Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. Chief Technology Officer Michael

Different from a nonprofit right candidate. Intovent even gotten statelevel versus federal level. We are live now for a discussion on Artificial Intelligence technology and competition from china. We will hear from the u. S. Chief technology officer, michael kratsios. Mr. Kratsios both the applications of Artificial Intelligence and quantum to ourtion sciences nondefense applications. Parallel effort of substantial scale in the department of defense through researchse advanced projects agency and other defense entities because these technologies are of universal application. I would like to take an opportunity to begin the discussion, to perhaps start with a bit of current news where europe has the European Union in particular, has tabled some of their ideas about how to manage some of the particularly the ethical issues related to Artificial Intelligence. Ofhave had quite a number years of tension on a transatlantic basis about the application of advanced commercial aso well as governmental applications. I would be interested in getting your take on this. Thank you so much. Yesterday was a big day of news for the world of ai regulation. As you probably know, the United States was first out of the gate in the january where we proposed the ai regulatory principles. Those arrive for comment. Released theiry attempt to do what we did in january with providing some sort of structure about the way they are thinking about regulations of ai powered technologies. My take is twofold. I think we are very encouraged to see a lot of focused focus in their document on an Innovation Ecosystem that is friendly. They talk about the importance of developing and working on research and development projects, helping drive startups or smaller companies. Aey also talk about valuesbased approach. In the u. S. Expressed january. One thing i think is important to flag and one thing i think it could be some room for their next step from taking this valuebased approach and implementing it. What we found in what they put out yesterday does, in some ways, clumsily attempts to bucket Ai Technologies has highrisk work not highrisk. The way their schemas isuctured, scheme structured, there will be some group that makes a decision on whether a technology is highrisk or not. If you are highrisk you have to go through an extensive regulatory approach. We believe this all or nothing approach is not really the best way to approach regulating Ai Technologies. Is askedai regulation on a spectrum of sorts. There are certain technologies which will require every regulatory scrutiny. We are prepared to do that. There were quite a few that need a little or not at all. I think creating the spectrum is important. That is where our biggest concern is. I will be traveling to brussels folksonth and speaking to over there and sharing some of these concerns. I think there is a lot we have in common but i think this approach of bluntly bifurcating the entire r d the entire ai tech ecosystem into two buckets is harsh. I think it is a very good point. Dod defensed on the Science Board and we have done studies on the application of modern technology through the development of ai and quantum. Thatf the opportunities may evolve as the Technology Improves to facilitate the better alignment with our allies in europe is an effort that is to explain airpa so that the user of the output is ablebased analysis to understand the coupling between the outcome and the data that produced the outcome. Yet, but theree may be some opportunities for Research Collaboration between better. And the eu to solve this problem of explainable ai. Mr. Kratsios i couldnt agree more. That is a good segue into how the u. S. Approach differs to the european. When we put out our principles last january they focused on three main themes. I think of them hits on this explain ability question. I think the most important thing in the u. S. Model is public engagement. Whenever we pursue regulatory action toward a private Sector Company that is implementing Ai Technology, we as the federal government have some experts, but the community are the people who know this best. They have the experts that can help us think through that. There is a lot of emphasis on our framework in the public engagement. Another is limited regulatory overreach. A believe we need to create model that is riskbased and sector specific. Rather than pocketing the tech bucketing the technology, there has to be flexibility so you are are able to regulate appropriately. The third which i think you bring up astutely is this aia of promoting trustworthy. We need to engender trust in the technologies people are using. R d and Better Technology around issues like explain ability will get us a lot closer to that place. One of the issues related to this is the interaction between ai and the internet of things. The Science Board has been doing work on the technologies of autonomy and counter autonomy. Is onely Ai Technology of those things that is going to work for the whole society. There may also be opportunities for collaboration with our how we will manage the introduction of iot because like other applications where ai is involved, the range of applications is extraordinarily diverse. Mr. Kratsios i couldnt agree more. Where we have manifested that type of thinking is through the first symposium we held on Artificial Intelligence was titled ai for american industry. Artificial intelligence is going to touch every industry in the United States. Whether you are doing oral instruction in texas, whether you would you are doing biotech in boston, you are going to be using this technology. If the u. S. Wants to leave lead the world we need to make sure we use what ai can provide. One of the news items that has been a pretty constant drumbeat for the past halfdozen alignmentbeen chinas of its perception of its national and security interests with investments in advanced technology. Their made in china 2025 initiative five or so years ago, which identified 10 areas of technology that would be getting high investment from china. It is often described in terms of billions of dollars. I would be interested in your observations about how chinas therts have been coupled to administrations initiative and your perception of the chinese effort. Mr. Kratsios i think there are two threads to pull on. The first, which needs to be , the Chinese Communist party is using Artificial Intelligence to track people, to imprison ethnic minorities, to push forward a complete surveillance state, to maintain a great chinese firewall. These are the use cases of Artificial Intelligence that are deeply in conflict with western values. This is something we have tried to communicate with our friends and allies in europe. There has never been more of an imperative before now to ensure the u. S. And our allies lead the world in Artificial Intelligence. We need to ensure the next breakthroughs are made here in the west. If we dont lead, we run the risk of these values that are opposed to everything we believe in slowly permeating these new technologies and then being exported. That is why the imperative is so great. That is why the president ainched the american initiative. That is what we made the big announcement last monday that we are committed to doubling the defense ai spending the federal government in the next two years. That is moving to two billion dollars of federally funded r d in ai. This is a massive, an incredible step forward in our commitment to American Leadership in this domain. Up, hish you brought these commitments that have been publicly asserted by the chinese government. We have a lot of skepticism in the validity of those statistics. I think i challenge we have a lot of brilliant thing take people here. I challenge all of you to spend more time thinking about if you are attempting to report on an action taken by the chinese government, is that actually happening . Are they actually spending billions of dollars . To aou compare that number number that Congress Appropriates and is actually spent and put out the door by our agencies . I think the short answer is no. I think there needs to be a good conversation about those numbers. I would point you to two studies that came out. December cap down a lot of these numbers and said, in reality they are not spending tens of billions, they are spending less. That is the type of narrative we need to make clear. When we are making comparisons we need to be comparing apples to apples. It is a good point. One of the things that i think is ironically going to render chinas investment less six less successful is their parallel with the china 2025 initiative, they also have civilized what they call military fusion, which is an effort to extract the military applications of these advanced technologies. And aie Quantum Sciences technologies will have universal applicability in trying to efforteed the scientific into producing military advantage. It will have the more likely outcome it will produce neither itary advantage to advance nor advance the science. It is something of a limitation. I think we are likely to be more successful with this approach. Reassured by your observations about the scale of the increase. Having previously served in the office of management and budget as an official, one of the questions i always ask about Public Sector investment is, what are your expectations for the outcomes of this investment . Are there pertinent metrics . Expectations that might help shape public expectations about the scale of this investment . Best way tor the answer that is to give a inscription about the type of ecosystem we have and the role that the federal government plays in driving innovation broadly. What is different than almost any other country in the world is the way that the federal government spends research and development dollars. We dont have a ministry of science. We have research and development happening across all of our federal agencies. Incredible work. You have the National Science foundation. There is a department of energy which has billions of dollars that are spent through there. An Incredible National lab infrastructure. The National Institutes of health. We are a very diverse set of places and each one of them has their own aspirational goals and pieces of the puzzle that they play. Freee incentivizing a market of ideas around innovation. The part that the federal thernment plays is that government is investing in earlystage, basic research and development. That is different from what the private sector does. That is by design. The types of research the federal government approaches is the type of research that the private sector is not incentivized to do. That is a gap we try to fill. We do it in a way where these ideas can come to life and then they are absorbed the private sector. Think a great example to show how our system is unique as this breakthrough that happened last year on quantum supremacy. There is no doubt in my mind that someone in the had called upon someone else in the china to achieve quantum supremacy before the United States. We did not make that call here in washington to our community, yet the United States and that breakthrough first. The federal government invests in this basic research. We made a commitment to invest into a quantum lab at uc santa barbara. We continue to fund the research. Some breakthroughs were made, google solved us and said, wow, this is a great team. We could equip them with more resources. They acquired the group, brought them inhouse, and that group was able to achieve what they believed was quantum supremacy. They had to prove that their device could be faster than the traditional computer, so, who has the Fastest Computers in the world . The federal government does at our National Labs. They went to the fastest computer in the world and they ran a test to prove that they had done it. Here you can see this Virtuous Cycle of all pieces working together from the federal ,overnment doing basic work finding work at academic institutions, moving into the private sector, then having to go back to the federal government for the final check. This is a type of freemarket approach that has led to a breakthrough that is world changing. A very good observation. Having done some work with the National Labs, one of the things they have been able to do successfully that interacts in a constructive way with this initiative, which is in the foundational science of Artificial Intelligence and Quantum Sciences is they have extraordinary modeling and simulation capabilities. The application of artificial sensing,nce or quantum for example, can be put through a synergistic suite of modeling and simulation that contributes to the advance of the foundational science. It is the foundational science that creates the technology. On that particular point i would be interested in any of your observations about how the u. S. Ai and Quantum Sciences Technology Stacks up internationally. Mr. Schneider our take as we lead the world in both domains. There are a number of metrics you can use to come to this analysis. Generally speaking we have the best institutions, we have the most highly cited papers, we have the most vibrant venture ecosystem, have the most privatesector dollars invested, and the list goes on and on. Is, less about where we stack up today, but how do we maintain that leadership . President k at the very intentionally titled his maintaininger American Leadership in ificial intelligence go intelligence. A strategic follow approach that has four lines of effort. The first is all around research and development leadership. Spendseral government 150 billion a year on research and development. How do we coordinate those efforts in a way that will maximize the output . We do that through prioritization, weve got a lot of effort on increasing r d spending to historic levels with this announcement. The list goes on. Around ao has regulatory approach. We want to remove barriers to ai innovation. And create a Regulatory Environment that fosters and drives further innovation in these domains. Product tothat our allow that to happen was our regulatory principles that came out last january. Core values of the United States with some oversight of these technologies. The third is always around the workforce. We believe in the power of the American Worker to drive these technologies. You need to create a pipeline for better talent. So we can have the best experts here. We have done that. A great example is the president directed our agencies to prioritize Artificial Intelligence in their grants and fellowships. Whether you are at the department of industry, you will be prioritizing ai before and away you would not have before. The next is around preparing the worker for the 21st century. Where therenment will be some displacement as these technologies take hold. Four is around international engagement. We believe there must be strong ties between the u. S. And its allies on driving leadership in these particular technologies. , if itwest does not lead leaves this domain to other countries which have a set of values that are in conflict with ours. We have done so in an administration that generally is very thoughtful around approaching multilateral agreements. Ecdai. S. Signed on to the o principles. We as western democracies can come together and say these are the types of principles that underpin the way ai is developed. That is very relevant and ties to a question that often comes up with new technologies where the government is a major player in the investment and foundational science is, how do you see the ability of the government to enable a transfer of this technology to the civil sector users that would be able to evolve from the foundational science . Mr. Schneider i think this is something the guest i think this is something the government has struggled with. If a discovery is made at our National Labs, how do intrapreneurial scientists and know anden no identify that this right through has happened, find private capital to spirit into something bigger . The last administration had a Strong Initiative a around around technology transfer. I think that has been a big effort to, making their lives more open and or open to the community to share the incredible work that is being done. We are ready and willing to work with privatesector folks. Is a very useful development, because the laboratories tend to like a lot of the channels for propagating the technology into the civil sector. Now with your work in the implementation of quantum legislation, i would be interested to see how we were getting on with it . You know, the of president signed the National Quantum Initiative Act in december 2018. That created a National Quantum initiative here in the u. S. That is the whole of government effort to achieve American Leadership in quantum science. We are excited about