tv National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence Conference - PART 4 CSPAN November 7, 2019 6:55am-8:24am EST
[applause] good afternoon, everyone. as we settle in i often pick a word for the day. a kind of how i govern myself often times and my frame of mind. but today i'm going to take an image of the day if you look at your screen, one of our commissioners shared with me this image and i think it sets the tone and stage and
underscores the importance of why we are here. this is a chinese book for kindergartners and even if you don't speak chinese, circled r. two letters, ai. kindergarten textbook. the senator talked about us getting ready from grade school to graduate school. now we are talking about kindergarten or even pre- k. if we are going to keep ahead and stay number one when it comes to ai so i just want to start with this image because again it really for me underscores the urgency of why this commission
was formed and why it's so important as we are here today. we have a broa had a broad mandh concrete steps the government should take to build and maintain a machine learning work force to address the national security defense needs of the united states. over the last eight months this working group assessed the current state of the national security enterprises work force, explored the role of the workforce and you should play and examine how the government might recruit, train, educate, manage and to the extent that it's necessary retrain the workforce. now here are the judgments so far and you will affirm this if you have read the reports.
national security agencies include extending the familiarity and spreading that use of modern software. it is especially critical because without more well-informed readers who can go beyond talking points and reshape their organizations, the intelligence communities will fail to compete in the ai era. now because of all of the military presence here today i'm going to make this the next point. the department of defense and the intelligence community do not have effective ways to identify the do not have effective way to identify ai relevant skills that already exist. [applause]
>> i will make it out alive. thank you very much. they often fail to capitalize on their technical talents. existing authorities are adequate are close to adequate more to the point. government agencies are not fully utilizing to recruit ai talent, often due to risk-averse human resource teams and commanders or civilian leaders who do not hold them sufficiently accountable. it is not clear if the same holds true for pay scales. expanding ai focus fellowship and opportunities can give officials and servicemembers access to cutting-edge technology and bring talent from our top ai companies into federal service. these programs already exist
but they need to expand. government employees pay valuable skills from the private sector, should have an opportunity to use them when they return to government service and my the point is military and national security agencies struggle to compete for top ai talent. the government needs to spend more effort showing that service is an opportunity to solve unique exciting programs and have a positive impact and tried to reduce if it exists any disparagement of its workforce and better use pathways for recent graduates. they are two additional hard questions we will explore with our panelists today.
since the american ai talent pool depends on students and workers our global competitiveness hinges on our ability to attract and retain top minds from around the world. if we fail to do so it is unclear how we will continue to compete. colleges and universities are under strain to keep pace with student interest in ai, the number of computer science majors is increasing at ten times the rate of that. to continue we asked the chairman of the director -- the chairman and director of mckinsey global institute and i take liberties with names if it allows me to use a lot. the former principal and deputy director of national
intelligence and the chair of work for singularity at university. they provide their perspectives on these two questions primarily but not exclusively. how important is our organizational structure to capitalize on emergency talents and how should the national security enterprise educate leaders and users who do not participate in the development process for the resource ai solutions effectively and ethically. miss gordon. >> very and thoughtfully. i am sorry. organizational construct is important and the second is how to deal with your existing workforce. let me begin before that and after it. i think of four things we need
to have in order to effectively integrate these technologies into overflow, you need -- the organization has to believe it must. if the organization doesn't believe it must then it will be a technology, left to the innovators but it will not be at scale or at speed. for the intelligence community you need to see the world as it is. understand what your mission is. it isn't about secrecy but knowing a little more sooner and if you look at this world with abundant data and ubiquitous technology, speed of decision-making, if you are the intelligence community you must find a way to introduce the ability to handle data from
speed and volume but the technologies that are emerging. if not, you will fit it into what is left over after your real mission. the second, you need infrastructure. earlier panels talked about information infrastructure in various stages to build infrastructure and we are trying to figure out the infrastructure because data uses it different than they must. there is that information infrastructure but also the infrastructure that brings it into the mix. people can play with new capabilities. if we don't have
infrastructure, you get the curiosity that will get the organization to figure out what it can do and you can't get the mission pool to pair with the technology push. i would opine we can attract anybody. our mission is so exciting and the kinds of things they find on your mark, they cannot stand not being able to pursue their craft so they go somewhere where they can. you have to have a way to get them around people. but the other thing is you need to think about where the organizational model needs to change, the serial process of
pumping capability into a work unit is not the model we need. i think your organizational model changed, organizational construct and new work units that allow integration and transfer ideas at speeds to happen and you need process. you need process revolution because even when a leader wants it and you need infrastructure supporting it and the organizations that demand it, all of them come into processes that were never designed for this moment and our contracting processes are the rules that do that. one thing we need to do is think about who we are putting in charge of designing these processes so the people we have now don't. as far as how you deal with a mixed workforce, you need to
provide the opportunity through the things i mentioned for people to want to come and recognize some people will not come, you need to treat them honorably and we do have a demographic problem we have to address. the leadership is the most -- our most urgent need. if i have meal -- middle leadership it doesn't understand this is a technical world that won't trust that the idea is coming up can affect the solution and i will end it there. >> it underscores the culture of what people find when they get there. i appreciate the four points primarily, everything on that.
>> i'm glad to be here, thank you for having me. i would like to applaud the report the commission put out. it is spot on. i enjoyed speaking -- seeing what was in that and the fact that it puts talent at the center and a talented workforce, that is absolutely critical and in particular when you think what was mentioned earlier in the discussion the triangle that is government, universities and the private sector, that is a critical triangle. what is it about the ai talent that we need to address and need to see reflected in our organization. basically 405 specific things
worth understanding, these are problems. the first problem is the too view problem which is we don't have enough people with distinctive ai capabilities in the government and you can argue broadly in the economy. we have too few problem we need to solve somehow coupled with the second problem which is what i will call the pipeline problem. if you look at the pipeline that is supposed to feed the talent need that is woefully weak but looking at k-12 or universities or what we relied on for talent which is a good domestic pipeline but international students coming to the united states and other places of the pipeline issues are enormous. i was struck by the fact that if you look at video and the federal agency put out that
suggests only something less than 3% of all it professionals under the age of 30 that is problematic. the pipeline challenge is absolutely important. the third challenge, the talented workforce, what i call many types leader problem. what i mean by that is often the talented workforce, we meet many different types, not just the experts, we need many of those but we need phds or whatever they have but also developers, not the fundamental research but the department work to build applications and users understanding enough to know how this fits into work clothes and how they use these technologies. we need leaders and the report does some work to categorize different sites that are needed but it is important to recognize the whole talent
ecosystem here and value chain with different capabilities and roles, some of those are easier to transition people to. some are harder but this other monolithic problem when it comes to the ai workforce, problem number 4 is the flow problem. a challenge that the element of the triangle don't work very well and you could argue the 3 legs of the triangle, government, universities and private sector right now the flow to the private sector. almost entirely. so how do we solve the flow problem? this problem even for universities, i did my phd in robotics years ago telling you how old i am. you are looking for the best
cutting-edge research in robotics and you look a handful of universities, that is where the best work has been done. that is not true anymore. most of the most amazing groundbreaking fundamental research is in the private sector so the flow problem is a big challenge. i might characterize this as a mission problem in the following sense, it used to be the case that you could imagine technologists at a time people imagine if you wanted to do something good to the world you go into public service or the military, do things that are good for society. technologists have a few more choices, they see the private sector as one way to change the world, technology for good.
the monopoly public service used to have is a mechanism for smart, talented people, as many other competitors. there is more work national security agencies - what does this mean for organizations and organizational structure and there is useful lessons in the private sector. one thing you see now where days was they had a hard time understanding technology is fundamental to what we do. they came to realize that every time we had a technology company, they had their do but it is fundamental to the whole enterprise and that needs to come to our federal agencies. it is not something a few people will deal with in quantity. it has to be part of the system
and this shows up in a few places. it should affect the person you suggested so i won't go into that. but the infrastructure question was one of the things specific to ai, and in the algorithm's, you also need tools and data. what is one of the reasons people go to the private sector for ai is tools, so making sure the organizations have the ability to give people access the amount that they need, the infrastructures they need to do the work in interesting ways is a piece of the organizational change that is required. the other thing, general
shanahan talked about the mismatch for the agility and pace that our defense agencies doesn't quite match the agility in ways of working that they require, to test things and so forth. let me end on a couple notes that remain to people. one of the things we have learned if you like the investment of technology in the private sector, the metrics people use, for every dollar investment in the technology you need to invest another 20 in the change management. not just about buying the technology that needs to happen in the organization, this is what you are alluding to about the change that has to happen
and i will end on this note, pathways -- one thing that helps a lot is you have organizations and career pathways where they can go to the highest level of the organizations, you see this all the time. until you see chief technology officer's to affect organizations and people can see career pathways this was not taken seriously, kid doing technology stuff but people could see the progress in the organization. that was part of the thinking in our defense in national security agencies which you had already spoken about.
>> to round things up? >> wonderful. second or third, thanks for inviting me and the marvelous work, i look forward to seeing more output. in silicon valley, neither the singularity nor a university story that we are working on. in the united states you pull glue on your curriculum for two years, we are 300 brainiacs around the world are experts on artificial intelligence to next-generation medicine and the impact on the future of the organization and future learning. to distill these things down,
the framing i often get, are we trying to put our efforts on upgrading humans or are we trying to change the systems including our organizations and my answer is yes, got to do both. in an outsized manner, disadvantage, help the right kind of skills and if you don't help people have the tools in learning you have this continual mismatch so i will focus first on the humans. what i talk a lot about is the framing i see, we are going through as big a shift as we did from agriculture to industrial economy and digital work economy and doing it on a
short period of time. what that means for humans is a bunch of ways we are reacting to that and the technology is a great enabler but also increasing that pace. we are shifting to portfolio of work rather than one person one job where having this much worse in different constructs with different activities people do parents ask me did my kid get a real job? the answer is working at a day job, start up with your friends - it is a response to an especially changing world. how do you think about how you then leverage that kind of unbundling of work and being able to channel human energy to solve the problems so that is the first opportunity to think in terms of helping humans to upgrade themselves to other issues with the workforce to take advantage of because it creates opportunity if we change our organizations in the right way and it is one of
those situations technology can help if we use it correctly. let's talk half a dozen ai superpowers. china and russia and others but what are the superpowers technology can help us to have so that we can be supportive in solving the problem and to the organization issues. the same way we see constructs around the way humans work changing the organization itself is a construct, the whole idea of a corporate hierarchy traced back to alexander the great and in that shift from agriculture to industrial model we create the organization and i use the analogy of a box. there is abundance outside the box and scarcity in the box. there is corporate hierarchy and slots. we did that with a rational response to build factories and
channel the energies of humans. the best communications technology was a carrier pigeon. now we have digital distraction devices we all carry around to have the people in the world. the organization had to change. a lot of unbundling the organization from my friend john hagel but basically the idea is to shift if you want to picture of it to a model of a network. will more you unbundle the organization, this is especially germane to agencies, apprenticeships, mentorships, crowdsourcing platforms, going through tours of duty, whatever allows you to take advantage of resources, skill sets of people that can solve these problems, you can open the box and turn it into better advantage you have.
i talk a lot about these issues. it isn't about change management but managing change. there is a mentality that the current state and future state and then you are done. what is the difference between them? we have our plan. we can't see any point at which exponential change will slow down as one of our favorite phrases, following the slowest day of the rest of your life, you will look back in 10 years and say i remember when you didn't embed chips in your head or print your clothes in your closet and that kind of thing. you see it is going to increase. the idea an organization has a future static state we don't see that so the process is you need to be able to help people to adapt especially as we think of the lens of ai and the technologies themselves that are not going to slow down but
will only increase we just need to figure both. a new way of thinking about solving these problems. >> i am listening to the three of you and if there is a simple refrain i could put forward, it is that you are demanding from us or asking these organizations to do some things in ways that were not organically poised to do because you are throwing out the entire model which has built this framework and you say going for word, the model going forward enabling all the
things that are necessary for national security, the way we went about it until now is not the way to get that. >> it is right and not scary. i would be scared, if i thought the future world was the technology and humans to self organize. one of the difficulties in the last 20 years when communications instead of being pony express when there was a lot of expenses add value. now it is infinitely available but they are still trying to process - trying to figure out which technologies so here is what i think.
we need government but government can't act in this world to provide the functions government does in the same way. i love your quotation on change. i have a different one. i hate change but i love this more. what is the function of government, the function of national security q2 you cannot affected the way it is. it isn't working. it is ripping at the seams. it is too slow. it is not expensive enough. >> i know that you -- >> you have the people but people without imperative are going to have a hard time delivering the outcome that we need. to take it as far as we go ahead the limitations to it. look at mark zuckerberg in front of congress.
when he started he didn't understand the responsibility of that volume. the reason i'm not concerned is organizations understand what their purpose is and let go of the modality. and as you are articulating we can get there. if we think it is willy-nilly or hold onto the ways i have done it in the past those two are antithetical to the progress we need which is why some people look at china and say we lock it down. that isn't going to yield it. it is a combination of things. >> you work in government more than a year or two. how in the world do we get to your nirvana?
you have sticky floors, potentially prevent us from -- what are the 123 things that will get us getting rid of that feeling and that floor? >> you cannot convince me leadership doesn't matter. it does. it sets the direction and makes the rules. from a government perspective, one of our responsibilities is to have a larger horizon and deeper pocketbooks. not going to endorse sarah schumer's proposal but i like it because it is a foundational thing you need to do. you need more but the other thing is you need to create a semi permeable membrane. for talent, for prophecies, for
ideas. it can't just be one way. the private sector has to realize their solutions, leadership and semi permeable membrane and reinvesting of foundation, the basis for application going forward. >> a little more optimistic than the question suggests for the following reasons. i am optimistic for the following reasons. there is lots of instances of the kind of change and innovation we are talking about. the defense department recommended what is in this
report, to emerge mechanisms to move back and forth between industry and the government. you have lots of these examples so that is good and look at the leaders, to work closely and co-with the task force on national security and innovation. you have these leaders emerging, the challenges two full, it is too small, too incremental and not moving quickly enough. in the past we might have been able to live with that and slowly adapt and change over time but this is different partly because i love numbers so you take the investment question, we have a competitor, some fun numbers on this. if you look at the rates of investing in basic research.
the peak of that, spending 2% of gdp and drop 5.6%. the other side of the trajectory, the rate at which they are investing, their own path in a decade if they keep up the rate of investment spending they will be spending in gdp at a time, for the economy. the scale and pace we are talking about requires they move faster. i love the innovations and call to action and they do bigger and faster, that is the challenge.
>> you can't not, budgetary allocation, you cannot ignore the political dynamics. >> that is the reason i think it is important, we have to get the support. no one - no one can just rewrite the budget. that is the beauty of this country. it is important and foundational. >> complacency, and government agencies. you have these poster children, being nimble - and ceos, asking the same challenges. and the innovator's dilemma or
encumbrance dilemma and focus on the same issues. and they focus on the managers, they manage information going up and the power going down and, and read moonshot and education. don't get me started on education because i will go off on that for a long time. what she says the old model is the stage on the stage and we need to move the guide on the side and that is the model for adaptive management, how you
think not as the one controlling the work of employees but when it is enabling them to be dynamically find their own problems and these organizations focus on the lineman and once you get the path of the direction you are going, what is the role of every individual being able to enable that change. and the processes they are going through and continually build. that can be learned from. >> they get it wrong. so yes. the dynamic tension, what kind of risk management processes put in place. it isn't just that you are
managing, also managing secure country. >> there are no shrinking violets on this panel. if you have any questions please raise your hands and we will give the mic to you. a lot of what we are speaking in terms of working group 3, i was worried during the first part of today. i don't know what we are going to speak about now because a lot of the questions were put forth but if you want to get more granular or re-ask the question or state it a different way now is your opportunity to do so. by show of hands, by show of hands, if you weigh in on this conversation. you have one taker. if you can briefly state who you are and where you are from? >> the american psychological association. one of the things i am hearing
you say, what it looks like for innovation and ai. and since i served there for 22 years, i wanted to expand on that about the diversity of talent and in that -- >> first off. there is research going back to the 1950s when we shifted to a consumer economy. really good work on understanding human skills and the occupational titles, basically things that are
called knowledges and transferable skills. we call them hard skills and soft skills. these are skills anchored or rooted in a particular arena and are usable in a range of different situations, we get so over indexed on specific knowledges we believe are needed at a particular period of time to be able to train people to solve certain kinds of problems. the systems are geared toward that but the way we are turning towards that, all these skill that allow people to be collaborative. the shelflife of information is decaying rapidly. the portfolio of skills but we need and the truth is there will always be deep knowledges that will continually change to actually be the equivalent of the karma camp but a lot of
people don't know how to drive a car and they have a range of different perspectives to solve problems with dynamic teams. that is really clear. only two actual characteristics of live performance teams. psychological safety. a bunch of people together. and psychological diverse city. it has to be a lot of the skills we think of, people trained in psychology and a range of different liberal arts backgrounds because that's the only way you will solve the problem. in silicon valley we heavily over indexed on technical skills and we are ignoring many of the others that require us to solve problems by now. >> two things. one of the things does a nice job of articulating 7 or 8 different kinds of capabilities and the majority are signs, that is one point.
the other point, the community recognizing this itself. i have been involved in setting up institutions for the ai instituted by design it is a multidisciplinary institute. if you look at what is going on you have scientists and robot-assisted also people from law, from philosophy, the co-directors of the institute, what is the computer scientist and the other a philosopher so you are seeing a recognition that this takes multiple skills and capabilities. we need to move away from the ai skills topic. >> to take a twist on that, i think this is a technical world.
i think everyone, don't -- you have to be comfortable with technology. you may not be the person who is developing but if you are not a comfortable data swimmer comfortable with technology will have a hard time. second, as these technologies become more ubiquitous you will need critical thinking. you wanted to use it so both the technologists have got to have in their head use and decision-makers have to have that responsibility so if you take secretary kissinger's comment, if you believe you have a responsibility for use, you will get to the issue of ethics because nothing changed about the responsibility the organizational the human just because you introduced a technology. >> application and application. >> you have to understand the
responsibility so that the critical thinking piece so i think you will see a resurgence of liberal arts education as the technology terminates more broadly than it has now because that is going to be what makes the difference in terms of progress. >> forgive me for being fixated that it is a sudden thing to be honest with you. you are speaking about being disruptive in public and private sectors. and affirming the proposition in those sectors will be more diverse in a number of ways particularly as it relates to discipline but that again is not natural, not comfortable, not easy to manage, and -- >> especially in the government
where historically our promise is stability of employment. >> you said that out loud? >> yes and that has given us the greatest accomplishments of free societies because of that but it isn't necessarily the model we need going forward. i am proud to serve the committee for four years. when i talk to young people i status the best 5 to 10 years of your career. it is. to understand the use case, you have more responsibility. >> how do we make that sexy? >> we can. there are partnerships that you can imagine. i can imagine a company saying we are going after the same talent and i want that talent's first five years to be in the government. >> the keywords, the greatest places you have to stand his purpose.
my father is a recovering minister who had been laid off and went to help other ministers being laid off and it turned into a book called what color is your parachute and one of the reasons i didn't go to college, the family business, trade is current counselor and he should have broken down jobs and also the characteristics of humans into 7 different characteristics including skills and knowledge but the center of the target is purpose. what you are finding now, young kids don't work for their company and what is your purpose. >> got purpose nailed. that is the place you start from.
>> you don't have to make that up. that is the north star. it is not clear how they move. >> the public sector needs to be a better messenger. >> code for america. the whole model, making a problem clear, more problem centric. it is very process centered. it is more problem centric, the more you call out the problem to be solved, you have an impact on that. through a team at the state of
california which made marijuana legal, changing the records of 50,000 people had convictions on their records and wiping them out automatically. it was done because you had a bunch of innovators in. >> questions? to my right. >> i am going to speak, the question about management, one of you mentioned there were tech problems, in the off ramp for the middle. and providing -- i am so sorry.
the ability to retain the talent. many of the people with these skills are leaving at frustration when you have technology and data through lack of implementation. >> you need to tackle those problems. just the demographic group, not people who want to participate but people waiting until their tenure is up. we need to help that and that is a difficult thing to say but it is something we are going to need to. if we don't create the environment where it can thrive. the promise won't have been enough. that is where some of these problems were being attacked.
if you wanted to work with high-performance computing, if you wanted to do geospatial information you had to be in the government but there are so many outlets that we have to fix that. when we get that stack of infrastructure and process, that is a big problem for us which is why the partnership and membrane of saying i want you to go out now and work on your craft and that is the tent. the national security tend is much bigger than government institutions. that is a way to address the numeric problems of supply and demand and the talent problem of peeping being engaged and what the nation needs without having to wait until we solve
the bureaucratic issues with government structures. and if you take a small step of freeing that up and not worry about what is sending person a to company b, that is the way for us to jumpstart this. it inoculates their people with regulation. >> i saw another hand here. the other person, if you could approach whoever has the mike, cut out a few seconds. >> i am and a mitchell, a product manager. i graduated from stanford
computer science department and talked to a lot of people deciding about their jobs out of college. a lot of people who specialized in ai. one of the things i noticed over and over, so hard to turn down a super high-paying job in the private sector, with stock options, bonuses, hard to do that as a new graduate. what are your most concrete proposals beyond tours of duty, recruiting people for the long-term? >> we talked about that in the report. do you have that? >> a couple things. one of the things being proposed in various circles, when people are taking on jobs in public service, based on these technologies, graduated from these places. why wouldn't the federal government right of their loans.
the government may not pay them what you pay them. why not underwrite the cost of education people invested in these foundational technologies. >> there are other ways for the bonus check, they have a financial impact. >> the reason things like tours like duty are the things -- that there is a period of time on that problem with the bigger paycheck. you have risk reduction, it is the arc of your career. up the volume on purpose. if you give people two jobs and one pays pretty well but is lacking the purpose they feel and the reason they are on the planet and another job that
pays less but has that baked in. if you can factor out circumstantial issues like heavy student loans, people choose door number 2 over and over again depending on the risk profile. then you carveout the problem so it is very clear and there is a public-private partnership in between where they can be partially on loan to solve problems over the long term. that is not binary. >> and hiring bonuses and all those kinds of things. what we could do is make it faster. if someone gives the offer at the same time as the private sector. >> i am so sorry about that.
the ai accelerator, toward an industry with amazon, to go through the university and it was huge to me is the democratization of ai and a lot of these tech companies have internal cool -- schoolhouses. you talk about the flow problem and the high point problem. what do you see as a role for industry and academia. and they upscale be forced to create the organic capabilities. >> a quick answer. >> i don't want to be word police.
the industrial processes, they upgrade their own capabilities but a public-private interaction process, the private companies have so many resources construct boot camps where government agencies can be continually identifying the skill set that they want and have a process to dynamically connect to the program and be the immersive process and get trained rapidly. >> the tours of duty at a larger scale spending time at companies. the government agencies do a poor job creating the sense of excitement for the work people doing government. anyone doing machine learning on the weather or climate
systems, how do you attract people for problems, they have better assets to offer to people answering those problems. >> final word time is up. forgive me. one word answer from each of you about what you are most excited about for in ai future, we have negative, 20 seconds. one word answer. >> the hardest problems in the world. >> that is more than one word. >> max might human potential. >> curiosity enablement. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> we are going to take a 10 minute break.
[inaudible conversations] >> if i could get your attention. thank you. [applause] >> he needs now introduction but it is a pleasure to introduce the 27th secretary of defense, doctor mark esper. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> we still have conversations going on. must be some good issues. good afternoon and thank you for that introduction. the work this commission is
doing in bringing together academia, defense and business is critically important. thank you for inviting me to speak today, great to be here. the world around us is changing at a pace faster than ever before. new technologies are emerging that are fundamentally altering how we think about, plan, and prepare for war. 20 years ago i saw firsthand the transformative power of technology during operation desert storm. i was with the 101st airborne division and took part in the deepest air assault into enemy territory at that point in history and in 96 hours the 101st moved three brigades over 350 miles cutting off the republican guard. it was the proving ground for a new generation of military weapons and equipment from laserguided smart bombs to stealth aircraft to the first widespread use of gps.
by liberating kuwait and defeating the iraqi military in a matter of days, american forces demonstrated our mastery of the digital revolution and rendered what was then cutting-edge soviet technology obsolete. our adversaries took note and since then have been trying to catch up. 5 years ago they surprised the world with how far they had come. on july 11, 2014, ukrainian forces assembled 5 miles from the russian border in southeastern ukraine. coming off recent successes against russian backed forces the ukrainian battalions were eagerly preparing a final push to the border. suddenly they noticed the home of russian uavs overhead followed by cyber attacks against their command and control and communication systems. immediately after a flurry of russian artillery range down on them the whole episode lasted just a few minutes but
inflicted tremendous damage. dozens of soldiers were killed. hundreds more were wounded. most of their armored vehicles were destroyed. the ukrainian offense if came to a devastating halt in a matter of minutes. the world was quickly awakened to a new era of warfare advanced by the russians. it is clear the threat of tomorrow are no longer the ones we faced and defeated in the past. that is why national even strategy hinges on the ability of our forces to adapt to a security environment characterized by new threats to our strategic adversaries. we are committed to making the investments necessary to accelerate our innovation in technologies that help us decent stay ahead of the curve especially artificial intelligence. advances in ai have the potential to change the character of warfare for generations to come. whichever nation harnesses ai first will have a decisive advantage on the battlefield for many many years. we have to get their first.
and and in unprecedented ways. he has the potential to transform warfare and all these domains. .. and then to prioritize china first in russia second as we transition into the era of great power competition. beijing has made it abundantly clear president xi said it must ensure the country marches in the front ranks when it comes to theoretical research and the important area of ai and the in critical and core ai technologies. for instance, improvements in ai enable more capable and cost effective autonomous vehicles.
the chinese army is -- while the u.s. face mighty task in transition of the world's most advanced military to can ai end systems china believes it can leapfrog our current technology and go straight to the next generation. in addition, to develop an conventional systems, for example, beijing is investing in low-cost, long-range, autonomous and unmanned submarines which it believes can be a cost effective counter to american naval power. as we speak the chinese government has already experts of the most advanced military aerial drones of the middle east as it prepares to export its next-generation windows come online. chinese weapons manufacturer advertise capable for a top full autonomy.
and then to be denied basic human rights on the unprecedented scale. and with that surveillance to suppress more than 1 million muslim leaders. and then to support those efforts. equally troubling are the multinational corporations inadvertently or tacitly providing technology or research behind china's unethical use of ai turning to
these platforms it has serious risk with their capabilities. our collective security must not be diminished of the shore and narrow sided focus of opportunity. russia made intentions clear calling a i the future humanity describing technology is the key to supremacy on the world stage. moscow has already demonstrated its eagerness to use the latest technology free and open society we should not doubt their abilities. and we expect russia to continue to deploy high capabilities and future combat zones. and then to protect with liberty and human rights and it is for our time and the
tremendous opportunity to have a wide range of capabilities and we will do this while being recognized as the world leader of military ethics in a lawful and ethical manner. and with this joint artificial intelligence center as well as integrate the power across many levels of department of defense. and with that cyberdefense but also more applications. we don't approach ai or any technology as a panacea and we see it as a tool for valuable resources and manpower to focus on higher priority tasks. the ultimate goal is to get the war fighter into the
clouds and to deliver capability out to the tactical edge this is to modernize the war fighting systems with the premier workforce to strike partnership across the entire sector. we recognize these challenges. our successes upon predictable funding from congress. the ongoing continuing resolution impacts our ability to accelerate ai development at the ski one - - speed and skill necessary. our adversaries are not slowing down in the united states cannot afford to be there. congress must understand short-term budget uncertainty has long-term strategic implications for our nation security. technology is constantly changing our commitment to
ethics and duty does not to demonstrate our ability to invest and develop systems that reduce risk for war fighters while increasing combat for the ultimate purpose to protect the security of the american people. we will ensure we develop technology in a way to pull values and advanced security and stability at the same time. some private sector has raised concerns but unlike some parts of the world they have a choice of who they work with that is the virtue of a free enterprise system. but let me be clear is not of a just use by militaries around the world. it will be but the real question is if authoritarian governments dominate and by extension the battlefield or if the united states military and partners can work together to lead the world with responsible research and
application. when america unleashes its industry and academia nobody can compete with us. so i world war ii the titans of industry and hard-working patriots answer the call and then we rallied the best and brightest to create darpa and nasa and took control of the space race. mastering ai has a similar vision and commitment. we are no stranger to these challenges america has risen to the task before and we must do so again but we need your help. we need the full force of american intellect and ingenuity and your leadership and your vision to maine taking a strategic edge to
pioneer solutions for collective security thank you for your time and i look forward to our discussion. thank you. [applause] >> thank you secretary for your thoughtful remarks it's clear you in the department have been thinking about ai and what it offers our military and enabling our adversaries. i would like to pull upon your comments thank you for sharing so how the dod could be communicating with industry challenging them over national security issues. >> we are reaching out in a number of ways to posting
notices through forums and think tanks sessions and reaching out to academics directly for go we were talking before hand as secretary we set up the task force at carnegie mellon and i spent a whole day out there with those researchers that showed up for the groundbreaking. trying to reach out at different levels with regard to industry not just the big players on the block but those that you tend to find your greatest innovation and ingenuity we have to task the best and brightest to make sure we can get there quicker than the chinese and the russians. >> we had a lot of conversation and i think this is an important conversation to end on i understand with the think tanks the defense
innovative board just gave recommended principles because it conforms to our values as a society to think about where the principles might be implemented across the department. >> we have to conduct ourselves ethically and legally and morally. it just listed a set of principles but in terms to apply that to ai it reaffirmed those we have been using for many years. so for you to look at this report it is comprehensive and balances out the need for continued exploration of these topics. this is not one we can afford
to get wrong. >> the commission has a lot of dialogue of human resources and how will we attract that talent and institutionalize that into the department. have you had a chance to think of those concerns and what you can do to attract that right talent to do this business in the future quick. >> making sure you can access the best and the brightest and keep them happy and busy we saw this not just from the government perspective was cyberbut with army cyberthat started to recruit but also the private sector with industry and government all competing for the same handful of people because they are talented and exceptional they
have great opportunities to work in the private sector for large sums of money. we have to make sure we find different ways to attract them because we cannot compete with compensation but we can offer you a chance to serve your country and do things that are interesting maybe not legal in the private sector. [laughter] but exciting nonetheless. we tend to bring together a great deal of folks but i have always enjoyed my time in service whether the military or dod work around a great group of people that is bigger than the bottom line it seems cliché but it is the space race whoever gets there first will dominate largely got there with what you needed. and we need to get their first
on ai with continued investment so now were trying to leverage to bring in people and recruit them to use different techniques with a different compensation package so we are looking for ways to get out of our own bureaucratic methods. >> it so good you come from a service background into this position. one of the things we see is the change of war fighting so what do you see now that you are in this position with its challenges in the ai battle cracks what will dod face in the future that is different quick. >> i think i mentioned this it won't change the nature but
out what's a civilian truck and what is an enemy combatant vehicle. what is a tank and what is a fighting vehicle? which one is your immediate threat? it can do it so much quicker that it allows you so much greater reaction to the enemy and that's where the man beside what people trick or not. that's i had to think about ai enabling quicker faster decisions allows to be successful in the battlefield and bring our folks home. that's a war fighting implication. we can go towards anything whether, heck if it's even doing audits of the dod which has never been done before. we're getting there. but everything. and i run through everything we do. we have to make sure we get it and that's what we're what we e as quickly as we can to the cloud. >> excellent. you mentioned during your preliminary notes here about your interest and your energy guide ai. when you went to your
confirmation hearing you mention it. one of your highest priorities. he referred to the joint artificial intelligence commission committee. what are your thoughts for the future and how do you think your leadership will be able to top down as follows autumn up our department pass that bureaucracy you discussing into that future? >> the acquisition system is not as sufficient as it should be. we are trying to take advantage of laws given to us and authority by congress but it's slow. the biggest pop with dod in terms of acquisition is the culture. it's very risk-averse. where to change the culture. that will take time. change philosophers and change the regulations and practices and i think the services are moving forward at different rates but we have to empower to cut to these things to make sure we get there quicker. we are in a race. we had to get to the end-state quicker than the chinese can come quicker than the russians
can't. there are a few key technologies out there. i put a i number one, two, three, four, looks like a few other things but even with the systems with hypersonics him directed energy and i is still going to enable them in terms how you employ them, how you maintain them, all that. that's why ai pops up as number one. >> you mentioned in your conversations here the issue of bringing the best and brightest. have you seen some good collaboration between the government, academia and industry? i recall i seem to recall when i is working with you in the army there was some activity. have you got examples we can bring to the forefront to get people past that risk equation? >> that's a good question. i wish i had some at him i mentioned before we kicked off ai task force at carnegie mellon university and doing some good initial work there. had another different players involved. the army is deeply integrated in
austin, texas, with army futures committee. doing a lot of work try to cut through bureaucracy, using cross functional teams to do that. all the services are looking for different ways where we can really accelerate the progress because we need to get there, make sufficient investments and whatnot deity is in the final weeks as you recall building its budget for the next year. ai is one of those core critical technologies we need to get to. it's not just the money. it's the people. i probably put people loved one and all the assistance you need to enable them to do their jobs and do them well.
we had to overhaul the personnel system because it was just holding us back into many ways. that's just for the military side. there's a survey of inside -- civilian side. dod does great work. we do a number of things really well but when it comes to talent we're still working in industrial age system. it's regulated by the executive branch. it's regulated by congress. it is number of constraints but we have to get beyond that to think outside the box because again at the end of the day it's the talent and it's not like we're in a noncompetitive environment. we are competing industry, competing against think tanks. these folks are in high demand
and they are a low density at least pull of talent. >> you have an opportunity here with this community, a a mix of academic and a mix of civilian, et cetera. is there anything you would call for them to think about that would help you in your problem-solving? >> the more you can help us point out what are the obstacles were putting in our own way. we have enough challenges external to us, so what do we need to do better? what you see i don't see? i try every month to meet with groups of ceos or heads of associations and talk about what we can do better. how can we see ourselves better? because typically what i hears everything is okay, everything is great, everything is green. no problem. but when you reach out, , walk around and visit folks and talk to companies and talk to entrepreneurs to get a different story. we're trying to beat those debt what at a time as we realize
we're not doing this well we can make some adjustments to the system, , we could really up our talent. i'll take any problem if it allows us to do better or ideas you have for us to perform. all those things help because it's too important. >> thank you. your remarks and inputs have been excellent. is there anything that you would like to share beyond what i've asked you? any thoughts you would like to have? >> no. well yes. i'll just keep quick stopping it. dod doesn't have a monopoly of great ideas here or certainly all the talent. so much of it is coming from the private sector so we need your help. and be cautious of what's happening out there in a world. as a like to tell our native allies and european friends, i was just in brussels, on this topic by the way, i tell them don't bite off what we are
saying as united states scaremongering when this case dod scaremongering about china. don't think we're overstating the problem. there are serious issues and we been asleep at the switch for quite some time and were finally waking up in the past couple of years in the national defense strategy has pointed duty in the right direction saying now an air of great power competition. china is our greatest strategic competitor. russian never to come we need to be prepared for high intensity conflict across five domains of warfare, no longer three. that's where we are headed and we need your help to get there. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> live thursday on the c-span networks the senate energy committee looks at energy development on federal lands. at 1:00 vice president mike pence will speak at the politics and makes event at st. anselm college in manchester, new hampshire. c-span2 the senate resumes consideration of the nomination of a a judge for the eastern district of arkansas. on c-span3 at 10 a.m. carla hayden librarian of congress testifies before the senate rules and administration committee on efforts to modernize the library.