Articles of Interest - Week 1/13 - 1/19

AI Opportunities Action Plan

Presented to the U.K. Parliament by the Secretary of State Science, Innovation and Technology. January 13th, 2025. 

The U.K. government has announced a new and ambitious plan to secure its position as a global AI development and deployment leader by increasing funding, infrastructure, and domestic technology production. The plan focuses on strengthening AI foundations, accelerating AI adoption across numerous economic sectors, and developing domestic AI capabilities. The U.K. government has committed to significantly expanding (by 20x) AI research computing capacity by 2030 and establishing "AI Growth Zones" for data centers and other AI-related infrastructure. The plan also calls for the creation of a new "U.K. Sovereign AI" unit to partner and correspond with the country's private tech industry and better coordinate private sector advancement with the government's economic and national security objectives. The U.K. is currently the world's third-largest AI market, behind the U.S. and China. This strategy acknowledges that the U.K. may fail to keep up with the two leading countries should it not take decisive action to address the future of the country's AI advancement and deployment.

Rather than relying on market forces, the government proposes an "activist" approach modeled after historical success stories like Japan's MITI and Singapore's Economic Development Board of the 1960s. Their calculation seems to be that basic AI infrastructure investments - which most advanced nations will soon match - aren't enough to secure a leading position in the AI race. By positioning “U.K. Sovereign AI” as a powerful coordinating force that can deploy financial and non-financial state assets, they acknowledge that the traditional hands-off approach to industrial development may not work for AI. But this raises important questions about execution. Can the U.K. maintain its position as an AI safety and regulation leader while simultaneously pushing for aggressive development? This issue is the same one that the U.S. will likely face in the coming years as it too competes to maintain its leadership in global AI. Will the U.K.'s vision survive the political and funding challenges plaguing modern industrial strategies?

Pentagon to test how generative AI would perform in fight with China

Patrick Tucker, Defense One. January 15th, 2025.

The Pentagon's Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) is launching a 90-day test to evaluate and test how generative AI could enhance battlefield decision-making against adversaries like China in the Indo-Pacific region. The initiative will examine how ChatGPT-like tools could help commanders make faster decisions in combat scenarios. CDAO is partnering with government contractors Anduril and Palantir to assess how cutting-edge AI technology could play a role in future conflicts. The CDAO's approach to private sector AI advancement and military integration attempts to maintain flexibility and control by allowing the Pentagon to mix and match AI solutions depending on the challenge and which AI system would best work to address it. That said, one senior defense official warned that without proper government leverage, the tech industry and AI contractors might prioritize profit over the actual needs of the warfighters.

This development highlights both the Pentagon's urgency to integrate AI and the complex dynamics emerging between the Defense Department and its new tech partners. The U.S. military is no stranger to working with the private sector to develop and implement new systems and technology, so the concern that AI technology will be different I think might be a bit overstated, though still a concern that is worth mentioning and keeping an eye on should it prove to be an issue. I think the most significant bit of information from this article is the integration of AI into military decision-making. This integration will likely introduce numerous new challenges for warfighters. From multi-system integration to chain of command questions, ironing out any wrinkles well ahead of time will be essential. Should the Pentagon "mix and match" AI systems from various contractors, they must be absolutely sure that these systems are interoperable, which may require some information sharing and cooperation between the contractors themselves. Integrating AI into U.S. armed forces will likely be the main challenge of the next decade. Warfighting in the future will be incredibly advanced, so to gain the upper hand in the future, we must lay the proper groundwork now. 

Artificial intelligence is changing espionage, says NSC official

Scott Detrow, NPR: All Things Considered. January 19th, 2025.

In a recent NPR interview, Deputy National Security Adviser Anne Neuberger outlined how AI fundamentally reshapes intelligence gathering and espionage operations. She emphasized AI's ability to quickly integrate and assess different types of intelligence information to provide faster, more comprehensive analysis of potential threats. By quickly combining everything from satellite imagery to electronic communication signals, these AI-powered systems will enable a greater ability to protect against possible threats to U.S. national security. When asked about the possibility of AI incorrectly identifying threats, Neuberger stated, "The United States must challenge ourselves to be first, first to benefit from AI, first to protect itself from enemies who might use it, and first to use AI in line with the laws and values of a democracy because those risks you talk about are real." She also stressed resilience and regular "protections" against the threats that AI pose, both for the general public and national security.

Neuberger's line about being "first" in terms of AI development and adoption is a common theme amongst U.S. decision-makers when it comes to AI. As we regularly discuss here at the Prometheus Security Project, AI has enormous potential but dangerous threats that come along with it. She correctly states that being "first" enables the U.S. to lead the discussion on AI safety and ethics. It is essential to lead this global conversation and shape the future of AI values with values that align with our own. The right to privacy, for example. The alternative is allowing China to be "first" and shape AI governance in a way that aligns with their own values, which would likely differ significantly from U.S. values. That said, it will be important to be "first," but the U.S. must not sacrifice its own values and ethics in the process of being "first." Should the U.S. lower the theoretical "bar" for AI ethics and safety in order to be "first" and then later try to raise that bar for others, it would not go over well on the international stage.