Artificial intelligence and the role of the United States. On stage. To my immediate left, is andrea thompson. She was the former under secretary of state for arms control. She was the National Security advisor to the Vice President and most importantly, 25 years of service flying in combat zones and served your country nobly. I am thrilled to see my old friend here. As many of you know, she was the former deputy National Security advisory advisor. She was the Deputy Director of the cia. She is currently at columbia university. The underus today is secretary of defense for policy. She was the cofounder and ceo and is the cofounder and managing partner at west exec advisors. Who are helping a lot of small companies. Openingd to make remarks. I will keep them brief because we have had a long day and we have covered a lot of ground. I think we have talked about research, applications, talent. This notion of the Global Positioning or the geostrategic positioning is one that is really founded on the notion of norms and values and the way Democratic Free societies are going to embrace these forms and values. We are going to talk a little bit more about that. Development in ai , the advantages that will be attained through ai, cannot be separated from the emerging strategic competition that we have with china and russia. Are of these challenges never going to go away. At least not in our lifetimes. There is a router geopolitical landscape that we need to talk about a router geological geopolitical landscape that we need to talk about. 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. Reinforce theould initial judgments that were made by this particular group. The first one is the need to foster Cooperation Amongst the u. S. Allies and partners in doing so will be essential to redeeming a longterm competitiveness competitive advantage. The second is this notion that the u. S. And allies should seek to preserve existing advantages in airelated hardware. We have talked a lot about software but the software has to run on something. Ai presents significant challenges for military interoperability. The United States and its allies, if they do not coordinate early and often on ai , the effectiveness of this combined military coalition will suffer. Also be open to possible cooperation with russia and china on issues of mutual strategic interest, such as promoting ai safety, we will talk about more, and managing the impact on strategic stability. I think within a group like this, we often think about the military applications but those in the private sector would agree that we are looking at ai for things like health, climate, and a number of problems that mankind faces. The United States should lead in establishing a positive agenda for cooperation with all nations that promise to benefit humanity. With those judgments being so red, i think i would like to open it up to the panel to give their thoughts on what dr. Kissinger was teasing at, this notion that ai is the philosophical challenge of our generation. When it comes to negotiating treaties and engaging in agreements around ai, trying to do that with such a complex nuanced technology. Andrea, why dont you start . Thank you to the commission. Mcguire, ahris little shout out to my former team. Commentsike to echo about the work of the commission. If you have not read the report read the report. What is the next thing . What are we missing . We need to implement the things we have already raised. If we can raise half of those make half of those come to fruition, we will defeat china. This is what i have seen over the last few years at the state department, meeting with partners and allies, talking about ai and cyber and other emerging technologies. It comes back to people and processes and partners. We have talked about software. About processes. We will also talk about partners. We are facing these common concerns. Our 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. It are notles behind new. We saw it with cyber. The foundational elements are the same. We need to integrate what we have already been talking about. Thanks to the commission. Not an engineer but when president putin stated that Artificial Intelligence is the future and whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world. He caught my attention. He demonstrates why it is so essential that america is the leader. American National Security is strongly linked to strong partnerships and alliances. Leadership ofs the whole free world. Against that backdrop, i would like to make three points. What we need is what i would the alliance of democracies. Leadracies must be in the to be sure we set the right norms and standards. Leading up to the principles upon which we have built our free society. Realize that Artificial Intelligence is an integrated part of our National Security. Corporationng between cooperation between government, industry, and academia and i do not share the skeptics space view who are reluctant to cooperate with the government. A strongnot have cooperation between the private sector and government, the chinese will be the winners. It is as easy as that. In those bigees Tech Companies want to make sure that it is their ideas that will be the winners, they also need to cooperate with the government. Patrioticll it our duty to cooperate. I this respect, by the way, would like to thank you very. Uch for your work of gettingme example Artificial Intelligence right. We need much more of that and we need much more of that in europe. A stronger transatlantic cooperation. We should stop the fight between europe and america. There is too much at stake. Hat we need is cooperation moree must do much constructively, increase its own investments. The European Union should. Ncrease funds the European Defense fund was established a couple of years ago. It is only around 600 million a year. It is tiny compared to what the chinese invest in this area. Gradually, nato allies are investing in defense. In 2014, we decided that within the next decades, all allies will invest at least 2 of gdp in defense. At that time, only three would fit that criteria. By the end of this year, eight countries will do it. To his credit, President Trump has done a lot to raise awareness of the 2 . There is another goal that is equally important. Namely, 20 . According to nato standards, nato allies should devote at of their defense investments to investments in equipment and development. That needs to be raised. The u. S. Currently spends an amount of 27 of its defense investing in equipment and research and development. Why not raise that figure 230 . For all allies race that to 30 . I would encourage more president ial tweets on the 30 . [laughter] final point, we need to strengthen nato. We also need an awareness in the United States to take leadership in sharing data and intelligence. And i speak based on my sometimes, the United States is to reluctant to share data and share intelligence with other allies. If the United States does not share data and intelligence, and Technology Technology logical Technological Progress with its allies, we will have growing interoperability problems. Reste u. S. Is here and the is here, we cannot cooperate. We can strengthen the alliance. You should do what you can through American Leadership to get other allies to increase the investment in Artificial Intelligence. Fundso need figure nato vigor nato funds to invest in technology. , as such, only devotes million u. S. Dollars a year for investment in equipment. I do believe that we would make a leap forward if we devote more resources for nato common funding of artificial hightechce and other investments. Up we should speed decisionmaking processes in nato. Nato spent six months to make that decision. Responsibility for the operations in libya, we spent six days. In the future, i think we will have maximum, six minutes. Ambassadors cannot discuss this at length in brussels. We have to speed up the decisionmaking processes. Remark will be, i think the u. S. Should take leadership in preparing international useentions to regulate the and production of Artificial Intelligence. We might risk the autocracies would misuse it and a way we cannot accept. I know this will be at 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 . Staying for the 3 45 p. M. Panel. You sent us off on this idea of reacting in a way to kissingers comments. Think iterspective, i is an interesting question of, right now, we see autocratic governments using Artificial Intelligence in ways that are helpful to them, to achieve their own agenda. In some context, that is weaponization of information or bolstering surveillance. We know Artificial Intelligence can be used in other ways, to bolster our own agenda, and we are not investing enough and we are not keeping up with the competition to do that and to push back. Overall, i would say the purpose of or strategy would be one that should be focused on the prosperity of our own systems on our security and on promoting our values and pushing back where and pushing back. If that is what we are trying to achieve in terms of the overall , i think the worth diggingis into is how do you achieve those things most effectively with a strategy internationally . How do we promote the kind of International Landscape that helps us to do that . That is about cooperation and coordination but it is more than that. It is about shaping the development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence more generally. I believe that, as the secretary general noted, there are a series of ways you can do that. We ares no question stronger when we are working with our allies and partners, certainly to push back against russia and china, a variety of others, but to begin to shape that environment. It comes in a whole series of different areas and the commission can do a lot of good by mapping those out. There is the question of building up norms and standards, which are things that are talked about in the interim report. There are series of ways in which you can do that. I would not recommend going out and trying to negotiate a treaty at this moment. I do not think that is the most effective way. But i do think, having discussions internationally, what are the things that are acceptable . What is in the gray area . I think the question of developing standards and thinking about them through the lens of safety, trust, trying to develop those types of things anally doing it International Body where they can have a production productive conversation about this, deciding whether you want a thirdparty mechanism. Thinking about how it is you provide some accountability for not dealing with those standards. All of those things are things you might want to do. You want to set up International Structures in terms of anization and organization. You do not have to remake the wheel but you have to identify who is going to be doing the collaborating and how you will establish those collaborating relationships. Should it be done on a bilateral basis . A multilateral basis . How do you want to think about the defense pieces . This will not be in one place. Those are the kinds of things that can be easily thought of in the context of the work you are and allrying to promote of these different areas that are integrated work that needs to be done. I think you have been hearing about the strategic and profound implications of the ai outetition and how it comes economically, politically, and militarily in terms of balance of power. What i would focus my three points on, the importance of marrying whatever we are doing in muchevelopment of ai larger frame of American Leadership and leveraging our allies as truly strategic and unique sources. One of the mistakes we have made so far in the competition with na [indiscernible] the coalition of likeminded democracy, which includes the richest countries of the world and that we together as democracies across north america, europe and asia, if we really go out this together, we could be a much more competitive with visavis china. Rule for allirst of us is to the best way to shore up our competitiveness is to invest in the drivers of that competitiveness at home. Research and development, cyber technology, access to higher education, 21st century infrastructure, smart immigration policy. Is a moonshot moment for all of the democracies. We are not acting like it. I think the National Security apparatus is awake but our societies have not been inspired to the kinds of publicprivate collaboration that we will need to be successful. , the united us states and democratic allies, that lead the development of the norms. Wererinciples on ai that offered are a great place to start. There is a lot of great work being done out in industry. I think we are in a 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 can build that International Consensus and create buyin, you have the basis for pushing back on behaviors that violate those norms and imposing consequences for those violations. I do think it is important to be reaching out to china and russia to have a dialogue about this. I would not construe it narrowly. We need a new dialogue about strategic stability. That used to be the realm of nuclear priesthood. In a world for potential early Cyber Attacks that have strategic import, in the world in which ai can which ai can ity speedte very quickly the of up the escalation ladder, we need to be having conversations with countries like china and russia about wil. Egic instability will and using cyber. Specific threats wree ideas. Andrea, you own the priesthood. Technology. Fferent absolutely. We need to be having those conversations. A state a shout onto the state Department Family again. Travelime we, if my partner is undersecretary level we talk about cyber behavior and ai. You are right. Partners are looking to the United States for that leadership. They want to know what private sector is doing. So, we have had those discussions. Those discussions with counterparts, with nato. We have had those discussions up at the u. N. Those discussions are happening, but i would say on the periphery. They are happening because they do lead, they did lead to arms. Ontrol leading the who are technology field, many of them are leaving in that same sector. Informationhave sharing. Theres the partisan take with the inf. They did incredible work. We can share it beyond the five i so with could say, this is when it was fired, this is why it was fired. And, yes julyost recent date was in. We can have these, folks. We can have these discussions. Clear hedent has been wants to multilateral lives and have these discussions. We need to have these talks with russia and china as well. You brought up sharing data. Data is underlying and the discussions we are having in will impact europes ability to lead in ai in many ways. Leaving leading. Where are they going to draw the line between the right to privacy and the needs of the and thecommunity military community . Time, i would say, europe has not been aware of the strategic risks. Europe has been a bit naive. Aybe but recently europe has realized to focus more on what is being called strategically important sectors. This is why the European Union socalleduced the screening mechanism to investigate with potential Chinese Investment or any other. Oreign investment it might be done with the strategicto make decisions let me mention of concrete example. They have considerations, a Portuguese Energy plants. This wherereated eastern, andhe countryow focus on the in economic need. They offer their money, and we have seen how the European Union has been faced with increasing problems in criticizing the violation of human rights. And they are always, at least , that is opposed to criticism. Europe is more awake now. But there is still a lot to do. Some European Countries have refused to cooperate. Reluctant. More i would prefer a common european approach. Share their concerns. O, it is a mixed picture how do we have a dialogue around these things . You have the militarycivilian fusion in china. Canary in the coal mines and being of concern. How do we have a conversation in the United States about norms and values and what that would ofn to the longterm way life we have become so accustomed to in the free world . How does that go on and who leads it . People do look to the United States for leadership on these issues. It is to our advantage to have this conversation and it is to our advantage to lead this conversation. I think the first step in the n