Department of Defense Leaders Discuss Pentagon’s Artificial Intelligence Capabilities


Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Michael S. Groen, director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, and Robert O. Work, vice chair of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, speak to reporters at the Pentagon to discuss the progress and current initiatives for the adoption and implementation of artificial intelligence capabilities across the Defense Department, April 9, 2021.

Subscribe to Dr. Justin Imel, Sr. by Email

Transcript

Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Hey, good morning ladies and gentlemen welcome today’s press conference on artificial intelligence. Someone sent a Commander, Arlo Abrahamson and I’ll be moderating today’s briefing with us. Today is the honourable Robert, a work Vice chair of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Lieutenant General Michael grown the director of the D. O. D. Joint Artificial Intelligence center. We’ll begin this morning’s briefing with an opening statement from both principles. Then we’ll go to questions. I’ll plan to go out to people out in the phones. We have a few people in the room. Please just identify your name and outlet to the principles before you ask your question. And with that I’ll now turn it over to mr work and general grown to deliver their opening statements. Well thank you and good morning everybody those here and also who are following online. I’d like to start by just two over arching comments first for the first time since World War two, the United States Technical Predominance which undergirds both our economic and our military competitiveness is under severe threat by the people’s Republic of china Nick Burns who is in his confirmation hearing or Bill Byrne’s. Bill Burns. I’m sorry Bill Burns in his confirmation hearing is the director of C. I. A. Said that in the strategic competition with china technology competition is the central pillar and the AI commission agrees totally with that. The second broad thought is within this technological competition. The single most important technology that the United States must master is artificial intelligence and all of its associated technologies. Now we believe uh we view a I much like thomas Edison viewed electricity, he said it is a field of fields, it holds the secrets which will reorganize the life of the world. Now it sounds like a little hyperbole, but we actually believe that it is a new way of learning which will change everything. It will help us in uh, utilize quantum computing better. It will help us in health, it will help us in finance, it will help us in military competition. It is truly a field of feels. So if that is background, we said, look, we are not organized to win this competition. We just are not, we say we’re in a competition, which is a good thing. The first thing you have to do is admit you have a problem. So Houston, we have a problem, but we have not organized ourselves to win the competition. We do not have a strategy to win the competition. We do not have the resources to implement a strategy, even if we had one. So the first thing is we have got to take this competition seriously and we need to win it. We need to enter it with the one single goal. We will win this technological competition. Um, now, what we decided the best way to think about this is We are not organized now. We need to get organized. We said by 2025, we should the department and the federal government should have the foundations in peace for widespread uh integration of AI across the federal government and particularly in D. O. D. Now there are three main building blocks to achieve this vision. First, you have to have top down leadership. You cannot say AI is important and then let all of the agencies and subordinate departments figure out what that means. You have to have someone from the top saying this is the vector. You will follow the vector. If you do not follow the vector, you will be penalized. If you do follow the vector, you will gain extra resources so you have to have top down leadership. Now, one of the first recommendations that we made is jake was underneath the C. I. O. And it was actually underneath disa in many ways administratively we said if you want to make a I your central technological thrust it needs to be elevated. And we recommended that the jake report either to the secretary or the deputy secretary that was actually included in the India. And now Jake reports to the Deputy secretary defense. And that’s a very good first step. Well, we think the next step is to establish a steering committee on emerging technology. This would be a try chaired organization, the deputy secretary, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. They would sit and they would look at all of the technologies. They would drive the thrust towards an Ai future and they would coordinate all activities between the intelligence community and D. O. D. Which is a righteous thing. They would be the ones who identify lack of resources, address that problem. Uh and also remove any bureaucratic obstacles. The steering committee would oversee the development of a technology annex of the National Defense Strategy. The last time we had a list of technologies, There were 10 on the list. All 10 of those were very, very important. But when you have 10 things as your priorities, you have no priorities. You have to establish some type of prioritization and enforce it. So the technology annex to the National Defense Strategy would do just that. Also, the department should set a I readiness performance goals by the end of this fiscal year, 2021 With an eye towards 2025 when we need to be a I ready. So top down Leadership is the first big pillar. The second is to ensure that we have in place the resources, processes and the organizations to enable aI integration into the force. Now, Yeah, the commission said you need to establish a common digital ecosystem. The jake has established the joint Common Foundation. There are a lot of similarities between the two, although the commission’s view is a little bit broader than the joint Common Foundation at the point, but the point is that everyone sees the necessity uh that provides access to all users in the department to software, train models, data computing and a developmental environment for def sec ops, that is secure. We recommended that you designate the jake is the Ai accelerator. We actually assess that china is a little bit ahead of the United States and fielding applications at scale. We can catch up with them and we believe that jake is the logical place in the department to really be the accelerator for AI applications at scale. The department has to increase its S and T. Spending on uh A. I. And all of R and D. We think it should be a minimum of 3.4% of the budget. And we recommend that the department spend about $8 billion on A. I. R. And D. Annually. That will allow us, we think to cover down on all the key research areas, there’s all sorts of specialized acquisition pathways and contracting authorities out there. We still continually need to refine them because many of them are not perfectly applicable to software type things. And I know jake is working on this but we have to have an updated approach to the budget and oversight process for these things. So the second big pillar is ensure you have the resources in the processes and the organizations and third you have to accelerate and scale tech adoption. You really have to push this. So we recommend stand up and AI development team at every single cocom with foreign deployable elements and they leverage technological uh knowledge to develop innovative operational concepts and essentially establish a poll for AI enabled applications that will help them accomplish their missions. The department should prioritize adoption of commercial AI solutions, especially for all of the back office stuff. There’s really no reason to do a lot of research on those type applications. The commercial industry has plenty of them. You just have to prioritize identifying the ones that can be modified for our use and bring them in as quickly as possible. We think the department should establish a dedicated AI fund under the control of the under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. And that fund would allow undersecretary to get small innovative AI companies across the Valley of Death. And this would be up to the Under secretary Defense for Arnie, who is the chief technology officer of the department. Now the things that under cross all of these are talent, ethics and international partnerships. We talk about talent first, we think we have to have a. D. O. D. Digital core modeled after the Medical Corps. These are digitally savvy warriors, administrators and leaders. We just need to know who they are. We need to code them in some way and we need to make sure they’re in the places that have the highest return on investment. We need to train and educate warfighters to develop core competencies and using and responsibly teeming with machine systems, understanding their limitations, understanding what they should not be asked to do, et cetera And equally. And other emerging technologies need to feature prominently. And senior leader education and training with a key focus on ethics. The ethical use of AI. Now go right into that. We’re in a competition with authoritarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes will use technology that reflect their own governing principles. We already know how china wants to use Ai. They want to use it for population surveillance. They want to use it to suppress minorities. They want to use it to cut individual privacy and trample on civil liberties. That’s not going to work for a democratic nation like the United States. And so this is as much a values competition as it is a technological competition. The way eric Schmidt, our chairman talks about this Is we’re going to employ platforms which bring these technologies. So let’s just think about how 5G worked Huawei’s 5G technologies allowed a country who do this uses it to essentially surveil their population. So these values are very very critical and an important part of the competition. And finally we’re not going to succeed if we do it alone. This is a kind of central thinking and U. S. Defense um strategies. So we have to promote a i interoperability in the adoption of emerging technologies across among our allies and our partners. We are absolutely confident as a commission, we can win this competition but we will not win it if we do not organize ourselves and have a strategy and have resources for the strategy and a means by which to implement the strategy and make sure that everyone is doing their part. Thank you. Mhm. Good. All right. Good morning everybody and thank you very much for participating in this important session. And first I want to say thank you to Secretary work and the National Security Commission AI on AI team. Just incredible work. I mean, what you see if you if you’ve read the report, if you haven’t, I encourage you to go to the website and look at the NSC AI final report. Um What you see is like a deep understanding and a deep analysis of down to first principles bare metal for what it takes for a i integration and preserving our military effectiveness. Um What they produced is critically important and critically important for us in the department, but it’s also critically important for our national competitiveness. In the same breath, I’d like to say thank you to Congress and uh and department leadership, both of which clearly understand the importance and the need to innovate and modernize the way we fight and the way we do business. And I’m happy to report as the director of the jake positive momentum toward implementation of an AI uh implementation of AI at scale. We certainly have a long ways to go. But you can see the needle trending positive uh with bipartisan support from Congress, with great support from the D. O. D. Leadership, the services are beginning to develop aI initiatives and expand operational experimentation that is taking those first steps. The defense agencies are reaching out daily to share their best practices with us and with each other. The combatant commands, especially the combatant commanders, have have caught a glimpse of what the future might look like through a series of integrative exercises. They like it and they are they’re eager to gain these capabilities with the jake now aligned under the deputy secretary, which gives her and the rest of the department leadership access to the tools and processes to reinforce their priorities. Underline our ethical foundations, integrate our enterprises and transform our business processes. And we were eagerly looking forward to that work. Um like the CIA I we see a as a core tenet of defense modernization and when I say I want to be clear, I’m not just talking about the Jake all ai the efforts of the services, the efforts of the department’s uh and the agency’s rides on the foundations of good networks, good data services, good security and good partnerships. An important part of the jake’s business model is to build those as part of our AI infrastructure and with lots of budget work ahead I think, you know, well here, you know, as Fy 22 is relooked and and the Palm 23 to 27 is developed. You know, we’ll hear a lot about modern weapons systems and concepts and it’s important that we should we understand that their potential those weapons systems, those concepts, their potential to modernize our ward fighting rides on those trends, on the foundational data, the networks, the algorithms that we build to integrate and inform them. Uh We’ll have to talk about these technical foundation and architecture architecture in the same conversation that we talk about platforms getting A I right and are secure data fabric environment, right will be central to our ability to compete effectively with the chinese and the Russians as well or any modern threat for that matter. Um And and there’s more actually so in an era of tightening budgets and and a focus on on on squeezing out things that our that our legacy are not important in the budget. Um uh the productivity gains and the efficiency gains that ai can bring to the department, especially through the business process, transformation actually becomes an economic necessity. So in a squeeze play between modernizing our warfare that moves at machine speed and tighter budgets, AI is doubly doubly necessary. Uh So what I’m, what am I talking about when I talk about a I as secretary works comments uh convey the integration of AI across the across the government and the Department of Defense is much more than just a just a facile layer of technology applied. It’s not about shiny objects. You’ve heard the phrase amateur study tactics and professional study logistics. Well, in this environment, amateurs talk about applications and professionals talk about architecture and networks and elevating the Ai dialogue in the department so that we are talking about the foundations of all of our modern capabilities is a really important task. One that we’re that we’re working hard on the core business model. That is what the department uh gives to the american people. What our mission is. Doesn’t change. But a modernized, data driven software heavy organization will do things in a different way. It really represents a transformation of our operating model. How do we do the things that we do as a Department of Defense? And that operating model will have to create a common data environment where data is shared, data’s authoritative data is available. The data feeds and algorithms across the department will create productivity gains, accelerate processes, uh provide management visibility insights into markets. And if all of that sounds like a modern software driven company, uh you know, you can think think of all of our tech giants uh and and uh and smaller innovative companies across the U. S. Economy. Um It’s because it is it’s the same challenge, It’s the same problem. And so we have examples right? There’s very little magic here. It’s about making our organization the Department of Defense in this case as productive and efficient as any of these modern successful data driven enterprises. But there’s so much more because all of this technology applies equally to our warfighting capabilities, our capabilities in a broad range of supporting activities from all the defense agencies and other places that make up the business of the department. We’ve created a positive momentum for AI and we continue to build on that now. But now comes the real critical test. Um As in any transformation. The hardest part is institutional change and change management of the workforce and practices and processes that drive that drive a business. This step will not be easy even within the Department of Defense, but its foundational to our competitive success, our accountability and our affordability. Yeah, as the N. S. C. A. I work reveals, I mean, we have a generational opportunity here for a I to be our future. We must act now. We need to start putting these places into place now. Um So I want to quickly describe our position through two different lenses. One is competition and the others opportunity uh first of all, with with respect to A i competition. Uh I think it’s it’s illustrative to talk about the economic impact of artificial intelligence as a first order. Um economic forecasts predict an Ai economy of 16 trillion a $16 trillion ai economy In the next 10 years. And and this will this will this could amount to massive GDP increases 26 as high as 26 for China, as high as 15 for the United States. That to be participate in this competitive ai marketplace. And if we do that, uh this is core, this core economic competitiveness of the United States then needs to be reflected in a core military competitiveness in this in this space as well. It’s important to note that, you know, while we talk about a $16 trillion dollar market in the next decade, um this happens to coincide pretty closely with china’s declared and often repeated intent To be globally dominant in Ai by 2030. So we look at the transformation of our economy has to be accompanied with a close attention to the emerging threats that are taken that are that are declaring their intention to use this as a point of competition between autocracies and democracies. Our forces must operate with tempo with data driven decisions with human machine teaming, our forces must have broad situational awareness, multi domain integration. Uh The PRC has a robust entrepreneurial ai environment. We’re all familiar with, you know and financial or alibaba. Tencent. I mean these are global companies. Um But we’re also very familiar with the artifacts of population surveillance, minority oppression. The things that the secretary work talked about under the chinese communist Party’s rule. We we read about Beijing’s large scale campuses, their tech campuses and they’re they’re state owned enterprises that create a pipeline from entrepreneurs and innovators in china to through the civil military fusion. Take those capabilities directly into the P. L. A. And military capabilities without intervening accountability or transparency. Um They’re organizational efficiency that that autocratic rule. They count that as an advantage Is being applied directly to their Ai development and they are surging forward in their in their in their capability. This has to give us pause to contemplate what does, what does China’s dominance in a I mean for us, if they intend that dominance by 2030, what does that imply for us? But we also can look through the lens of opportunity. Our best opportunities lie in american innovation, academia and small companies are brimming with good ideas. In the ai space, the number of Ai companies is proliferating rapidly rapidly. Um We have war fighters across the department, especially young ones that can visualize their use cases in their operating environment and the things that they need to do from a military capability perspective, they’re good at this. They know how to operate in a data driven an app based environment because they grew up that way and they expect the same from their defense systems. We have the best science and the best Ai research available uh in academia, inside the United States and in small companies. And we also benefit from the fact that we have a tech inversion in place where the Ai technology that we need to run our department and change our operating model exists right literally right across the street. And many of the companies, the modern ai driven, data driven companies that have survived in a very competitive market. We have lots of good examples to look at. We also have a rock solid ethical baseline that drives a principled approach that drives our test and evaluation, our verification or validation, our policy, and in the end of the in the end of the of the analysis, our trust in our AI systems and I welcome your questions about that. The good news. We have 1000 flowers blooming inside the department through the initiative of the services, the agencies and the activities of the department. And we’re doing better to integrate our industry technical expertise with warfighting functional expertise so that we can actually responsibly and responsibly build implement technology in the places that matter most. We have the opportunity to drive productivity, efficiency, effectiveness uh, of the department to new heights. And uh, the performers across the department in the jake in the services and other places are very excited and count themselves lucky to be part of this work. And uh with that we very much look forward to your questions and appreciate your attention. All right, everybody, as we’ve got about 16 or 17 reporters on the line. So if we could dash just one question at a time and then I promise I will get to you for a second if we have time. So the first question is going to go out to Mr Aaron Greg from the Washington Post. Aaron, I know you’re on the line. I believe you’re on the line. Go ahead. Thank you guys for doing this. Um how does the enterprise cloud strategy play into all of this? Um Is this hodgepodge that you’re currently working with, working for the department? And what does the strategy look like under this new administration and the new sect of? So, so I’ll take that one first. Um So so what we have today, you’re right, we have development environments and pretty mature development environments in each of the services, some of the services have multiple development environments. And so one of the things that we that we have to look at is um you know, what degree of resilience do we gain from having multiple deV environments, but also what advantages do we gain by, by stitching those development environment environments together into a into a fabric. So that is our intent and that is what we’re looking for now, mapping that out. So what you know, what we need is is a network of development environments that shares through containerized process shares, you know, authority to operate on networks that shares access to data sources that shares algorithms and that shares even developmental tools and developmental environments. And so this is what we’re trying to construct today so that we can broaden the base of developmental work. But on top of that we need an operating layer and operating network. And this is kind of the next step because if you take those developmental algorithms and you’re going to employ them in a steady state basis, in a combatant command and war fighting situation wherever, then you need a network of operating platforms that you can do the same thing. And so this is the next step. As we evolve developmental platforms into a fabric. We move that up to the operational level and integrate service networks into into into a global network. This will give us the capability to have global situational awareness and then to achieve the goals of what’s described in jsc to which is, you know, any sensor, any shooter or any sensor in any decision maker. Uh we’re gonna build that network, the data stores and the processes that make that possible. We’re going to do that as a team across the department, but the jake hopes to help coordinate the alliance that brings that together. I can’t add to that. Okay, we’ll go to the next question sir. Go ahead. I’m living Martinez with abc news. Um, it’s a question for both of you please. Um General um Secretary work talked about how china is way ahead on this. Um, in terms of what you just spoke about worldwide awareness, china right now is really still more of a regional player trying to become a worldwide player. Um Does a I make that leap for them or is the Ai advantage that they have still strictly only regional and Mr work if I could ask you about? I think the final report talked about the importance of the human element in A. I can you talk about that especially as some people may have concerns about since we’re here at the pentagon talking about how AI relates to the weaponization of that technology. Yeah, so thank you for the question. The the uh I think it’s important to kind of pay attention to what china and their relationship with AI and the technology is you know for example the chinese export autonomous systems to nations around the world in you know in some places that that have some pretty some pretty ugly conflicts that are underway. Um and you know, lots of human suffering and uh not a lot of world attention in some cases. But so here you are you have a nation that’s proliferating autonomous systems with no ethical baseline, no sets of controls, no transparency into those very dangerous small brush fire wars that are going on in in a lot of different places. So that proliferation of technology is something that we need to pay attention to. Similarly, if you look at, you know, for example, just you know, right now chinese ships under way, you know, you know, moving moving east, you know to you know, as a as a as a as a demonstration capability shows you their willingness to push the boundaries, you know, and to be considered something more than a regional power. So that ambition drives I think is linked to their technological ambition of AI dominance. And so we have to look at If these are if these things are coupled today, what does that hold for the future? You know, in 25 2025 or 2030, we have to be prepared for that and we have to be as agile and as competitive in this space as the Chinese intend to be. It’s a great question. I would like to clarify if something I said, we do not believe china is ahead right now in a I the way we went about it as a commission as we said, look a i is not a single technology, it is a bundle of technologies and we refer to it as the Ai stack and the Ai stack has talent, the people that are going to use this has data, has the hardware that actually runs the algorithms, algorithms, applications and integration. And so what we tried to do is we look at each of the six and said, where does the US have an advantage? And where does china have an advantage? We believe the U. S. Has an advantage and talent right now we definitely are the global kind of magnet for best talent. There’s a lot of things changing in that. And unless we’re smart about our immigration policies, et cetera, we could lose that. But right now we judge that we have better talent. Second, we know we have an advantage in hardware, the United States and the West most Mueller broadly. And we think we have an advantage in our algorithms. Although the Chinese are really pushing hard. We think that they could catch up with us within 5 to 10 years now they have an advantage in our view, uh in data, they have a lot of data and they don’t have the restrictions on privacy etcetera that we do. They have an advantage in applications. They’re very good at that. And we think they have an apple to an advantage integration because they have a coherent strategy to get all of the Ai stack together to give them a national advantage. Now. We judge because talent hardware and algorithms are so central and important to the stack. We judge that the United States actually is ahead of china in A. I technology is more broadly but what we’re saying is the chinese are far more organized for a competition and have a strategy to win the competition and are putting in a lot of resources. So as lieutenant General grown said they want to be the world leader in A I technology by 2030. As soon as they say that that means to me they recognize that they are not the world ai leader now And it’s gonna take them about 10 years, they think eight years or so uh to surpass the United States. That’s why we say look we better be in this competition full on by 2025. If we don’t then we run the risk of them surpassing us. So I just wanted to clarify that, I wasn’t saying that china is ahead of us in a. I. Uh The second thing part of your question is all you got to do is look at what they did with Huawei to say the way they think about becoming a global power is not by invading countries. It is putting out a I. Platform, excuse me. Technology platforms that allow their values to proliferate around the world. And that’s what happened with Huawei um And the other place they’re going really hog wild on our global standard setting, which is kind of the U. S. That’s in our wheelhouse. We’ve been doing that since the end of World War two. And the chinese are actually coordinating with the Russians to set global standards in ai that prefer their type of technology. So without question, I agree with uh with lieutenant general groan, the chinese have ambitions to be a global power. They say by 2050 actually 2049 is the 100 year anniversary. They want to be have the largest economy in the world and they want to be the foremost military power in the world. Um That’s not a future that the United States should say. Yeah let’s just let that happen, let’s compete because we want to be the world’s foremost uh military power and we want to be the most dynamic innovative economy in the world. So the chinese definitely have global ambitions. They are regional power now, but they’re really starting to move more broadly on the world stage. Next question goes to Sydney Freedberg from breaking defense. Go ahead. Hi, thank you very much for doing us. Sydney Freedberg. Breaking defense here. Uh let me let me ask a question perfectly for general grown uh, of the various recommendations in the Commission final report, which ones is A D O D. Uh contemplating which ones are actually concurred with that. You guys are going to try to put forward uh by by yourselves or by asking Congress for legislation and which ones do you guys actually not concur with the things, you know, the fair conditions like the steering committee, like uh setting the various targets uh like, you know, coming up with a strategy antics and so forth. Uh Can you go through the checklist of things the commission wants to do? That you guys are green light, yellow light or red light on proceeding with? Yeah. Great question. Sydney, Good morning. Um so, so really, really good question. Now, the NsC AI report, if you look at it in its full breath addresses a lot of the recommendations are at the national level, a place where defense may play a part defense might not lead. Uh There are there is a subset Of recommendations on the order of 40 that that that we that we’ve taken a hard look at that, that our military specific and that that really by all rights defence would lead. So as we look at that list, or I’m sorry, it’s closer to 100 recommendations as we look at that list. Um a good number of them. About about half, maybe a little bit more. We’re already moving out on to a significant degree. So in those cases it’s really just a matter for us of taking a look at the N S C A. I reckon recommendations in detail to make sure that we’ve considered the full scope of what might appear in one of those recommendations and then see if what we’re doing today aligns with those. So that’s that’s that’s, you know, kind of one large subset which is which is the majority. Then there’s another set of recommendations that that we’ve looked at, but we really don’t have a plan for yet. You know, we recognize that it’s a problem but we’re not quite ready to move out in that direction, just because of limited bandwidth here. So that’s that’s another subset that that we’re looking at. And then there’s a third subset that, you know, those that we really have to look hard at. There are things that we hadn’t thought about before, and we really need to kind of pull the strings on the implications of those. So there’s that third subset when you when you talk about which ones we agree with or don’t agree with, I can’t think of any that we don’t agree with. The things that are most pressing that most closely aligned with what we’re doing today are these ideas, the ideas associated with starting to create uh enterprise of capabilities? Um all of the recommendations about the ethical foundations, We are all about fleshing out our ethical foundations and really really integrating that into every aspect of our process. The recommendations about organizing uh you know, with with defense priorities, um you know, that will be the subject of the department. So we as an Ai community can advocate but that’s the department process that will decide what the priorities are. And so and we’ll adhere to whatever those priorities articulated the recommendation about workforce development and the family of recommendations about workforce development. We could not agree more. So how do we, how do we go? You know, have a full range of train training environment or an education environment that includes, you know, just like short short duration tactical training for example for you know a code or to get on a platform all the way to building service academies are building ROTC scholarships and that sort of thing. So so across the department, as some of these recommendations with large scale and large scope, it starts to uh you know supersede what just the Ai community and the department does too. So we work closely with the research and Engineering department, We work closely with the personnel and readiness and the acquisition sustainment to start to form the coalitions to to get after the problems that that that that that are underneath those recommendations to make sure that we understand them and that we are actually moving towards this this new uh operational model for how we are going to operate as a department. Thank you. Sydney Sydney, I guess the way I would answer this, I can’t really add too much more to what Lieutenant general grown said is just a little while ago, Secretary Defense Mark esper said AI is the number one priority for me as a secretary Defense. And he went on to say the competitor that really wins in the AI competition will have a battlefield advantage for decades now, if you believe that, and I certainly do and I believe the commission not to think that’s a unanimous consensus. If you really believe that you can’t keep doing what we’re doing now. I mean, the Defense Science board said in 2014, the one thing you gotta get right is A I and A I. Enabled autonomy. So here we are, seven years later we’re saying okay, if we really believe That Ai is going to give a competitor an advantage for a decade, are we satisfied with the progress that has happened since 2014? And if the answer is no, then you have to say, then we’ve got to change things up. And of course people are gonna say, hey, why would you make the undersecretary of defense for Arnie, the co chair and the chief science officer of the J. Rock, J Rock works Perfect. Well does every single program have a plug in it for A. I. And being able to receive data for machine learning chips? Does it have the ports to allow them to pass on information? If the answer is no, we’re not doing good enough. I think Lieutenant General Excuse me. General Heighten the vice chair. Vice chairman has said this very clearly. He’s not satisfied with the way that J Rock is functioning and he wants to change it. So it really pushes these more broader joint system of system things that uh look, Lieutenant General growing was talking about so from the commissioner’s point of view, look uh right now we do not believe we are moving as fast as we should. And if the department agrees with that general assessment, then they need to change things. Mhm. Go ahead. Thank you for taking my question, Christina Anderson. A WPS News. Um I wonder if you could speak to getting the data, the security, the secure data fabric. Right? And then taking that up a notch to kind of the global a structure of ai how can you think about building this structure so that security is one of the fundamental elements of that. That’s one of the criticisms of the internet right now. Is that when it was built, notwithstanding the tremendous benefits that we have that it has was not built with security in mind. Yeah. Thanks, Christina. That’s that’s an excellent question. And to me, that’s the operative question, because I I think, you know, there’s a there’s a there’s a good alignment as we talk about, you know, the operational effects that we want to achieve. There’s good alignment when we talk about building platforms and how we, you know, how we’re going to integrate data and share data. The very first question we start to ask at that point is, okay, How are we going to secure this? How do we secure this environment? And so we we have a full court press on. So of course we have, you know, native cloud security, you know, additional security that that that that we’ve we’ve been able to add, you know, we’ve got lots of, you know, uh you know, cybersecurity specialists helping us look at this problem set, but more importantly, uh we’re trying to keep an eye on the entire research and development ecosystem. So not just from a cyber security perspective, but how do we deal with adversarial ai for example, how do we deal with purposeful intent to intervene or to interfere with our algorithms or spoof our algorithms? So this is a very this is probably, I would say this is certainly the top priority and probably our largest effort right now from a research and development perspective is how do we make sure that as we build this out, we squeeze out all the vulnerabilities that we can we will never have a perfect system. We will never have a perfect internet, but we need to protect it. Like we would protect any weapons system or any other critical note. Thank you. Central question. Uh Christina. Um as a lieutenant general grown said we’re moving into an era of ai competition and poisoning data is a way to gain an advantage. We have to be able to guard against that. We need to read team the heck out of our databases. I need to have people trying to break into the database and poison data often so that we can identify vulnerabilities and fix them. We have to have means by which to check the data. And there’s all sorts of different things that the commercial, the commercial sector is doing this also. They’re looking how do you protect the data and how do you protect your algorithms um to make sure that no biases are inserted? So um look, we don’t have the answers of, you know, all the answers for this yet, but it’s central to the thinking of the jake I think you heard and our AI has to be better than their A I all you have to do is envision an AI enables cyber attack and if there AI is better on offense than our AI is better on defense. That’s going to be a bad day for us. So um you know, constant red teaming, constant development with cops in mind, constant testing and evaluation validation and verification. Uh This is our future. Now it’s going to be something we just have to take as a matter of course. Next question goes out to Tony from Bloomberg News. Go ahead Tony uh huh Hi, this is Tony to paseo. I have a question in an operational application question that I think most of the citizens can relate to next month marks the 10th anniversary of the bin laden raid by Seal team six. Conceptually if AI was in widespread use in 2011, how might it have been employed in planning and executing the raid? I’m thinking facial recognition, pinpointing the movements of activity in and around the compound, calculating the height of the walls and their thickness etcetera. Can you think outside the box and give us a couple examples of how it might have been used in that raid? Yeah. Hey, great, great question, Tony. And I think, I think that raised, I mean, so when I look at, when I look at that, remember when I said, you know, amateur study apps, professional study architectures, I think I think we if we take any military operation, I can’t really speak to, you know, to that particular event. But but any military operation, it’s easy to get fixated on the on the applications that that exist on the tactical edge. But when you when you walk back a military problem, I mean you start with those, you know, you start with those tactical warnings, you know, on the objective or near the objective and you back up a step and you need to be broadly situational aware and you back up another step and you need to be aware of not just the red capabilities and the red force, but you also need to know where the blue forces and where your own forces are and their readiness and they’re ready and their availability. You also need to understand the Green forces, you know, those partner forces that we might have in the area or the White forces, you know, the civilian, innocent civilian populations who might be in the area like so all of those kind of situational awareness activities can be worked through A i right that can be done much better than a human being can do it by by leveraging ai to work on all that data. And you start backing up even further when you talk about, well how do you have uh affects integration? Like when you know when do you when do you get onto the objective and how do you coordinate with an adjacent unit? How do you make sure that your you know that your fires are safe and and uh are focused on the good targets? Again, a I can help with the information flow that informs that decision making back up further, you know, weather effects. Do we have global weather that’s in a database that everybody can use and integrate into their application? Do we have threat picture that’s integrated into our applications and defense? Do we know threatening behavior? Have we modeled that? Do we use it for understanding the human populations uh predictive modeling and you know, the list goes on and on and you know, the further you go back into the into the institution, you’re talking about modeling and simulation, platform maintenance, you know, preventive maintenance for helicopter platforms for example. Uh Integrated logistics contingency management, uh you know fleet maintenance, you know, think think of like an electronic or electric car company that broadcast updates to their entire fleet of vehicles. This is the sort of capabilities that Ai brings to the department and when you start stacking those up, you really see how it focuses. You focus that lens on a tactical military problem. It’s not just the Ai at the tactical edge, but it’s all of the Ai that has contributed all the way to the back office of the pentagon where we’re doing financial records, right? Or inventory management or all of the sort of the business of the defense focus through data into that objective. So I hope I hope that helps you know what, I’ll just give you one other point. I mean, for every for almost every military activity, there’s a commercial analog to that activity. I mean, you think about that, you know, a large scale uh shopping online shopping network that has to deal with ordering and buying and recommending and presenting options and selecting options and delivering, you know, for every one of those has a parallel in the military space. The ai that we integrate from commercial industry today, that technology that’s readily available helps us do those same things with the efficiency and productivity that that any large scale successful commercial corporation does today. And from a business perspective, that’s exactly what we need to have. Thanks. It’s a clever question, Tony. And to me the biggest change would be our ability to look at enormous amounts of social media data etcetera uh to make predictive analysis and also make judgments. I’m a movie aficionado. So everything I know about the bin laden raid I learned in Zero Dark 30 and if zero Dark 30 is correct, What D. C. I. A, the director of C. I. A. Panetta was constantly asking us, how sure are we that he’s in the compound, you know, before we execute a raid in another sovereign country? How sure are we? Well, I just go to the shoot down of the Ukrainian airliner and we knew the Russians did it immediately through national technical means and other other stuff. But we didn’t want to release that because of sources and methods. There was a company called Bell and Cat who essentially put together the storyboard for the entire shoot down using social media. You know, they had a picture of a tell with three surface to air missiles on it. A picture of it crossing the border, uh, into eastern Ukraine with the serial number on the side. They had another picture of a missile contrail right next to the village where the shoot down occurred. Had another picture of the same tell with the same serial number going back into Russia with two instead of three missiles. They put together a story board just using social media. It was 100%,, you know, any objective person would say, whoa. The Russians really did shoot down that airliner. And had we had the capability we have now to go through all sorts of data. Uh then I think the analysts would have been able to tell director Panetta, we are 100 certain that Bin laden is in that compound and here’s all of the data that we can show you. And then predictive analysis like Lieutenant General Grown said the president might have asked, what do we expect to be the reaction of uh the muslim community if it becomes aware that we execute a raid and we killed bin laden. Uh AI is able to do that type of predictive. I I n w we’re doing it right now uh in Afghanistan using a i to predict when the attacks might occur or predict um you know, actions by our adversaries. Um I don’t think a I would have made that much difference in the raid force itself unless they had specific applications that they needed uh to say what is the most up to date intelligence, you know, what is happening? Do we need to change our plan, etcetera? But to me, we already have kind of an answer for you. Uh AI gives you a tool uh that we’ve never ever really had. one of our commissioners Ken Ford refers to this as a I gives commanders eyeglasses for the mind and I thought it was such a pithy observation. It helps look through enormous amounts of data that a human would be incapable of interpreting, and the Ai is able to find patterns, make inferences, etcetera. So that’s what we mean by human machine collaboration. You let the machine do all that hard number crunching and stuff like that and you leave the Commander, the human Commander to exercise their creative spirit and their initiative and their understanding of the broader strategic concept. Human machine collaboration uh is a big, big deal in the future of ai. Next question goes out to jasmine from National Defense. I thank you so much for doing this. Um My question has to do with comments that the chairman of the commission has made before, eric Schmidt, he said um that china is maybe two years behind the United States, um the time general growing, I was wondering if you agree with that assessment or do you think that it’s a bit we have a bit more of an advantage. Yeah, thanks Jasmine. I I think I would echo what what secretary work articulated before, you know, trying to measure advantage in a space like this is a very, you know, is a very difficult undertaking or undertaking. I think uh you know, you can look at places where there is, there’s clear superiority on the US side. I think like our academic environment, I mean the United States academic community is unsurpassed globally. Uh you look at our small innovative companies and the things that they’re working uh you know, every almost every company these days as an ai company and a lot of them have really good vertical stovepipe capability. So there’s great innovation that goes all across the United States. Um you look at on the, on the chinese side, I mean, you do have the organizational efficiency of autocracy and you have all of the, you know, the moral impacts of that as well. But, you know, I I think the competition and if you really wanted to simplify it might, you know, might be as in a sense, um the the organizational efficiency versus innovation and innovation of efficiency. And so when you look at that competition from that from through those two lenses, you really have to pay attention to both. Right. It’s like how do we achieve organizational efficiency in our efforts so that we can compete, compete, keep pace with with a bigger machine, but then also how can we continue to innovate so that we’re not stuck in yesterday’s technology and we continue to push the envelope. So it’s a really hard thing to measure. I think both countries have uh have demonstrated significant global capabilities and so we have to be in this fight for sure. Yeah, I mean, I agree. It’s just really a tough thing to kind of judge The way we did it. As I explained earlier, as we broke down the Ai stack into its six components. We judge that were ahead, slightly ahead or ahead in three of the six and China is ahead or slightly ahead in 3-6. So it’s a really, really tight competition. We admitted that the Chinese could probably catch up with us in algorithms within 5-10 years. We also say that we’re 100 miles away from becoming from being two generations ahead in hardware to being two generations behind if for example, China sees Taiwan and the fabricating the chip fabricating facilities that are on Taiwan. So eric Schmidt is been working in this area for a long time and his judgment is, look, I think we’re about two years ahead, but he will tell anyone who listens the chinese are coming on fast. Uh, you know, they’re ahead in some were ahead in some, we need to take this company, take this competition. Like a politician takes a political race you have to run like you’re losing. Um, and so it’s important that we really gear up and go, okay, we have time for one more question that will go out to Jackson from bed scoop. Go ahead, Jackson, Thank you so much. I hope I have my dates right here. But within general growing, I believe we’re six months out from your announcement of jake 2.0, and shifting to be more of an enabling force, hoping you can give us just an update on how that changes going. Um, and if I could ask specifically about, are you now sending out officials to kind of be liaisons to specific ai offices across the force? How is that going? Is there any tension with, with Jacob maybe showing up and and offering help? How is that successful? Maybe? How are things? Uh are there any things you might change in the future? And then if I could also ask Mr work previously, you’ve said that the jake should take a naval nuclear reactor Rickover type strategy to being kind of an ai coordination office. Do you think that holds any tension between the kind of 1000 flowers blooming approach that’s being taken? What is your current stance on on that? Thank you. So, so I’ll start with thanks Jackson, a great question. And uh so so as we you I think accurately described what we want to do in jake 2.0, so we realized kind of our initial business model uh wasn’t getting us where we needed to go, it was not transformational enough. And so we really started focusing on broad enablement. And I think we’ve been fairly successful in that space. We do have a great outreach organizations. We do pay keen attention to all of the service developments and we try to partner with all of them. Uh, we pay keen attention to the demand signals from the combatant commands and we want to, we want to work with anybody who is doing a I today. But here’s how we approach that problem set right? Like our first duty I think are one of the things that we do well, um, is measure our success and the success of others. And the second thing that I think we do well is we don’t go to these organizations are partnered with these organizations from a position of teacher student. We come in as, as archivist of best practice across the department and and say, hey, show us how you’re doing that. Let us learn from you and then we can share, hey, you know, there’s another agency in the department that has a problem very similar to yours and here’s how they’re addressing that. So we play broker for information and expertise across, you know, across agencies, across uh, services, across command commands. And then what we can do is then turn that into because of our congressional congressional authority now to do our own acquisition, for example, now we can actually start providing a much broader array of, of support, service and services and enabling services that help make all of those customers successful. We think we’re a force for good here. We, we we approach the challenge with humility and we are, we measure our success and the success of others. And so that has gotten us a long way. I will say this. Um, as I look at the challenge that secretary work has laid out so effectively, um, even now, I wonder is that is jake two point oh enough. Right. Are we moving fast enough? Are we moving fast enough to create enterprises of capability and overcome stovepipe developments? Are we moving fast enough to really change our operating model to data driven uh and data visibility across the department? Are we moving fast enough in integrating innovative technology into the department? And uh sometimes I lay out, I lay awake at night and saying that the answer is no. And uh that challenge and feeling the hot breath on the back of our next is what keeps the jake motivated and keeps us working hard every day because we recognize how big this is and the scale of the Department of Defense and how necessary this transformation is at scale. Thanks for the question, That’s great Jackson. You know, every now and then somebody asked me a question like yours and that gay God, did I really say that? Uh but uh at the time, what I was saying is, do we really believe that we’re going to build the department around the capabilities of AI and Ai enabled autonomy and nuclear reactors made the you’re gonna build a submarine around the reactor. And you’re going to have to have the people who understand everything about how that reactor works and how it interfaces with all the other systems on the submarines. We’re going to make sure that we pick the people who are in charge. Uh We’re gonna set the standards. No one no one can touch the standards except for us. And so at the time, I was saying, you know, there’s a lot of advantages of this. But over the last two years, working with 14 other brilliant commissioners, the recommendations that we put into the commission I’m fully behind. Uh and I personally think that if you use well, I’ll just lay my cards on the table. We thought about this as a blueprint. We said, look, you really shouldn’t look at all of our recommendations and say I kind of like that one. I’ll pull that off the wall. You have to do them all together to get the effect that the commission feels is important. So right now, I would say I’ve changed from the nuclear reactor model to the National Commission on Artificial Intelligence model. And I would just like to say thank you again for all of the people who listened in The report is voluminous. You know, it’s over 760 pages. But our staff which is like a world class staff uh did everything they could for it to be interactive for you to be able to go into that final report and find the information that you would like. There are so many recommendations. This is why I have so much paper. I mean I can’t keep track of all of the recommendations in the report. I need to be reminded of them, but I would ask all of you to read the report because we feel it is so important for economic competitiveness and our military competitiveness. I want to thank you for hosting us today and allowing us to kind of pitch our product. Thank you for the 760 page to do list sir. Mhm. I’m afraid we’re out of time. But for those of you that we didn’t get to with questions, please submit your questions to osd public affairs and we can answer those so thanks everyone on the lines and everybody here today for attending and thank you very much. Mhm.

Share with Friends:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.