AI, to guide both commercial, and military [weapons] development. China’s timeline, caught Mr. Schmidt’s attention,” Mr. Tucker wrote. “By 2020, they will have caught up. By 2025, they will be better than us. By 2030, they will dominate the industries,” Mr. Schmidt predicts/warns.
“For Mr. Schmidt, the take home was clear,” Mr. Tucker wrote. “We need to get our act together as a country….This is the moment when the [U.S.] government collectively, and private industry needs to say, “these technologies are important.” I would say, a national security priority, or imperative.
But, Mr. Schmidt told the audience that the Trump administration was not only not placing enough emphasis on this strategically important domain; but, some administration efforts/decisions had actually been counterproductive with respect to our AI progress. For example, he pointed out that: “Trump’s budget request slashes funds for basic science and research by $4.3B, roughly 13 percent compared to 2016. {The POTUS’s military budget does increase [AI] funding for basic science and research; but, only by $117 million). While there are lots of private and corporate money going into AI research, those funds [efforts] do not guarantee [an AI] advantage on a national level,” Mr. Tucker wrote.
“It feels, as an American, that we are fighting this conflict with one arm behind our back. What I would rather do is not adopt the Chinese policies; but…..fund basic [AI] research. The Trump budget [POTUS] does reduce that. It’s the wrong direction,” Mr. Schmidt said.
We May Need A ‘Sputnik’ Type Of Wake-Up Call On AI — But, It May Not Come Till It Is Too Late
Mr. Schmidt is a known critic of POTUS Trump, so his criticism of the president on this issue is somewhat compromised. And, I wonder if Mr. Schmidt is doing anything to support America’s basic AI research, beyond what Google/Alphabet is doing? Is he just criticizing this administration’s AI approach, and waving a red flag? It would seem to me that if he really feels this way, he has the personal wealth to do more than just rant about it….but, I do not know what, if anything he has done and is doing with respect to AI funding and research beyond what Google/Alphabet is doing. Having said that….
There is no question that America must not lose the AI race — it is way too important, economically and militarily. Whether we need a Manhattan Project-like effort is a question I cannot answer. But, there is no question that China sees the national security implications of AI; and, Beijing is making a very aggressive and ambitious push to become the world’s AI alpha male. Much as the U.S.’s pursuit of an atomic bomb was not without peer competitors — the race to be the leader in the militarization of AI is not without competitors; and, it is not a given that the U.S. will win. The United States has always emphasized technological superiority as a major key to protecting the homeland and our allies; and most importantly, using technological and capability surprise to win on the battlefield; and, ultimately defeat any and all adversaries. If there is one area that is ripe for strategic and capability surprise, AI would be the poster child.
Just how far China’s AI efforts have progressed, is a matter of debate; and, depending on who you ask — China is either mimicking what the U.S. does — or, is beginning to establish itself as a potential Pier 1 competitor in this field. The truth, is probably somewhere in between. “The Chinese leadership is increasingly thinking about how to ensure they are competitive in the next wave of technologies,” said Adam Segal, a specialist in emerging technologies, and national security at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Last August, the New York Times noted, “the state-run, China Daily reported that the country had embarked on the development of a cruise missile with a “high level” of AI. The new system appears to be a response to a missile the U.S. Navy is expected to deploy in 2018 to counter China’s,” anti-access/anti-denial strategy in the Pacific, as well as Beijing’s increasingly aggressive military posture vis-a-vis the disputed island chain near Japan and the Philippines. And, China isn’t the only potential U.S. adversary who is making an aggressive push in AI research…..Russia, for one.
Andrew Ng, Chief Scientist at Biadu, said “the United States may be too myopic and self-confident to understand [and fully appreciate] the speed of the Chinese competition,” in the AI domain. “There are many occasions of something being simultaneously invented in China, or elsewhere, or being invented first in China; and then later, making it overseas,” he added. “But then, the U.S. media reports only on the U.S. version. This leads to a misperception [and hubris] of those ideas having first been invented in the United States.”
The warning that both China and Russia, among others, are making substantial gains in the AI domain isn’t new; but, whether the U.S. has a well thought out, comprehensive, and holistic strategy remains elusive. Last August, the Defense Science Board (DSB) published a study on the state of AI — with respect to our adversaries and near peers. The comprehensive study issued a clarion call to the DoD and the U.S. national security establishment: The DSB concluded that “Immediate Action is required to counter enemy AI,” which is advancing faster than many expected, or appreciate.
To counter this emerging threat, the DSB recommended that: The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) raise the priority of intelligence collection and analysis for foreign autonomous systems. Additionally, the DSB recommended that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, USD(AT&L) gather together a community of researchers to run tests, and scenarios — to discover counter-autonomy technologies,m surrogates, and solutions.” How much progress, if any, the Pentagon has made in their AI efforts since this DSB report was published is probably not much/disappointing. But, I am willing to be pleasantly surprised.
Artificial Intelligence And The Future Of War
There are few subjects that can stir the imagination more so than AI. Almost everyday, there are articles by very bright people — who peer into the future and see AI and its use in vastly different scenarios. Notable visionaries such as billionaire Elon Musk and legendary theoretical physicist and cosmologist Dr. Stephen Hawking have been ‘pounding the table,’ and warning that “autonomous weapons will become the Kalishnikovs of tomorrow,” in reference to the Soviet AK-47 automatic rifle which has become the most popular and prolific assault rifle of all time. Others see a potential “terminator,” or something akin to the Hal 9000 in Stanley Kubrick’s film classic — “2001: A Space Odyssey,” where the computer/AI robot Hal — takes over the spacecraft and ‘kills’ one astronaut and nearly a second.
On the other side of the argument from Musk and Hawking, are individuals like Andrew Ng, Chief Scientist at Baidu Research in Silicon Valley, and a Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University who has stated that “worrying about killer robots is like worrying about over-population on Mars.” In other words, those who are sounding the clarion call on AI’s potential threat — are over-estimating, and over-hyping the threat that AI can and will pose in the not too distant future on the ‘fields of battle.’
Somewhere in between these two views is where the truth and AI’s future probably lay; but, there is no doubt that AI is one of those domains where capability and strategic surprise are lurking. And, it is really important that the DSB gave this emerging domain and threat some serious thought.
I have questioned in this blog many times — about what the adversary and near-peers were doing in this area. Are we the world’s AI leader? If so, by how much? If not, who is in the lead? What are the trends showing? Is there any indication or evidence that Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc., have a Manhattan-type project underway in an attempt to leap-ahead of everyone else? How soon do we think that AI will have more than a minimal role in future combat? How could the Islamic States of the future and the darker angels of our nature use AI in ways we cannot presently envision or understand? Could AI become the ‘nuclear weapon’ of the 2030’s/2040s, or sooner?
And perhaps most importantly — does it matter if China does pass us? Is this domain the equivalent of developing and using the atomic bomb in 1945? It would have been interesting and useful if Mr. Schmidt had offered some thoughts on these questions. Having said that, I do not know if we actually are confident in the answers we do have, much less the ones we don’t. V/R, RCP
No comments:
Post a Comment