Articles of Interest - Week 11/4 -11/10
- Walker Robinson
- Nov 10, 2024
- 5 min read
Updated: Jan 27
Gabriel Dominguez, The Japan Times. November 4th, 2024.
The White House Memo on AI in national security released on October 2th, has emerged as a pivotal moment in U.S. defense strategy. The memo seeks to modernize defense and intelligence operations by developing and deploying advanced AI systems while maintaining security safeguards. Despite the initiative by the U.S., this new directive is causing some concerns among European allies regarding safety and ethics standards. It also creates new expectations for allied countries like Japan to modify their approach to AI development to maintain technological compatibility and interoperability with U.S. systems.
This new policy direction highlights growing divisions in how democratic nations approach military AI development. European allies are understandably concerned that the new initiative risks sacrificing safety concerns in the name of rapid development and deployment. That being said, the memo emphasizes safe and ethical deployment throughout, so, at the very least, the U.S. has acknowledged the importance of guardrails and safety protocols. Should the U.S. move too far from its commitment to safe and ethical AI development, it could lead to a rift between its European allies, the start of which we can already see now through varying approaches to data privacy in AI model training. Furthermore, the requirement to exclude Chinese technology from being used in U.S. AI systems places pressure on countries that hold close security ties with the U.S. but maintain tech partnerships with China. The U.S. itself won't have any issues excluding Chinese tech, but these other countries that have close ties to China and rely on Chinese tech may find themselves in a difficult situation. The U.S. must be careful how it approaches its AI development and regulation. Should it not be safe enough, it risks pushing some allies away. At the same time, if the development is so secure that it slows down development, the U.S. may fall behind adversaries in critical capabilities.
Ross Pomeroy, Freethink. November 7th, 2024.
U.S. technology faces an unprecedented challenge from Chinese economic espionage, particularly in the semiconductor industry. As illustrated by the recent theft of critical DRAM technology from Micron through a complex scheme involving Taiwanese and Chinese companies, this is an increasingly damaging threat. Since 2000, over 224 documented cases of Chinese espionage have been recorded against U.S. interests. Additionally, more than 1,200 intellectual property lawsuits have been filed by U.S. companies against Chinese entities. The theft also extends beyond U.S. borders. Key semiconductor companies in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Netherlands have been targeted using methods ranging from cyber attacks to employee recruitment.
This pattern of systematic technology theft reflects a broader strategic competition in semiconductor development. China's underhanded approach, which consists of insider recruitment, forced technology transfers through joint ventures, and sophisticated cyber operations, demonstrates a coordinated national effort to steal critical technology and enable China's semiconductor independence. The U.S. response, which includes export restrictions and the CHIPS Act, clearly shows growing recognition that semiconductors are essential for national security. Despite those efforts, the surge in espionage cases following recent export controls suggests that restricting legal methods of access to technology may unintentionally intensify illegal acquisition efforts. The regulation creates a complex challenge for Western nations trying to maintain their technological edge over China.
Pablo Chavez, Lawfare. November 7th, 2024
Governments worldwide are increasingly pursuing "sovereign AI" initiatives to develop their AI capabilities independent of U.S. and Chinese dominance. Countries like Singapore, Taiwan, and France are investing billions in developing native language models and building the necessary infrastructure for AI development. While these efforts often emphasize protecting national languages, cultures, and economic interests, most still rely heavily on U.S. technology, particularly Nvidia computer chips. U.S. dominance in high-end AI technology makes true AI sovereignty challenging to achieve. Despite this dependency, countries still create hybrid approaches that balance domestic control with international collaboration.
This trend toward a more localized strategy of AI development is essential in understanding how countries view technological independence in the AI era. While complete AI sovereignty remains unattainable mainly due to reliance on U.S. hardware and expertise, these initiatives reveal growing concerns about technological dependence on major powers. For example, If the U.S. and France were to have a falling out for one reason or another, France wouldn't want its entire emerging technology industry to grind to a stop. The hybrid model approach suggests a future where AI development becomes more distributed globally, though still anchored to U.S. technological infrastructure. Many of these programs' emphasis on open-source development indicates a conscious choice to build influence through collaboration rather than isolation, even as countries seek greater technological autonomy.
Dr. Alexander Blanchard, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. November 7th, 2024.
Dr. Blanchard claims the world is entering a second wave of quantum technological advancement. Experts have developed more sophisticated sensing, computing, and communications systems based on earlier breakthroughs like nuclear power and semiconductors. While these innovations offer promising security and environmental monitoring benefits, they also present significant risks—particularly the military applications of these technologies. Major powers, like the U.S. and China, are investing heavily in quantum military capabilities. The U.S. DoD has allocated $45 million to quantum-enhanced weapons systems, and China is advancing quantum radar and communication technologies. Dr. Blanchard argues that while there is still time for policymakers to get ahead of the potential threats, the window is rapidly closing.
The boom in quantum technology represents a critical period in global security dynamics. Unlike previous technological revolutions, quantum advancements could fundamentally alter military capabilities and strategic balance, especially when combined with other emerging technologies. The lack of any fundamental international governance frameworks is particularly concerning. As these technologies develop faster than policy responses, countries will be hard-pressed to create effective regulatory frameworks that avoid becoming obsolete too quickly. It isn't easy to effectively regulate and oversee quantum technology due to its complexity. Like AI, policymakers will need help to take meaningful action on a technology they can only partially comprehend. This challenge is why effective communication between the government and emerging technology experts must create appropriate frameworks in a relevant timeframe.
Shaheed Ahmad, Modern Diplomacy. November 5th, 2024.
Militaries worldwide are grappling with a fundamental transformation as emerging technologies reshape warfare. Shaheed Ahmad uses the term "Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR)" to describe emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, and autonomous weapon systems. These new variables are forcing a strategic rethink for military leaders. Ahmad claims that China's embrace of "intelligentised warfare" contrasts sharply with the U.S.'s slower adaptation to new military technologies. This difference highlights alternative strategic approaches to incorporating 4IR innovations into military doctrine.
The difference between Chinese and Western approaches could indicate broader implications for future conflicts. While Western forces maintain their reliance on expensive legacy systems, competitors are developing nimbler, technology-driven alternatives. The use of drone attacks in the Red Sea and Ukraine demonstrates how smaller forces can effectively challenge superior military powers through innovative use of new technologies. Military strategists face unprecedented challenges in preparing for future conflicts. There's no historical precedent for warfare in the 4IR era. Ahmad makes a fascinating point when he suggests that by exploring fictional, speculative scenarios, we might be able to "inspire innovative thinking." Whether or not those stories could lead to real-world strategy remains to be seen. Still, it is becoming increasingly concerning how often the dystopian novels of my childhood are becoming closer to reality.
