\u00a0ILLUSTRATIVE IMAGE<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Submitted by Dr. Binoy Kampmark The ghost of Edward Teller must have been doing the rounds between members of the National Commission on Artificial Intelligence.\u00a0 The father of the hydrogen bomb was\u00a0never one too bothered<\/a>\u00a0by the ethical niggles that came with inventing murderous technology.\u00a0 It was not, for instance, \u201cthe scientist\u2019s job to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be constructed, whether it should be used, or how it should be used.\u201d\u00a0 Responsibility, however exercised, rested with the American people and their elected officials.<\/p>\n The application of AI in military systems has plagued the ethicist but excited certain leaders and inventors.\u00a0 Russian President Vladimir Putin has grandiloquently\u00a0asserted<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cit would be impossible to secure the future of our civilization\u201d without a mastery of artificial intelligence, genetics, unmanned weapons systems and hypersonic weapons.<\/p>\n Campaigners against the use of autonomous weapons systems in war have been growing in number.\u00a0 The UN Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres is one of them.\u00a0 \u201cAutonomous machines with the power and discretion to select targets and take lives without human involvement,\u201d he\u00a0wrote<\/a>\u00a0on Twitter in March 2019, \u201care politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law.\u201d\u00a0 The International Committee for Robot Arms Control, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and Human Rights Watch are also\u00a0dedicated to banning<\/a>\u00a0lethal autonomous weapons systems.\u00a0 Weapons analysts such as Zachary Kallenborn see that absolute position as untenable,\u00a0preferring<\/a>\u00a0a more modest ban on \u201cthe highest-risk weapons: drone swarms and autonomous chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons\u201d.<\/p>\n The critics of such weapons systems were far away in the Commission\u2019s\u00a0draft report<\/a>\u00a0for Congress.\u00a0 The document has more than a touch of the mad scientist in the bloody service of a master.\u00a0 This stood to reason, given its chairman was Eric Schmidt, technical advisor to Alphabet Inc., parent company of Google, which he was formerly CEO of.\u00a0 With Schmidt holding the reins, we would be guaranteed a show shorn of moral restraint.\u00a0 \u201cThe AI promise \u2013 that a machine can perceive, decide, and act more quickly, in a more complex environment, with more accuracy than a human \u2013 represents a competitive advantage in any field.\u00a0 It will be employed for military ends, by governments and non-state groups.\u201d<\/p>\n In his\u00a0testimony<\/a>\u00a0before the\u00a0Senate Armed Services Committee<\/a>\u00a0on February 23, Schmidt was all about \u201cfundamentals\u201d in keeping the US ascendant.\u00a0 This involved preserving national competitiveness and shaping the military with those fundamentals in mind.\u00a0 But to do so required keeping the eyes of the security establishment wide open for any dangerous competitor.\u00a0 (Schmidt understands Congress well enough to know that spikes in funding and outlays tend to be attached to the promotion of threats.)\u00a0 He sees \u201cthe threat of Chinese leadership in key technology areas\u201d as \u201ca national crisis\u201d.\u00a0 In terms of AI, \u201conly the United States and China\u201d had the necessary \u201cresources, commercial might, talent pool, and innovation ecosystem to lead the world\u201d.\u00a0 Within the next decade, Beijing could even \u201csurpass the United States as the world\u2019s AI superpower.\u201d<\/p>\n The testimony is generously spiked with the China threat thesis.\u00a0 \u201cNever before in my lifetime,\u201d he claimed, \u201chave I been more worried that we will soon be displaced by a rival or more aware of what second place means for our economy, our security, and the future of our nation.\u201d\u00a0 He feared that such worries were not being shared by officials, with the DoD treating \u201csoftware as a low priority\u201d.\u00a0 Here, he could give advice on lessons learned in the spawning enterprises of Silicon Valley, where the principled live short lives.\u00a0 Those dedicated to defence could \u201cform smart teams, drive hard deliverables, and move quickly.\u201d\u00a0 Missiles, he argued, should be built \u201cthe way we now build cars: use a design studio to develop and simulate in software.\u201d<\/p>\n This all meant necessarily praising a less repressible form of AI to the heavens, notably in its military applications.\u00a0 Two days of public discussion saw the panel\u2019s vice chairman Robert Work\u00a0extol the virtues<\/a>\u00a0of AI in battle.\u00a0 \u201cIt is a moral imperative to at least pursue this hypothesis\u201d claiming that \u201cautonomous weapons will not be indiscriminate unless we design them that way.\u201d\u00a0 The devil is in the human, as it has always been.<\/p>\n In a manner reminiscent of the debates about sharing atomic technology in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Committee urges that the US \u201cpursue a comprehensive strategy in close coordination with our allies and partners for artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and adoption that promotes values critical to free and open societies.\u201d\u00a0 A proposed Emerging Technology Coalition of likeminded powers and partners would focus on the role of \u201cemerging technologies according to democratic norms and values\u201d and \u201ccoordinate policies to counter the malign use of these technologies by authoritarian regimes\u201d.\u00a0 Fast forgotten is the fact that distinctions such as authoritarianism and democracy have little meaning at the end of a weapon.<\/p>\n Internal changes are also suggested to ruffle a few feathers.\u00a0 The US State Department comes in for special mention as needing reforms.\u00a0 \u201cThere is currently no clear lead for emerging technology policy or diplomacy within the State Department, which hinders the Department\u2019s ability to make strategic technology decisions.\u201d\u00a0 Allies and partners were confused when approaching the State Department as to \u201cwhich senior official would be their primary point of contact\u201d for a range of topics, be they AI, quantum computing, 5G, biotechnology or new emerging technologies.<\/p>\n Overall, the US government comes in for a battering, reproached for operating \u201cat human speed not machine speed.\u201d\u00a0 It was lagging relative to commercial development of AI.\u00a0 It suffered from \u201ctechnical deficits that range from digital workforce shortages to inadequate acquisition policies, insufficient network architecture, and weak data practices.\u201d<\/p>\n The\u00a0official Pentagon policy<\/a>, as it stands, is that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons systems should be \u201cdesigned to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force.\u201d\u00a0 In October 2019, the Department of Defence adopted various ethical principles regarding the military use of AI, making the DoD Artificial Intelligence Centre the focal point.\u00a0 These\u00a0include<\/a>\u00a0the provision that, \u201cDoD personnel will exercise appropriate levels of judgment and care, while remaining responsible for the development, deployment, and use of AI capabilities.\u201d\u00a0 The \u201ctraceable\u201d principle is also shot through with the principle of human control, with personnel needing to \u201cpossess an appropriate understanding of the technology, development processes, and operational methods applicable to AI capabilities\u201d.<\/p>\n The National Commission pays lip service to such protocols, acknowledging that operators, organisations and \u201cthe American people\u201d would not support AI machines not \u201cdesigned with predictability\u201d and \u201cclear principles\u201d in mind.\u00a0 But the note of warning in not being too morally shackled becomes a screech.\u00a0 Risk was \u201cinescapable\u201d and not using AI \u201cto solve real national security challenges risks putting the United States at a disadvantage\u201d.\u00a0 Especially when it comes to China.<\/p>\n![\"War](\"https:\/\/southfront.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/13971202000535_PhotoI.jpg\" "\\"War")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/em>South Front<\/p>\n