Canada is long overdue for a national climate security strategy

On the same subject

• 

  August 29, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Défense: l'armée de l’air malaisienne friande des savoir-faire français

  Par Romain Mielcarek Depuis le 19 août, un détachement de l'armée de l'air française a entamé une tournée en Asie du Sud-Est, baptisée « Pegase », pour aller à la rencontre de ses alliés de la région, dont la Malaisie. Un terrain peu familier pour des aviateurs à la recherche de nouveaux partenariats face à des menaces émergentes. De notre envoyé spécial à Kuala Lumpur, Quand deux officiers d'armées de l'air différentes se croisent, ils parlent d'abord de golf - « sport d'aviateurs » -, puis de la coupe du monde de football – victoire des tricolores oblige - et enfin de leurs avions. En la matière, les Français ont sorti le grand jeu les 24 et 25 août derniers : trois chasseurs Rafale et deux A400M de transport sont déployés sur le tarmac de la base aérienne de Subang, près de la capitale, pour séduire les Malaisiens. « Notre objectif à nous, c'est de conforter la coopération sur l'A400M », résume le général de corps aérien (2S) Patrick Charaix, chef de la mission Pegase, à propos de cette escale. Les Malaisiens ont en effet acheté quatre exemplaires de cet avion européen développé par Airbus. Particulièrement sophistiqué, celui-ci demande des méthodes de travail modernes. C'est là que la France vient aider Kuala Lumpur : un officier supérieur, spécialiste de la mécanique et de la gestion aéronautique, est présent en permanence pour conseiller l'état-major sur ses procédures et son organisation, depuis 2015. La France, premier fournisseur d'armement Située en plein cœur d'une région particulièrement courtisée du fait de la forte croissance économique de plusieurs pays, la Malaisie a besoin de renouveler une grande partie de ses équipements de défense. Ce qui tombe bien pour les Français, dont les industriels sont bien implantés sur l'archipel : ils sont le premier fournisseur d'armes de Kuala Lumpur. Par le passé, d'importants contrats ont été signés, notamment pour des sous-marins, des navires, des missiles exocet et les fameux A400M. « La grande question, décrypte Dzirhan Mahadzir, un journaliste malaisien spécialiste des questions militaires, c'est de savoir si la Malaisie a les moyens et ce que le nouveau gouvernement compte faire, celui-ci n'ayant donné aucune indication sur le sujet. Les capacités opérationnelles sont un sujet permanent, la disponibilité des matériels étant un problème récurrent d'année en année. » Un espoir pour le Rafale ? Alors pourquoi pas des Rafale ? Deux commandants d'unités malaisiens, eux-mêmes pilotes de chasse, ont été invités à tester l'avion. Un officier de leur équipe résume ainsi le dilemme de son armée, en termes d'approvisionnements : « Notre principal problème, c'est que nous avons à la fois des avions occidentaux et russes. Nous, les opérationnels, nous savons quels avions sont bons. Mais ce sont les politiques qui décident. Et eux, ils choisissent souvent ce qu'ils voient le plus. Les Typhoon par exemple, viennent tous les deux ans. » Si les opérationnels préféraient avoir un seul avion pour remplir toutes les missions et pour simplifier la logistique, les politiques gardent également un problème crucial à l'esprit : multiplier les fournisseurs, c'est éviter d'être dépendant vis-à-vis d'une seule grande puissance. Dans ce domaine, la France fait souvent valoir la grande liberté dont bénéficient ses clients, Paris évitant de se montrer trop intrusif dans leurs affaires domestiques. Le Typhoon, concurrent européen du Rafale, pourrait-il convaincre le gouvernement ? Les Russes pourraient-ils placer leur Su-35, qui a déjà convaincu en Indonésie ? Les différents observateurs restent très partagés, les uns estimant que l'avion français a toutes ses chances sur ce marché, les autres qu'il est trop tôt et que les finances de la Malaisie ne lui permettront pas un tel investissement avant de nombreuses années. Paradoxalement, c'est un cadre de chez Dassault, le fabricant de l'appareil, qui se montre le plus pessimiste : « Ça a été un vrai prospect à un moment, confie-t-il. Mais ce n'est plus le cas. Ils n'ont pas les moyens. » Article complet: http://www.rfi.fr/france/20180827-armee-air-malaisienne-friande-savoir-faire-francais-A400M-rafale-aviation-defense

• 

  February 17, 2023 | International, Land

  US State Department approves sale of HIMARS to Netherlands

  The potential sale is worth about $670 million.

• 

  January 21, 2020 | International, C4ISR

  Trustworthy AI: A Conversation with NIST's Chuck Romine

  By: Charles Romine Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to grow the economy and improve our lives, but with these benefits, it also brings new risks that society is grappling with. How can we be sure this new technology is not just innovative and helpful, but also trustworthy, unbiased, and resilient in the face of attack? We sat down with NIST Information Technology Lab Director Chuck Romine to learn how measurement science can help provide answers. How would you define artificial intelligence? How is it different from regular computing? One of the challenges with defining artificial intelligence is that if you put 10 people in a room, you get 11 different definitions. It's a moving target. We haven't converged yet on exactly what the definition is, but I think NIST can play an important role here. What we can't do, and what we never do, is go off in a room and think deep thoughts and say we have the definition. We engage the community. That said, we're using a narrow working definition specifically for the satisfaction of the Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, which makes us responsible for providing guidance to the federal government on how it should engage in the standards arena for AI. We acknowledge that there are multiple definitions out there, but from our perspective, an AI system is one that exhibits reasoning and performs some sort of automated decision-making without the interference of a human. There's a lot of talk at NIST about “trustworthy” AI. What is trustworthy AI? Why do we need AI systems to be trustworthy? AI systems will need to exhibit characteristics like resilience, security and privacy if they're going to be useful and people can adopt them without fear. That's what we mean by trustworthy. Our aim is to help ensure these desirable characteristics. We want systems that are capable of either combating cybersecurity attacks, or, perhaps more importantly, at least recognizing when they are being attacked. We need to protect people's privacy. If systems are going to operate in life-or-death type of environments, whether it's in medicine or transportation, people need to be able to trust AI will make the right decisions and not jeopardize their health or well-being. Resilience is important. An artificial intelligence system needs to be able to fail gracefully. For example, let's say you train an artificial intelligence system to operate in a certain environment. Well, what if the system is taken out of its comfort zone, so to speak? One very real possibility is catastrophic failure. That's clearly not desirable, especially if you have the AI deployed in systems that operate critical infrastructure or our transportation systems. So, if the AI is outside of the boundaries of its nominal operating environment, can it fail in such a way that it doesn't cause a disaster, and can it recover from that in a way that allows it to continue to operate? These are the characteristics that we're looking for in a trustworthy artificial intelligence system. NIST is supposed to be helping industry before they even know they needed us to. What are we thinking about in this area that is beyond the present state of development of AI? Industry has a remarkable ability to innovate and to provide new capabilities that people don't even realize that they need or want. And they're doing that now in the AI consumer space. What they don't often do is to combine that push to market with deep thought about how to measure characteristics that are going to be important in the future. And we're talking about, again, privacy, security and resilience ... trustworthiness. Those things are critically important, but many companies that are developing and marketing new AI capabilities and products may not have taken those characteristics into consideration. Ultimately, I think there's a risk of a consumer backlash where people may start saying these things are too easy to compromise and they're betraying too much of my personal information, so get them out of my house. What we can do to help, and the reason that we've prioritized trustworthy AI, is we can provide that foundational work that people in the consumer space need to manage those risks overall. And I think that the drumbeat for that will get increasingly louder as AI systems begin to be marketed for more than entertainment. Especially at the point when they start to operate critical infrastructure, we're going to need a little more assurance. That's where NIST can come together with industry to think about those things, and we've already had some conversations with industry about what trustworthy AI means and how we can get there. I'm often asked, how is it even possible to influence a trillion-dollar, multitrillion-dollar industry on a budget of $150 million? And the answer is, if we were sitting in our offices doing our own work independent of industry, we would never be able to. But that's not what we do. We can work in partnership with industry, and we do that routinely. And they trust us, they're thrilled when we show up, and they're eager to work with us. AI is a scary idea for some people. They've seen “I, Robot,” or “The Matrix,” or “The Terminator.” What would you say to help them allay these fears? I think some of this has been overhyped. At the same time, I think it's important to acknowledge that risks are there, and that they can be pretty high if they're not managed ahead of time. For the foreseeable future, however, these systems are going to be too fragile and too dependent on us to worry about them taking over. I think the biggest revolution is not AI taking over, but AI augmenting human intelligence. We're seeing examples of that now, for instance, in the area of face recognition. The algorithms for face recognition have improved at an astonishing rate over the last seven years. We're now at the point where, under controlled circumstances, the best artificial intelligence algorithms perform on par with the best human face recognizers. A fascinating thing we learned recently, and published in a report, is that if you take two trained human face recognizers and put them together, the dual system doesn't perform appreciably better than either one of them alone. If you take two top-performing algorithms, the combination of the two doesn't really perform much better than either one of them alone. But if you put the best algorithm together with a trained recognizer, that system performs substantially better than either one of them alone. So, I think, human augmentation by AI is going to be the revolution. What's next? I think one of the things that is going to be necessary for us is pulling out the desirable characteristics like usability, interoperability, resilience, security, privacy and all the things that will require a certain amount of care to build into the systems, and get innovators to start incorporating them. Guidance and standards can help to do that. Last year, we published our plan for how the federal government should engage in the AI standards development process. I think there's general agreement that guidance will be needed for interoperability, security, reliability, robustness, these characteristics that we want AI systems to exhibit if they're going to be trusted. https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/trustworthy-ai-conversation-nists-chuck-romine