April 26, 2021 | International, Aerospace
September 26, 2018 | International, C4ISR
Members of Congress look to make AI a priority
By: Jessie Bur
Congress and the executive branch need to make a more concerted effort to address and prepare for the rise of artificial intelligence, Reps. Will Hurd, R-Texas, and Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said in a white paper released Sept. 25.
The congressmen, who serve as the chairman and ranking member of the House IT Subcommittee, compiled information gathered in past congressional hearings and meetings with experts to argue for the criticality of federal input in the many facets of AI.
“In light of that potential for disruption, it's critical that the federal government address the different challenges posed by AI, including its current and future applications. The following paper presents lessons learned from the Subcommittee's oversight and hearings on AI and sets forth recommendations for moving forward,” Hurd and Kelly wrote.
“Underlying these recommendations is the recognition the United States cannot maintain its global leadership in AI absent political leadership from Congress and the executive branch. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends increased engagement on AI by Congress and the administration.”
According to the White Paper, under current trends the United States is soon slated to be outpaced in research and development investments by countries like China that have prioritized artificial intelligence investment.
“Particularly concerning is the prospect of an authoritarian country, such as Russia or China, overtaking the United States in AI. As the Subcommittee's hearings showed, AI is likely to have a significant impact in cybersecurity, and American competitiveness in AI will be critical to ensuring the United States does not lose any decisive cybersecurity advantage to other nation-states,” Hurd and Kelly wrote.
Hurd characterized the Chinese investment in AI as a race with the U.S.
“It's a race, we all know this, and one of the things we need [is] a national strategy, similar to what we've seen in the conversations around quantum computing yesterday at the White House. What we saw almost a decade ago when it came to nanotechnology. And part of that strategy does include increasing basic research, opening up data sets and making sure the U.S. is playing a part, leader on ethics when it comes to artificial intelligence,” said Hurd in a Sept. 25 press call.
The paper applauded current investments in R&D, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's creation of the Artificial Intelligence Exploration program, and encouraged government hosting more “Grand Challenges” like those conducted by DARPA to encourage outside-government innovation.
“I do believe the federal government has a role, because we're sitting on data sets that could be used as a backbone of a Grand Challenge around artificial intelligence,” said Hurd, who added that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, healthcare agencies and many other components of the federal government possess the data to administer meaningful AI competitions.
“I think this would be a maybe a great opportunity for a public private partnership,” added Kelly on the press call.
The paper also identified four primary challenges that can arise as AI becomes more prevalent: workforce, privacy, bias and malicious use.
AI has the potential to both put portions of the workforce out of a job as more tasks become automated and increase the number of jobs for those trained to work with artificial intelligence.
Hurd and Kelly called on the federal government to lead the way in adapting its workforce by planning for and investing in training programs that will enable them to transition into AI work.
As with many technologies, AI has the potential to infringe on privacy, as intelligent products or systems such as virtual assistants constantly collect data on individuals. That data could be exploited by both the company that created the technology and hackers looking to steal personal information.
“The growing collection and use of personal data in AI systems and applications raises legitimate concerns about privacy. As such, federal agencies should review federal privacy laws, regulations, and judicial decisions to determine how they may already apply to AI products within their jurisdiction, and—where necessary—update existing regulations to account for the addition of AI,” Hurd and Kelly wrote.
The white paper also calls on federal agencies to make government data more available to the public for AI experimentation, while also ensuring that any AI algorithms used by agencies to “make consequential decisions about individuals” are “inspectable” to ensure that they operate without coded bias.
According to Hurd, the question of whether and how that inspectable information would be made available to the public still needs to be asked.
Finally, Hurd and Kelly called on government entities to consider how AI may be used to perpetuate cyber attacks or otherwise cause harm.
However, while recommending that agencies look to existing regulation and statute and some limited changes to those statutes, the paper encouraged a similar hands off approach that the federal government took to the development of the internet.
“The government should begin by first assessing whether the risks to public safety or consumers already fall within existing regulatory frameworks and, if so, consideration should be made as to whether those existing frameworks can adequately address the risks,” Hurd and Kelly wrote.
“At minimum, a widely agreed upon standard for measuring the safety and security of AI products and applications should precede any new regulations. A common taxonomy also would help facilitate clarity and enable accurate accounting of skills and uses of AI.”
On the same subject
-
-
June 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace
Keep modernization of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program on track
By: Former U.S. Air Force secretaries and chiefs of staff In 1959, the U.S. Air Force deployed its first intercontinental ballistic missile at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. A year later, the Navy deployed its first submarine-launched ballistic missile aboard the submarine George Washington. These systems, together with the Air Force's nuclear-capable bomber force, formed the United States' nuclear deterrence capability, which came to be known as the “triad.” The triad has been the foundation of U.S. national security policy for over 60 years, providing stability to America's global military operations and diplomacy efforts. The triad — and the security umbrella it extends to our allies and partners — has fostered decades of peace and prosperity. Nuclear deterrence has successfully prevented crises from escalating to conflicts and promoted cooperation and diplomacy in resolving disputes. Today, nuclear deterrence is more important than ever, which is why we must prioritize efforts to modernize the triad. Throughout the Cold War and into the 21st century, military and political leaders have worked together to maintain a credible, safe and reliable nuclear deterrence capability. As technologies and threats evolve, so has the triad. Over the years, each leg has been modernized several times. Currently, the Air Force is developing the B-21 long-range strike bomber, which will enter service later this decade, and the Navy is replacing its fleet of ballistic missile submarines with the Columbia class, scheduled to begin patrols in 2031. A replacement is also needed for the Minuteman ICBM system, which first entered service in 1962 and has been upgraded and extended 40 years beyond its original service life. In 2010, after affirming the importance of maintaining a land-based leg, the Obama administration initiated the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, a modern ICBM system that will improve reliability, lower operational costs, and respond to current and future threats. The Air Force will soon begin work on GBSD, which will enter service in 2029. Over 10 years of planning have led to this goal, with the program's necessity validated by two presidential administrations, six congresses and six secretaries of defense. ICBMs are an integral part of the triad, providing complementary capabilities to the sea-based and bomber legs that enhance our overall deterrence posture. For example, land-based missiles are the most robust and stabilizing leg of the triad. Consisting of 400 active, hardened missile launch facilities on sovereign U.S. soil and dispersed over 30,000 square miles, ICBMs pose a nearly insurmountable obstacle to those who wish us harm. They prevent any rational adversary from credibly threatening or confidently planning a strike. Failing to adequately maintain the land-based leg of the triad by fully funding the GBSD would threaten strategic stability and make remaining U.S. nuclear forces more vulnerable. America's ICBM force is both affordable and cost-effective — it features the lowest annual sustainment and recapitalization costs compared to the other two legs. It is vital the nation maintain its nuclear force posture, which has acted as a stabilizing element of global security for decades. Modernizing the triad is no small undertaking, and our current modernization efforts are the result of decades of careful planning and bipartisan support. Stewardship is handed down from one set of leaders to the next, and in this critical moment of transition it is imperative our current leaders keep these modernization programs on track. We strongly recommend that members of Congress support moving ahead with the GBSD program so it can join the other legs in providing effective deterrence for decades to come. The contributors to this commentary are: Former U.S. Air Force Secretaries Sheila Widnall, Whitten Peters, James Roche, Michael Wynne, Michael Donley and Deborah Lee James, as well as former U.S. Air Force Chiefs of Staff Gen. Larry Welch, Gen. Merrill McPeak, Gen. Ronald Fogleman, Gen. Michael Ryan, Gen. John Jumper and Gen. T. Michael Moseley. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/19/keep-modernization-of-the-ground-based-strategic-deterrent-program-on-track/
-
August 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace
Europe’s next-gen fighter club faces a dilemma: Who else can join?
By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — With mainland Europe and the United Kingdom pursuing their own sixth-generation fighter programs, differing views have started to emerge about how many nations should partake in the action. At issue is whether the British Tempest and the German-French-Spanish Future Combat Air System can coexist in the long run without cannibalizing the continent's defense budget. What's more, while leaders in the U.K. have openly advertised their appetite to pick up partner countries for Tempest, Paris and Berlin are divided about admitting additional members, besides Spain, for fear of slowing down their effort. German defense officials early this year told Bundestag lawmakers they consider it risky to keep the circle of participants too small because team Tempest could go around snagging up contributors, though that concern has yet to bear out. To Dirk Hoke, the CEO of Airbus Defence and Space, the issue comes down to the budget. His company is the co-lead for the FCAS program along with France's Dassault Aviation. Notably, the French have the lead for the Next-Generation Fighter, envisioned as the central aircraft for the larger program of supporting drones and command-and-control equipment. “Europe can't afford two new systems,” Hoke said in a virtual panel discussion organized by a German defense industry lobbying association. That is especially the case, he argued, because a competition between the U.K. and members of the European Union would reinforce the perception that Britain's divorce from the bloc has weakened the intra-continental defense alliance — a notion that leaders on both sides of the Channel have been trying to dispel. Finding a way to merge FCAS and Tempest should become a top priority for decision-makers once a Brexit agreement on future trade and defense relations is in the bag, according to Hoke. Until then, he said, “we simply have to be patient.” In order to be prepared for “an opportunity to negotiate at eye level,” both projects should continue to work through their technology development so that eventual touchpoints for cooperation are already far along, he explained. In contrast, Dassault Aviation CEO Eric Trappier has urged caution when it comes to broadening the FCAS circle too soon. “I don't know if there won't be some new partners in the future,” he said during a company earnings call late last month. “We must not exclude them.” Noting that Spain already was admitted to the program after Germany and France had kicked it off, Trappier said the companies involved were still learning to work together. “We have to get to know each other and share our work together,” he said. “If we change partners every six months, I can tell you that we will not reach 2040,” he added, referring to the envisioned in-service date for the futuristic weapon. The next big milestone for the program is fielding a demonstrator aircraft in 2026. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/08/17/europes-next-gen-fighter-club-faces-a-dilemma-who-else-can-join