POPULARITY
12 episodes with national security commission
14 episodes with national security commission
3 episodes with national security commission
3 episodes with national security commission
3 episodes with national security commission
3 episodes with national security commission
4 episodes with national security commission
2 episodes with national security commission
3 episodes with national security commission
Jeremy Bash explores the biotech battleground with former CIA science and technology chief Dawn Meyerriecks. Dawn, a key voice on the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, discusses the urgent need for US leadership to address critical vulnerabilities in the country's bio-industrial base. Dawn also makes a case for why powerful government-private sector alliances are essential to securing America's strategic edge in this vital domain.
SCSP's Chair, Dr. Eric Schmidt discussed the convergence of artificial intelligence and biotechnology at last week's AI+ Biotechnology Summit. The conversation delved into the rapid progress of AI, its potential impact on various industries, and the implications of underfunded science in the face of intense global competition.Also check out last week's episode with the Executive Director of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, Caitlin Frazer, for a conversation on biotechnology's national security impact. https://scsp222.substack.com/p/episode-74-caitlin-frazer-on-biotechnologys This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit scsp222.substack.com
It's all about tariffs again this week. No sooner had Donald Trump announced that “major” tariffs on the pharmaceutical industry would be coming “very shortly”—sending stocks spiraling—the president announced a 90-day pause on most taxes for imports from countries not named China. But this respite was not to last. On Sunday, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick told ABC News that tariffs would be coming for pharma in the next month or two, according to Leerink. A Federal Register Notice revealing an investigation into pharmaceutical product imports and the associated potential national security threats additionally signaled that tariffs might be imminent. Accordingly, tariffs were a major theme as Johnson & Johnson kicked off Q1 earnings season on Tuesday, where CEO Joaquin Duato urged President Donald Trump to consider tax policy changes instead. Last week, Novartis joined J&J and Eli Lilly in preparing for said tariffs with a $23 billion pledge to expand its own U.S. R&D and manufacturing. And amid all of these trade tensions, the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology released a report warning that China is “dangerously close” to overtaking U.S. biotech. Meanwhile, after unprecedented cuts to its workforce, the FDA is looking toward a future of drug review delays and increased executive oversight, according to experts. Industry watchers have also expressed concern that the cuts could trigger a little-known mechanism built into the Prescription Drug User Fee Act that could potentially cost the FDA nearly half of its funding and set the agency—and U.S. patients—back 35 years. Also fighting for headlines on Monday morning was Pfizer's announcement that it is ending development of its lead obesity candidate danuglipron after detecting a potential case of drug-induced liver injury. Pfizer's loss could be Viking Therapeutics' gain, however, as analysts immediately floated the idea of a marriage between the two companies. Viking has long been a top takeover target, and the biotech's shares rose 13% upon Pfizer's announcement. Finally, it's that time of year again: In BioPharm Executive this week, BioSpace looked at the top paid CEOs in biopharma. Who is this year's highest paid CEO? Click here to find out.
On this episode of the Defense & Aerospace Report Strategy Series, sponsored by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Dr. Dov Zakheim of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a commissioner on the bi-partisan, bi-cameral National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology joins Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian to discuss the commission's final report released last week, “Charting the Future of Biotechnology.”
Caitlin Frazer, Executive Director of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, joins Jeanne Meserve to discuss the intersection of biotechnology and national security. The conversation focuses on the growing strategic competition with China, and their new report “Charting the Future of Biotechnology.”For more information on the report, visit: https://www.biotech.senate.gov/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit scsp222.substack.com
Dr. José-Marie Griffiths is the President of Dakota State University in Madison, South Dakota. She has spent her career in research, teaching, public service, corporate leadership, workforce and economic development, and higher education administration, with a special focus on working in STEM fields. She has served in presidential appointments to the National Science Board, the U.S. President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, and the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. She was a member of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and is an expert advisor with the Special Commission on Special Projects (SCSP). She participated in the White House Cyber Workforce and Education Summit, and 2023 Senate hearings on AI and Ag, research, and workforce. She was named the 2024 USA Today Woman of the Year for South Dakota, one of 50 Influential Women in AI by InspiredMinds, and was inducted into the South Dakota Hall of Fame in 2023. In this episode, you'll hear about: The importance of accountability and careful data set selection to combat AI bias. Dakota State University's leadership in cyber defense and AI education. The interplay between AI, cybersecurity, and the disruptive potential of quantum computing on encryption. The STEM talent gap in the U.S. and the role of legal immigration in bolstering innovation. Quantum technology's future applications and its impact on encryption systems. Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jose-marie-griffiths-9106b7b/ https://www.linkedin.com/school/dakota-state-university/ Website - https://dsu.edu/ https://www.dsucyber27.com/ Dr. Colin Ponce AI and Energy - https://www.alcorn.law/podcast/sap201/ Alcorn Immigration Law: Subscribe to the monthly Alcorn newsletter Sophie Alcorn Podcast: Episode 16: E-2 Visa for Founders and Employees Episode 19: Australian Visas Including E-3 Episode 20: TN Visas and Status for Canadian and Mexican Citizens Immigration Options for Talent, Investors, and Founders Immigration Law for Tech Startups eBook
Karl and Erum bring on Dr. Alexander Titus, a commissioner on the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, to explore the exciting and challenging intersections of biotechnology and policy. Alexander shares his experiences from his unique journey across academia, government, and industry, diving into the role of biosecurity, the potential of synthetic biology, and the emerging convergence of tech and bio. They discuss ambitious projects like de-extincting the woolly mammoth, advances in biodefense, and the impacts of AI on biotech innovation. It's a conversation that sheds light on how cutting-edge biotech could shape the future and the necessary balance between innovation and ethical responsibility. Grow Everything brings the bioeconomy to life. Hosts Karl Schmieder and Erum Azeez Khan share stories and interview the leaders and influencers changing the world by growing everything. Biology is the oldest technology. And it can be engineered. What are we growing? Learn more at www.messaginglab.com/groweverything Chapters: 00:00:00 - Behind the Scenes of Bureaucracy 00:00:30 - Democracy's Turning Point 00:02:23 - A Fiery Day in Prospect Park 00:04:20 - How Spaces Shape Our Health 00:08:35 - Enter Alexander Titus: Biosecurity Visionary 00:10:13 - Biotech: The New Face of National Defense 00:15:09 - Where Tech and Policy Collide 00:23:10 - The Future of Biosecurity Unfolds 00:28:02 - Bold Science vs. Ethical Boundaries 00:30:24 - Robotics Meets Biotech: What's Next? 00:33:29 - Hard Lessons from Cross-Industry Giants 00:35:49 - Innovation Clashes with Red Tape 00:36:11 - The Power of Expertise in Shaping Policy 00:42:26 - Biotech's Hidden Environmental Risks 00:45:42 - The Commission's Bold Path Forward 00:48:45 - Parting Thoughts: What Lies Ahead Topics Covered: biotech, biosecurity, national security commission on emerging biotechnology, policy Episode Links: The Wild Life of Our Bodies by Robb Dunn Geerat Vermeij BTO - Biological Technologies Office of DARPA Bioeconomy.XYZ The Nobel Turing Challenge Range by David Epstein NSCEB Interim Report AI Safety Institute The Echo Wife by Sara Gailey Have a question or comment? Message us here: Text or Call (804) 505-5553 Instagram / TikTok / Twitter / LinkedIn / Youtube / GrowEverything website Email: groweverything@messaginglab.com Music by: Nihilore Production by: Amplafy Media
Craig S. Smith, born on October 13, 1955, in Spokane, Washington, is an American journalist and former executive at The New York Times. Until January 2000, he wrote for The Wall Street Journal, notably covering the rise of the Falun Gong movement in China. In 2000, he joined The New York Times as the Shanghai bureau chief, reporting extensively on the practice of harvesting organs from executed prisoners in China. In 2002, Smith moved to Paris and reported from over forty countries, including Iraq, Israel, and Kyrgyzstan. He covered significant conflicts such as the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the 2003 Iraq War, and the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese War, as well as the 2005 unrest in the French banlieues. In 2008, he became the executive editor of a financial news venture by Hong Kong billionaire Richard Li Tzar Kai and later served as senior vice president of Li's Pacific Century Group. Smith returned to The New York Times in late 2011 as China managing director, where he founded and ran their first foreign language site, cn.nytimes.com. In late 2016, he came back to the U.S. as a writer at large for the Times, focusing on Canadian stories, before retiring in 2018. He now writes about artificial intelligence for the Times and other publications. Additionally, he served as a special government employee for the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and hosts the podcast "Eye on AI," which is ranked number 2 among AI-related podcasts by Feedspot. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/craig-s-smith-58680010/ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/geeksofthevalley/support
Upward Sports equips churches to run self-sustaining sports ministries in their communities. Learn more today at: Upward.org/Church-LeadersTop headlines for Tuesday, August 13, 2024In this episode, we discuss the launch of AskCathy, an AI chatbot for The Episcopal Church, a surprising warning from Iran's National Security Commission about a potential attack on Israel, family drama as Josiah Johnson accuses his brother, prophet Jeremiah Johnson, of faking visions, and President Joe Biden's insights on stepping down from the presidential race. Subscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercast⠀Follow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTube⠀Get the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for Android⠀Subscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!⠀Links to the NewsEpiscopal Church launches AI chatbot ‘AskCathy' | Church & MinistriesNelon daughter's faith endures amid tragic plane crash | EntertainmentIranian 'surprise' attack on Israel could 'last 3 to 4' days | WorldUK tribunal member rebuked for bias in Christian teacher's case | WorldCalvin Robinson warns UK on 'cusp of a civil war' amid riots | WorldJeremiah Johnson's brother claims he faked pro-Trump prophecies | Church & MinistriesBiden says pressure from Democrats is why he quit race | Politics
In today's Ask Me Anything episode, Ken and Dawn answer a wide range of questions that cover: A recent FDA approval of a neural implant device for people with degenerative neuromuscular disease or spinal-cord injuries. Global security in the age of AI. A study that looked at ways to optimize glymphatic clearance for people with acute or chronic sleep deprivation. Why more gyms don't offer blood-flow restriction classes for their clients. Developments in the realm of Generative AI. The tradeoffs between a low-carb diet versus a ketogenic diet. A study on Alzheimer's titled, “APOE 4 Homozygosity Represents a Distinct Genetic Form of Alzheimer's Disease.” Plus, Ken reveals his favorite science-fiction author. [00:02:38] Dawn opens the episode with a question for Ken about the FDA's recent approval of a neural implant device which is touted as a means of allowing people with degenerative neuromuscular disease, or spinal-cord injuries, to interface with external technology via neural signals. The listener asks Ken for his insights into what is being called “brain-computer interface technologies.” [00:05:44] A listener asks Ken if he has a favorite science-fiction writer, or if there is a particular sci-fi series/story that really moves him. [00:08:48] Multiple listeners ask Ken about a paper recently published titled: “APOE 4 Homozygosity Represents a Distinct Genetic Form of Alzheimer's Disease.” Listeners ask if it is true that people with two copies of APOE4 allele are certain to develop the disease. [00:19:30] A listener asks Ken about his time on the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The commission issued its report five years ago with specific recommendations on how the government should prepare for and defend against the national security implications of AI. Ken shares his thoughts on the implementation of the commission's recommendations. [00:21:16] A listener asks Dawn about her collaboration with Dr. Jeff Iliff that looked at a potential approach to optimizing glymphatic clearance for people with acute or chronic sleep deprivation. [00:27:10] A listener asks Ken why more gyms and physical therapy centers don't have blood flow restriction devices (BFR) available for their clientele, given that studies have shown that BFR improves strength and muscle mass in both young and older adults. (Two STEM-Talk episodes that cover blood-flow restriction include episode 34 and episode 161. [00:28:38] A listener asks Ken for his thoughts on AI given the recent developments in the field, particularly in the realm of Generative AI, with programs like Chat GPT becoming a household name. The listener mentions that one of their friends thinks that AI is about to peak, and another says that AI is just getting warmed up. [00:37:00] A listener writes that they are astounded at how many disorders can be treated with a ketogenic diet and mentions that they themselves have difficulty with a ketogenic diet. Instead, the listener eats low-carb diet and asks if the benefits of a low-carb, non-ketogenic diet are similar to a ketogenic one. [00:38:19] A listener asks if Ken could talk about carotid scans and if this is a test that those with high LDL should consider getting. [00:40:17] A 72-year-old listener explains how they structure their daily exercise routine between resistance and endurance training. The listener asks Ken whether they should focus more on resistance training as they are beginning to lose strength, and if so, how they should implement that given their age and the increasing risk for injury. [00:45:51] To wrap up this episode, a listener asks Ken if he has any new annoyance that he would like to share, as he did in 2022, when he noted his disdain for the phrase “new normal” and the prevalence of cellphone addiction. Links: Learn more about IHMC STEM-Talk homepage Ken Ford bio Ken Ford Wikipedia page Dawn Kernagis bio
What will it take for the US to remain competitive in 21st-century technologies? Is high state capacity a thing of the past? To discuss, ChinaTalk interviewed David Lin, Abigail Kukura, and Venkat Somala from the Special Competitive Studies Project. SCSP's new report outlines exactly how America should compete in the tech-powered future of geopolitics. We get into… The role of public-private research partnerships and SCSP's relationship with the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence; A strategy for upgrading US institutions with the help of emerging technologies like AI; The historical decline of government-backed research in the US; China's industrial espionage and the potential for stolen innovations to consolidate authoritarianism across the globe; Bureaucratic moonshots and techniques for communicating urgency to the slow-moving American polity. Our past episode on tech net assessment: Crafting A National Tech Strategy and Reviving Net Tech Assesment (Spotify Link) (Apple Podcasts Link) Our past episode on bureaucratic moonshots: Peter Harrell on Bureaucratic Barriers to Competition (Spotify Link) (Apple Podcasts Link) Outtro music: SadSvit - Касета (Youtube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What will it take for the US to remain competitive in 21st-century technologies? Is high state capacity a thing of the past? To discuss, ChinaTalk interviewed David Lin, Abigail Kukura, and Venkat Somala from the Special Competitive Studies Project. SCSP's new report outlines exactly how America should compete in the tech-powered future of geopolitics. We get into… The role of public-private research partnerships and SCSP's relationship with the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence; A strategy for upgrading US institutions with the help of emerging technologies like AI; The historical decline of government-backed research in the US; China's industrial espionage and the potential for stolen innovations to consolidate authoritarianism across the globe; Bureaucratic moonshots and techniques for communicating urgency to the slow-moving American polity. Our past episode on tech net assessment: Crafting A National Tech Strategy and Reviving Net Tech Assesment (Spotify Link) (Apple Podcasts Link) Our past episode on bureaucratic moonshots: Peter Harrell on Bureaucratic Barriers to Competition (Spotify Link) (Apple Podcasts Link) Outtro music: SadSvit - Касета (Youtube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this episode, recorded during Abundance360 2024, Peter and Eric discuss AI policy, government struggles, and AI's global impact. 06:33 | AI's Power and Impact Today 15:03 | AI and the Fight Against Misinformation 27:12 | Government Struggles with Rapid Tech Growth Eric Schmidt is best known as the CEO of Google from 2001-2011, including as the Executive Chairman of Google, Alphabet, and later as their Technical Advisor until 2020. He was also on the board of directors at Apple from 2006-2009 and is currently the Chairman of the board of directors at the Broad Institute. From 2019 to 2021, Eric chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. He's also a founding partner at Investment Endeavors, a VC firm. Learn more about Abundance360: https://www.abundance360.com/summit ____________ I only endorse products and services I personally use. To see what they are, please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: Get started with Fountain Life and become the CEO of your health: https://fountainlife.com/peter/ AI-powered precision diagnosis you NEED for a healthy gut: https://www.viome.com/peter ____________ I send weekly emails with the latest insights and trends on today's and tomorrow's exponential technologies. Stay ahead of the curve, and sign up now: Tech Blog Get my new Longevity Practices book for free: https://www.diamandis.com/longevity My new book with Salim Ismail, Exponential Organizations 2.0: The New Playbook for 10x Growth and Impact, is now available on Amazon: https://bit.ly/3P3j54J _____________ Connect With Peter: Twitter Instagram Youtube Moonshots Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Save 20% on all Nuzest Products WORLDWIDE with the code MIKKIPEDIA at www.nuzest.co.nz, www.nuzest.com.au or www.nuzest.comThis week on the podcast Mikki speaks to Professor Ken Ford, co-founder and director of the Institute of Human and Machine Cognition. They discuss AI, ketogenic diets, why you can't trust nutrition science and much more.Kenneth Ford is Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition (IHMC) — a not-for-profit research institute located in Pensacola, Florida. IHMC has grown into one of the nation's premier research organizations with world-class scientists and engineers investigating a broad range of topics related to building technological systems aimed at amplifying and extending human cognition, perception, locomotion and resilience.Ken is the author of hundreds of scientific papers and six books. He received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from Tulane University. He is a Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, a charter Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors, and a member of the Association for Computing Machinery, the IEEE Computer Society, and the National Association of Scholars.In February of 2012, Dr. Ford was named to the Defense Science Board (DSB) and in 2013, he became a member of the Advanced Technology Board (ATB) which supports the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). In 2018, Dr. Ford was appointed to the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence.In 2020, Florida Trend Magazine named Ford one of its Living Legends, a list of all-time influential Florida leaders in business, medicine, academia, entertainment, politics, and sport.He also hosts a popular podcast about science called Stem-talk: https://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/ Ken Ford: https://www.ihmc.us/groups/kford/ Contact Mikki:https://mikkiwilliden.com/https://www.facebook.com/mikkiwillidennutritionhttps://www.instagram.com/mikkiwilliden/https://linktr.ee/mikkiwillidenCurranz supplement: MIKKI saves you 25% at www.curranz.co.nz or www.curranz.co.uk off your first order
Dive into the heart of the AI race between the US and China with Craig Smith in episode #179 of Eye on AI. This discussion features Ylli Bajraktari, the President and CEO of the Special Competitive Studies Project, as he unveils the strategic maneuvers and policies shaping the future of artificial intelligence on a global scale. In this episode, Ylli provides an in-depth analysis of the current state of AI development and competition, illuminating the actions taken by both superpowers to secure their position at the forefront of technological advancement. From the pivotal CHIPS Act to the formation of national AI champions, learn how these initiatives are influencing the global AI landscape. Uncover the essence of the Special Competitive Studies Project and its mission to ensure the US retains its edge in AI through a comprehensive, nation-wide approach. Ylli discusses the critical importance of AI in national security, the transformative potential of the OffsetX strategy, and the implications of the National Plan for Microelectronics. Whether you're fascinated by the strategic dynamics of international technology competition or passionate about the impact of AI on society and security, this episode offers invaluable insights into the challenges and opportunities ahead. Don't forget to rate us on Apple Podcast and Spotify if you're inspired by the strategic discourse on AI's role in shaping the future. This episode is sponsored by Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform that allows anyone to set up an online store and sell their products. Whether you're selling online, on social media, or in person, Shopify has you covered on every base. With Shopify you can sell physical and digital products. You can sell services, memberships, ticketed events, rentals and even classes and lessons. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at http://shopify.com/eyeonai Stay Updated: Craig Smith Twitter: https://twitter.com/craigss Eye on A.I. Twitter: https://twitter.com/EyeOn_AI (00:00) Preview (00:46) Introducing Ylli Bajraktari (04:21) Origins of the Special Competitive Studies Project (09:14) Influence of National Security Commission on AI (14:05) What is the OffsetX Strategy (15:42) US vs. China: The AI Competition Landscape (19:00) Post-Gen AI Period and Its Impact (21:03) The Future of AI Research (24:41) Reorganizing Government Institutions for the AI Era (32:48) Understanding Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (35:05) The Concept of Counter-Autonomy (39:04) Addressing the Threat from China's Semiconductor Strategy (44:54) Preview of the Special Competitive Studies Project's AI Expo
Biotech. What is it? Why should you care? Does biotech really matter for national security? What are China's biotech ambitions? To find out, ChinaTalk interviewed Jason Kelly, the Chair and Vice Chair of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology. Jason is the Co-Founder and CEO of Ginkgo Bioworks, a publicly traded firm that provides a horizontal platform for cell programming. Michelle Rozo is currently Vice President of Technical Capabilities at In-Q-Tel, and she previously held positions in Biden's NSC, the Department of Defense, and on the Hill. Co-hosting today is Chris “CRISPR” Miller, author of Chip War. We get into: The powerful science behind genetic engineering ; How the US government turned biotechnology into a $1 trillion industry over the course of the last fifty years; Why generative AI is destined to revolutionize synthetic biology; And whether China's national biotech champions can leapfrog the US. Outtro music: Suite Bergamasque: Clair de Lune, No. 3 (youtube.com) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Biotech. What is it? Why should you care? Does biotech really matter for national security? What are China's biotech ambitions? To find out, ChinaTalk interviewed Jason Kelly, the Chair and Vice Chair of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology. Jason is the Co-Founder and CEO of Ginkgo Bioworks, a publicly traded firm that provides a horizontal platform for cell programming. Michelle Rozo is currently Vice President of Technical Capabilities at In-Q-Tel, and she previously held positions in Biden's NSC, the Department of Defense, and on the Hill. Co-hosting today is Chris “CRISPR” Miller, author of Chip War. We get into: The powerful science behind genetic engineering ; How the US government turned biotechnology into a $1 trillion industry over the course of the last fifty years; Why generative AI is destined to revolutionize synthetic biology; And whether China's national biotech champions can leapfrog the US. Outtro music: Suite Bergamasque: Clair de Lune, No. 3 (youtube.com) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
With the seemingly limitless capabilities of artificial intelligence, national security experts, technologists, and academicians are sounding the alarm on the potential havoc AI could wreak in the hands of bad actors. In the midst of this new technological arms race with China, organizations like the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) are calling for the U.S. to maintain its innovation and information dominance to protect American citizens. In this episode, host Tammy Haddad interviews Ylli Bajraktari, president & CEO of the SCSP and former executive director of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) on putting AI and emerging tech at the center of the United States' national competitiveness.
Ylli Bajraktari is the President and CEO of the Special Competitive Studies Project. Prior to launching SCSP, Ylli served as the Executive Director of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. Before that, he served as Chief of Staff to the National Security Advisor LTG H.R. McMaster, held a variety of leadership roles for former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, and served as Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey. Originally joining the Department of Defense in 2010, he served in the Office of the Undersecretary for Policy as a country director for Afghanistan, and later India. Mr. Bajraktari is the recipient of the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Medal – the highest award given to career DoD civilian employees. The Special Competitive Studies Project's mission is to make recommendations to strengthen America's long-term competitiveness as artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies are reshaping our national security, economy, and society. We want to ensure that America is positioned and organized to win the techno-economic competition between now and 2030, the critical window for shaping the future.
Episode Description: How can biotechnology transform the world and beyond? That's the question that John Cumbers, a biotech visionary and entrepreneur, explores in this episode of the podcast. He reveals how biotechnology is merging with other sectors, such as space exploration, and how synthetic biology is reshaping the future. He also discusses how biotech can help solve global problems, from environmental to health issues. He shares his insights on the latest trends and innovations in biotech, such as AI and decentralized science, and how they are creating new possibilities and challenges. He also tells his story, from working at NASA to founding SynBioBeta, and how he envisions a future where biology and technology create amazing solutions for humanity. Grow Everything brings the bioeconomy to life. Hosts Karl Schmieder and Erum Azeez Khan share stories and interview the leaders and influencers changing the world by growing everything. Biology is the oldest technology. And it can be engineered. What are we growing? Learn more at www.messaginglab.com/groweverything Topics Covered: 00:00:00 - Exploring Global Biotech Innovations: Focus on Saudi Arabia 00:01:57 - Overcoming Hurdles in Global Biotech Projects 00:03:35 - Visioning the Future: Sustainable Biotech Solutions Worldwide 00:04:17 - Spotlight on Africa: Biotech's Role in Sustainable Development 00:05:24 - Strategic Moves: Shaping the Future of Biotech Startups 00:07:38 - Exclusive: John Cumbers on Pioneering Biotech Advancements 00:18:52 - Decentralizing Science: The Rise of DAOs in Biotech 00:22:44 - Beyond Earth: The Nexus of Space Exploration and Biology 00:29:44 - A Glimpse into the Future: AI Meets Synthetic Biology 00:34:03 - Rethinking Synthetic Biology: A Lively Debate 00:37:26 - Safeguarding the Future: Biotech in National Security 00:40:05 - Competing on a Global Stage: Insights into Biotech Ecosystems 00:47:25 - Launching New Ventures: The Evolution of Biological Enlightenment Studios 00:50:15 - Wrapping Up: Key Takeaways from Our Discussion with John Cumbers Episode Links: Get $300 off Synbiobeta tickets (May 6-9 in San Jose, CA) using promo code: Grow Everything Saudi Arabia National Biotech Strategy (news) Masdar City in Abu Dhabi (website) The Line by NEOM in Saudia Arabia (website) Synbiobeta Investor Report 2024 (website) BetaSpace on the Moon 2030 (website) Neoplants (website) Biofabricate (website) Light Bio (website) Molecule DAO (website) Valley DAO (website) Athena DAO (website) Hair DAO (website) Vita DAO (website) Paul Stamets (wikipedia) Martine Rothblatt (wikipedia) Craig Venter (wikipedia) Sang Yup Lee (website) Drew Barry Central Dogma (video) National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology (website) Ailurus (website) Lantern Bio oral microbiome company (website) Synthetic Biology by Vantage Films (video) Polybion x Ganni (story) Have a question or comment? Message us here: Text or Call (804) 505-5553 Instagram / TikTok / Twitter / LinkedIn / Youtube / GrowEverything website Email: groweverything@messaginglab.com Support here: Patreon Music by: Nihilore Production by: Amplafy Media --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/messaginglab/message
In this episode, Ben sits down with Zoe Weinberg, Founder and Managing Partner of Ex/Ante, a venture firm investing in the next generation of privacy, security, and information tools. Prior to Ex/Ante, Zoe served on the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and at Google AI. She has also had stints as an investor at the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank and at Goldman Sachs. Tune in for insights into Ex/Ante's thesis of agentic tech and how blockchain represents a core component of the firm's investment strategy. Let's get into it. Resources Mentioned National Secuirty Commission on Artificial Intelligence Signal Foundation Open Tech Fund The Metaverse is Coming, and the World is not Ready for it — Zoe Weinberg (NY Times article) Connect with the guest ex/ante https://www.buildexante.com/ Follow ex/ante on Twitter/X https://twitter.com/buildexante Follow Zoe on Twitter/X https://twitter.com/zweinberg Disclaimer Ben Jacobs is a partner at Scenius Capital Management. All views expressed by Ben and the guests of this podcast are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of Scenius Capital Management. Guests and the host may maintain positions in the assets or funds discussed in this podcast. You should not treat any opinion expressed by anyone on this podcast as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy but only as an expression of their personal opinion. This podcast is for informational purposes only.
In this episode of Phoenix Cast, hosts John, Rich, and Kyle discuss a trio of terrible items from the news. They also discuss Google's state of DEVOPS report. Share your thoughts with us on Twitter: @USMC_TFPhoenix (Now verified!) Follow MARFORCYBER & MCCOG on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube. Leave your review on Apple Podcasts. Links: Looney Tunables - https://blog.qualys.com/vulnerabilities-threat-research/2023/10/03/cve-2023-4911-looney-tunables-local-privilege-escalation-in-the-glibcs-ld-so https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/exploits-released-for-linux-flaw-giving-root-on-major-distros/?mibextid=Zxz2cZ https://hackaday.com/2023/10/06/this-week-in-security-looney-tunables-not-a-0-day-and-curl-warning/ MoveIt - https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/25/moveit-mass-hack-by-the-numbers/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKI26YxLOJ3LtfPNiJcdBP7BjU5pY0NLPt_rZ1BSmhkA67JuGSVuYD5tuhnZTBdr6h-hdVsmq97cSlvBy-cClsH8C5uTJ5sLvcl9QDYYhdFqMu_8FDx4wLMOKUb7ixUEF2kg6NXDtajrK38ERHg4zm487zavIDNsKJrbDr4h-fGE https://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/financial-firms-breached-in-moveit-cyberattacks-now-face-lawsuits https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/the-moveit-hack-and-what-it-taught-us-about-application-security/ https://www.progress.com/moveit https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/sony-confirms-data-breach-impacting-thousands-in-the-us/ Apple Zero Days: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/apple/apple-emergency-update-fixes-new-zero-day-used-to-hack-iphones/?fbclid=IwAR1V3v3W0kJslsY59ayfrB0UswUzpE9bP0ARmlp1VDLDjx2po4WDUoKuGWs_aem_AVWQ2hLENrbnURcSsKrImQS79tU85DLt59xWTfeGF7ByyJ61n4Nt8jnosltfbzscecE&mibextid=Zxz2cZ https://support.apple.com/en-us/102657#:~:text=Mac%3A%20Choose%20Apple%20menu%20%EF%A3%BF,system%20files%22%20is%20turned%20on. State of DevOps Report: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/devops-sre/announcing-the-2023-state-of-devops-report Industrial DevOps: https://itrevolution.com/product/industrial-devops-book/ National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence: https://www.nscai.gov/
The Special Competitive Studies Project, which has continued the work of the now dissolved National Security Commission on AI, issued its latest report this week on generative AI and its impact on the global competitive landscape. That report states, among other things, that recent advancements in AI come as transformations in geopolitical structuring resemble that of the days leading up to World War I. And because of that, “This moment provides the United States government with a unique opportunity to lead with conviction as humanity enters a new era.“ Ylli Bajraktari is the CEO and President of the Special Competitive Studies Project, and he joins The Daily Scoop Podcast to discuss the major takeaways from SCSP's new report and the stakes at play for the U.S. as it looks to embrace AI for defense, national security and more. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify
In an era where artificial intelligence (AI) shapes industries and drives innovation, intellectual property (IP) policies are at the forefront of national security, economic growth, and technological leadership. The recent lawsuits involving authors and digital artists suing tech developers over generative AI technology highlight the complexities and challenges in this field. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence Executives and academic leaders of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) have conveyed an uncomfortable message: America is not prepared for the challenges of the AI era. A comprehensive, whole-of-nation strategy is required. Their final report from 2021 calls for the...Article LinkLet us know your thoughts about this episode by reaching out on Social Media!Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ourhometownincInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/ourhometownwebpublishing/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ourhometownincLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/our-hometown-com/..........Our Hometown Web Publishing is The Last Newspaper CMS & Website You'll Ever Need. We help you generate revenue, engage with readers, and increase efficiency with Our Hometown's Digital & PrePress CMS features to fit your needs & budget.OHT's Web Publishing Platform is:-Powered with WordPress-Hosted on Amazon Web Services-Integrated with Adobe InDesign & Google Drivehttps://our-hometown.comSubscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKw6KpKUiQkWldrX2-J1Kag?view_as=subscriberOur-Hometown can be reached via email for comments or questions at: ops@Our-Hometown.com
In this episode, join Jessica and Ylli Bajraktari, President and CEO of the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) and former Executive Director of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, to discuss the implications of AI in warfare and what that means for U.S. national security in the near future.What could happen if the U.S. falls behind in tech competition? How will AI change warfare in the next five to ten years? How should the U.S. think about countries with different ethical considerations about AI?Tune into Fault Lines all summer to hear from more AI experts as part of, Breaking Barriers: Understanding the AI Revolution!Learn more about Mr. Ylli Bajraktari and the SCSP here:https://www.scsp.ai/ylli-bajraktari/ https://www.scsp.ai/Follow our experts on Twitter: @NotTVJessJones @Ylli_BajraktariLike what we're doing here?Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe.And don't forget to follow @masonnatsec on Twitter! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In the fifth of a six-part series on command and control, sponsored Ultra Intelligence & Communications, Bryan Clark, the director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute think tank, and Greg Grant, a senior adviser with the Special Competitive Studies Project — the nonprofit that emerged from the wake of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence — discuss the status of the Pentagon's top priority Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control effort, progress to date, what it will take to accelerate progress, role of technology and culture change, as well as lessons from history and the Ukraine war with Defense & Aerospace Report Editor Vago Muradian.
What skills will students need for the workforce of the future in an age dominated by artificial intelligence? In addition to basic computer science, data competencies, and the mathematics and statistics behind AI and machine learning, there are a range of social impacts to consider: AI risk, ethics, privacy, questions of bias, etc. All of the above are part of the curriculum at Dakota State University, a STEM-oriented institution with a focus on computer science, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence. We spoke with DSU President José-Marie Griffiths about how her institution is preparing students for careers in AI. In addition to her experience in research, teaching, and higher education administration, Griffiths was a member of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, part of the 2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. She has also served in presidential appointments to the National Science Board, the U.S. President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, and the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. Resource links: Dakota State University Music: Mixkit Duration: 27 minutes Transcript
Dr Miah Hammond-Errey is joined by Jason Matheny, CEO of RAND Corporation and founder of CSET to delve into the complexities of regulating emerging technologies — from AI to biotechnology, what the United States can learn from Australia, the opportunity a current bottleneck in compute capacity offers democracies, and his work at IARPA — ‘the DARPA of the intelligence world' — using innovative methods to solve the hard problems of policy and national security. They also discuss the role of alliances such as Five Eyes in combatting AI-generated disinformation and why standards bodies need greater support.Jason is the President and CEO of RAND Corporation. He previously led technology and national security policy for the White House in the National Security Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Jason founded the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) at Georgetown University, was a Commissioner on the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and the director of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA). He has also worked at the World Bank, Oxford University, the Applied Physics Laboratory and Princeton University.Technology and Security is hosted by Dr Miah Hammond-Errey, the inaugural director of the Emerging Technology program at the United States Studies Centre, based at the University of Sydney. Miah's Twitter: https://twitter.com/Miah_HEResources mentioned in the recording:Supporting responsible AI: discussion paper (Department of Industry, Science and Resources)The Illusion of China's AI Prowess (Helen Toner, Jenny Xiao, and Jeffrey Ding, Foreign Affairs)Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities for the Department of Defense (Jason Matheny, Senate testimony)Challenges to US National Security and Competitiveness Posed by AI (Jason Matheny, Senate testimony)Dealing with Disinformation: A Critical New Mission Area For AUSMIN (Dr Miah Hammond-Errey, USSC)RAND Truth Decay original report (Michael Rich and Jennifer Cavanaugh)RAND Truth DecayThe future of digital health with federated learning (Andrew Trask et al.) SILMARILS – Chemical residue detection (IARPA)Making great content requires fabulous teams. Thanks to the great talents of the following. Research support and assistance: Tom BarrettProduction: Elliott BrennanPodcast Design: Susan BealeMusic: Dr Paul MacThis podcast was recorded on the lands of the Ngunnawal people, and we pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging — here and wherever you are listening. We acknowledge their continuing connection to land, sea and community, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
In this episode of Pekingology, Freeman Chair Jude Blanchette is joined by Gerard Dipippo – Senior Fellow in the Economics Program at CSIS, and Andrew Polk – Co-founder of Trivium China and Senior associate with the Freeman Chair in China Studies at CSIS. This week they discuss China's national security and the readout from the recent convening of China's National Security Commission.
Emerging technology develops at a pace that is hard to master, much less legislate. The government should ensure that the opportunities technology provides maximize the potential for societal improvements while ensuring both economic and national security. Two of the most effective efforts to tackle the emerging technology challenges in the past half-decade were the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) and the Cyberspace Solarium Commission (CSC).As the former chairs of these two congressionally mandated commissions, Rep. Mike Gallagher (CSC) and Dr. Eric Schmidt (NSCAI) discuss the roles of Congress, the Executive Branch, academia, and private sector leaders in shaping emerging technology policy, including how commissions can influence policies moving forward.The panel is moderated by the former NSCAI Executive Director and current President and CEO of the Special Competitive Studies Project Ylli Bajraktari, and the former CSC Executive Director and current Senior Director of FDD's Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation and CSC 2.0 Executive Director RADM (Ret.) Mark Montgomery.The event is hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Special Competitive Studies Project, and CSC 2.0.Read more and watch the conversation here:https://www.fdd.org/events/2023/06/07/thinking-forward-after-the-nscai-and-csc/
On today's show Andrew and Bill begin with the rejected pitch from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to meet with Defense Minister Li Shangfu this weekend. Topics include: The importance (and limits) of maintaining ongoing military backchannels, why the U.S. push for a meeting was more complicated in this case, and a postscript to last week's questions about America's response to the silent treatment from PRC diplomats. Then: A report that the Chinese envoy sent to broker peace has urged EU countries to denounce America and demand a ceasefire in Ukraine, and ominous language surfaces in the readout from the National Security Commission. At the end: Elon Musk's travels inspire a look at Tesla's activity in the PRC, the 16-year journey to a C919 passenger jet and celebrations on a Beijing runway, Microsoft's malware discovery, and a word about energy supply lines in a Taiwan conflict.
President Xi Jinping has urged greater efforts to accelerate the modernization of China's national security system and capacity in order to better safeguard the country's development amid complicated and challenging circumstances.Xi, who is also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, made the remarks on Tuesday while presiding over the first meeting of the National Security Commission under the 20th CPC Central Committee.Xi, who is head of the commission, called for correctly grasping major national security issues and urged efforts to safeguard China's new pattern of development with a new security architecture and break new ground on national security work.It was noted at the meeting that China is currently faced with increasingly complicated and arduous national security issues.It is necessary to be fully aware of China's advantages and favorable conditions, be prepared to deal with worst-case and extreme scenarios, and be ready to withstand challenging and dangerous scenarios, said a statement released after the meeting.The commission was established in November 2013 to improve the national security system and strategies to guarantee the country's national security, according to a communique issued after the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee.Participants in Tuesday's meeting said that the commission has been committed to carrying forward the fighting spirit and developing a holistic approach to national security, has resolutely safeguarded national sovereignty, security and development interests, and has strengthened national security on all fronts.They underlined the importance of modernizing China's national security system and capacity, saying that emphasis should be placed on promoting the integration of all aspects.It was pointed out that efforts should be made to create a favorable external security environment for the country and to promote the deep integration of development and security.Reforms of methods and means used to safeguard and shape national security must be advanced by leveraging technologies, according to the meeting.The meeting's participants also said China should better respond to national security risks through real-time monitoring and early warning systems, improve security governance on internet data and artificial intelligence, and intensify national security education.Tuesday's meeting reviewed and adopted documents including a guideline on speeding up the construction of a national security risk monitoring and early warning system.Li Qiang, Zhao Leji and Cai Qi, who are all members of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and deputy heads of the commission, attended the meeting.Security英/sɪˈkjʊərəti/ 美/sɪˈkjʊrəti/n.安全
Twenty years ago, Jason Matheny was a public health student who in his spare time was crusading to create a meat industry that would be less reliant on animals. In 2004, after he founded New Harvest to popularize cultured meat, his fame grew. The New York Times profiled him in its annual “Ideas of the Year” feature in 2005. That same year Discover magazine named cultured meat one of the most notable tech stories. For the next several years, Jason was the face of the movement to grow real meat without animals, traveling the world to persuade governments and food companies alike that they should be investing in a future where people would eat meat, but not animals. By 2009, now armed with his BA, MBA, MPH, and PhD, Jason began turning his attention toward preventing the more immediate and potentially catastrophic risks humanity faces. After leaving New Harvest, he eventually rose to become the director of Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), a federal agency that develops advanced technologies for national intelligence. Running the federal intelligence agency would eventually lead Jason to helm a national security center at Georgetown University, followed by a high-profile national security role in the Biden White House, to now being the CEO of the Rand Corporation. He was even named one of Foreign Policy's “Top 50 Global Thinkers.” As you'll hear in this interview, Jason shifted from his work on cultivated meat toward national security as he became convinced that technology can vastly improve both human and animal welfare, and that the only real threat to technological advancement is an apocalyptic catastrophe like a synthetic virus or asteroid. He still cares about the welfare of those of us living today—human and nonhuman alike—but Jason's primary preoccupation has become reducing civilization-threatening risks so that our species can keep progressing into the deep future. I think you'll find this conversation with this leading thinker as riveting as I did. Jason even talks about what technologies he hopes listeners will pursue to mitigate existential risks, so be sure to listen closely! Discussed in this episode Jason recommends reading The Precipice by Toby Ord. Jason passed the New Harvest torch onto Isha Datar, who was our guest on Episode 42. Our Episode 89 with Rep. Ro Khanna regarding his legislation relating to national security implications of losing the alt-meat race. Paul's thoughts in The Hill on government funding for alt-meat. More about Jason Matheny Jason Matheny is president and chief executive officer of the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. Prior to becoming RAND's president and CEO in July 2022, he led White House policy on technology and national security at the National Security Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Previously, he was founding director of the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University and director of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), where he was responsible for developing advanced technologies for the U.S. intelligence community. Before IARPA, he worked for Oxford University, the World Bank, the Applied Physics Laboratory, the Center for Biosecurity, and Princeton University. Matheny has served on many nonpartisan boards and committees, including the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, to which he was appointed by Congress in 2018. He is a recipient of the Intelligence Community's Award for Individual Achievement in Science and Technology, the National Intelligence Superior Service Medal, and the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers. He was also named one of Foreign Policy's “Top 50 Global Thinkers.” Matheny holds a Ph.D. in applied economics from Johns Hopkins University, an M.P.H. from Johns Hopkins University, an M.B.A. from Duke University, and a B.A. in art history from the University of Chicago.
Zoe Weinberg is the founder & managing partner of ex/ante, an early-stage fund that works to counter surveillance capitalism and digital authoritarianism by investing in technology that is more private, secure, and decentralized. Prior, Zoe worked on ethics and policy at the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and at Google AI. Previously she focused on fragile and conflict-affected states, working on the emergency response in Mosul, Iraq during the counter-ISIL operation in 2017, and at the World Bank (IFC) in over a dozen countries, including Somalia, South Sudan, and Liberia. Prior to the World Bank, she worked in Goldman Sachs's alternative investment group. Her research and writing has been published in the New York Times and Foreign Affairs, among other publications. She is also a host of the podcast Next in Foreign Policy. Zoe earned her B.A. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Yale Law School, and an M.B.A from Stanford's Graduate School of Business, where she was a Knight Hennessy Scholar.
Bonus: What, exactly, is AI? What are its applications? Why does it matter for national security and geopolitics? Will machines rise up and destroy us all?! Fellow Hoya Andrew Imbrie discussed these questions and more in a fascinating conversation on his new book, co-authored with Ben Buchannon, titled The New Fire: War, Peace, and Democracy in the Age of AI. Come for the Terminator and Matthew Broderick references, but stay for the essential information Imbrie provides on the future of AI and national security! Andrew Imbrie is an Associate Professor of the Practice and the Gracias Chair in Security and Emerging Technology at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He is also an Affiliate at Georgetown's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET). Prior to his current role, he served as a senior advisor on cyber and emerging technology policy at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. He worked previously as a Senior Fellow at CSET, where he focused on issues at the intersection of artificial intelligence and international security and served as an advisor to the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. From 2013 to 2017, he served as a member of the policy planning staff and speechwriter to Secretary John Kerry at the U.S. Department of State. He has also worked as a professional staff member on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He received his B.A. in the humanities from Connecticut College and his M.A. from the Walsh School of Foreign Service. He holds a Ph.D. in international relations from Georgetown University. His writings have appeared in such outlets as Foreign Affairs, War on the Rocks, Lawfare, Survival, Defense One, and On Being. His first book is Power on the Precipice: The Six Choices America Faces in a Turbulent World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020). Andrew grew up as the son of a U.S. Foreign Service officer and now resides in Maryland with his wife Teresa Eder, a foreign policy analyst, journalist, and producer. Buy The New Fire: War, Peace, and Democracy in the Age of AI here. (https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262046541/the-new-fire/) Episode recorded: December 2, 2022 Produced by Daniel Henderson Episode Image: The New Fire: War, Peace, and Democracy in the Age of AI cover [MIT Press] Diplomatic Immunity: Frank and candid conversations about diplomacy and foreign affairs Diplomatic Immunity, a podcast from the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, brings you frank and candid conversations with experts on the issues facing diplomats and national security decision-makers around the world. Funding support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
On Deep Dish, we're revisiting our conversation about the world of espionage and the secrets of intelligence gathering with Amy Zegart, author of Spies, Lies, and Algorithms. As new technology continues to disrupt all aspects of our lives, Zegart explains how these innovations are changing espionage and why spy myths perpetuated by Hollywood often get in the way of understanding threats. [This episode originally aired: March 24, 2022] Related Content: Spies, Lies, and Algorithms: The History and Future of American Intelligence, Amy Zegart, Princeton University Press, February 1, 2022 Senate Intelligence Hearing on Worldwide Threats, PBS NewsHour, March 8, 2023 National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, Final Report, March 19, 2021
How do you find that internal compass to guide yourself from where you are to who you want to become post-military? In this episode, PJ Maykish unpackages his four pillars to living a strong post-military life. Impactful moments in the show: 4:00MM: PJ's background 8:00MM: How he found passion in tech and its ability to be a warfighting superpower. 12:00MM: The four fundamentals to live strong. 18:00MM: How to find your battle rhythm leveraging the four fundamentals. 23:00MM: Self-acceptance and what you can control when your stock price goes down as an individual. 28:00MM: The two behaviors to audit in your everyday life. 35:00MM: PJ's war cry to all Ambitious VETs. How to learn more about Dr. PJ Maykish: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pj-maykish-a0550072/ More around his role as Senior Advisor at Special Competitive Studies Project: https://www.scsp.ai/ Show Sponsor: Subscribe to our email list and receive your FREE copy of our Ambitious VET Goal Setting Framework: https://ambitiousvetnetwork.com/ More about the guest: Dr. PJ Maykish serves the Special Competitive Studies Project as a Senior Advisor. Prior to the SCSP, PJ was the Director for Technology Competition at the National Security Council. He directed classified research for the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence from 2019-2021. In the Strategy Office for the Secretary of Defense (OSD-P/SFD), PJ developed “Third Offset” technology solutions for DoD deterrence credibility issues from 2015-2017. He was promoted early to Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel ranks with 24 years of leadership experience in military operations including Commander of U.S. Central Command's Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) from 2017-2019.
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: [Link-post] Politico: "Ex-Google boss helps fund dozens of jobs in Biden's administration", published by Pranay K on December 24, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Politico article from Thursday December 22, 2022: "Ex-Google boss helps fund dozens of jobs in Biden's administration" 1. Summary: In three sentences: "Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google who has long sought influence over White House science policy, is helping to fund the salaries of more than two dozen officials in the Biden administration under the auspices of an outside group, the Federation of American Scientists." It is worth noting that Schmidt Futures (Schmidt's philanthropic ventures) does not directly fund these officials' salaries: Schmidt Futures provides < 30% to the Federation of American Scientists' "Day One fund" which funds these officials' salaries. Eric Schmidt seems to me to have called for the US government to aggressively invest in AI development. Some more context: Eric Schmidt chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence from 2018-2021, in which the commision called on the US government to spend $40 billion on AI development. Schmidt Futures (Schmidt's philanthropic ventures) funds < 30% of the contributions to the Day One Project, a project within the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), which (among other things) provides the salaries of "FAS fellows" who hold "more than two dozen officials in the Biden administration" (from the main Politico article being discussed in this post). This includes 2 staffers in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (a different Politico article). The FAS is a "nonprofit global policy think tank with the stated intent of using science and scientific analysis to attempt to make the world more secure" (Wikipedia). The Day One project was started to recruit people to fill "key science and technology positions in the executive branch" (from the main Politico article). 2. My question: Are Schmidt's projects harmfully advancing AI capabilities research? I've seen discussion among the EA community about how OpenAI and Anthropic may be harmfully advancing AI capabilities research. (The best discussion that comes to mind is this recent Scott Alexander post about ChatGPT; if anyone knows any other resources discussing this hypothesis - for or against - please comment below). I have not seen much discussion about Eric Schmidt's harmful or beneficial contributions to AI development in the US government. What do people think about this? Is this something that should concern us? 3. Some more excerpts from the article about AI “Schmidt is clearly trying to influence AI policy to a disproportionate degree of any person I can think of,” said Alex Engler, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in AI policy. “We've seen a dramatic increase in investment toward advancing AI capacity in government and not much in limiting its harmful use.” Schmidt's collaboration with FAS [Federation of American Scientists] is only a part of his broader advocacy for the U.S. government to invest more in technology and particularly in AI, positions he advanced as chair of the federal National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence from 2018 to 2021. The commission's final report recommended that the government spend $40 billion to “expand and democratize federal AI research and development” and suggested more may be needed. “If anything, this report underplays the investments America will need to make,” the report stated. “Other countries have made AI a national project. The United States has not yet, as a nation, systematically explored its scope, studied its implications, or begun the process of reconciling with it,” they wrote. “If the United States and its allies recoil before the implications of these capabilities and halt...
This week, I'm talking with RAND CEO Dr. Jason Matheny about a host of threats to US national security – how technology is playing a role and why people call him an ‘apocaloptimist'. Dr. Matheny has been fascinated with existential threats to the human race from the get go and penned a 2007 paper on how to reduce the risk of human extinction. If that isn't worth reading – I don't' know what is. Matheny brought that kind of curiosity and insight to the Intelligence Community in 2009 as the Director of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity – that's the research arm of the Intelligence Community that invests in fascinating research projects. He's also served on the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence and was the founder of the Center for Emerging Technology at Georgetown University. He left that role to become the Coordinator for Technology and National Security at the National Security Council – and at the same time – served as Deputy Director for National Security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Matheny became the CEO of the RAND Corporation this past summer. Needless to say, I learn a lot every time I talk with Dr. Matheny. So let's get started.
Episode Notes:A discussion recently concluded 20th Party Congress and what to expect ahead in US China relations. I'm pleased to welcome back Chris Johnson, CEO of Consultancy China Strategies Group, Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute Center for China Analysis and former Senior China analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency. This is the 7th Party Congress that Chris has analyzed professionally.Links:John Culver: How We Would Know When China Is Preparing to Invade Taiwan - Carnegie Endowment for International PeaceTranscript:Bill: Welcome back to the very occasional Sinocism podcast. Today we are going to talk about the recently concluded 20th Party Congress and what to expect ahead in US China relations. I'm pleased to welcome back Chris Johnson, CEO of Consultancy China Strategies Group, Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute Center for China Analysis and former Senior China analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency. This is the 7th Party Congress that Chris has analyzed professionally. So we have a lot of experience here to help us understand what just happened. Chris, welcome back and thanks for taking the time.Chris: My pleasure. Always fun to be with you, Bill.Bill: Great. Well, why don't we jump right in. I'd like to talk about what you see as the most important outcomes from the Congress starting with personnel. What do you make of the leadership team from the central committee to the Politburo to the Standing Committee and what does that say about.Chris: Yeah, well, I, think clearly Xi Jinping had a massive win, you know, with personnel. I think we see this particularly in the Politburo Standing Committee, right, where on the key portfolios that really matter to him in terms of controlling the key levers of power inside the system. So we're talking propaganda, obviously, Uh, we're talking party bureaucracy, military less so, but security services, you know, these, these sort of areas all up and down the ballot he did very well.So that's obviously very important. And I think obviously then the dropping of the so-called Communist Youth League faction oriented people in Li Keqiang and Wang Yang and, and Hu Chunhua being kind of unceremoniously kicked off the Politburo, that tells us that. He's not in the mood to compromise with any other interest group.I prefer to call them rather than factions. Um, so that sort of suggests to us that, you know, models that rely on that kind of an analysis are dead. It has been kind of interesting in my mind to see how quickly though that, you know, analysts who tend to follow that framework already talking about the, uh, factional elements within Xi's faction, right?So, you know, it's gonna be the Shanghai people versus the Zhijiang Army versus the Fujian people. Bill: people say there's a Tsinghua factionChris: Right. The, the infamous, non infamous Tsinghua clique and, and and so on. But I think as we look more closely, I mean this is all kidding aside, if we look more closely at the individuals, what we see is obviously these people, you know, loyalty to Xi is, is sort of like necessary, but not necessarily sufficient in explaining who these people are. Also, I just always find it interesting, you know, somehow over. Wang Huning has become a Xi Jinping loyalist. I mean, obviously he plays an interesting role for Xj Jinping, but I don't think we should kid ourselves in noting that he's been kind of shunted aside Right by being pushed into the fourth position on the standing committee, which probably tells us that he will be going to oversee the Chinese People's Consultative Congress, which is, you know, kind of a do nothing body, you know, for the most part. And, um, you know, my sense has long been, One of Xi Jinping's, I think a couple factors there with Wang Huning.Sinocism is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.One is, you know, yes, he is very talented at sort of taking their very, uh, expansive, um, theoretical ideas and coming up with snappy, um, snappy sort of catchphrases, right? This is clearly his, um, his sort of claim to fame. But, you know, we had that article last year from the magazine, Palladium that kind of painted him as some sort of an éminence grise or a Rasputin like figure, you know, in terms of his role.Uh, you know, my sense has always been, uh, as one contact, put it to me one time. You know, the issue is that such analyses tend to confuse the musician with the conductor. In other words, Xi Jinping. is pretty good at ideology, right? And party history and the other things that I think the others had relied on.I think the second thing with Wang Huning is, um, in a way XI can't look at him I don't think, without sort of seeing here's a guy who's changed flags, as they would say, right? He served three very different leaders, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and now Xi , um, and, and continued on and I think at some level, uh, and we look at the rest of the appointments where it appears that, uh, loyalty was much more important than merit.Um, where that's also a question mark. So there's those issues I think on the Politburo. You know, you mentioned the, the Tsinghua clique it was very interesting. You had shared with me, uh, Desmond Shum of Red Roulette fame's Twitter stream sort of debunking, you know, this, this Tsinghua clique and saying, well, it turns out in fact that the new Shanghai Municipal Party Secretary Chen Jining can't stand Chen Xi, even though, you know, they both went to Tsinghua and were there at the same time and so on.Um, you know, who knows with Desmond Shum, but I think he knows some things, right? And, and, and it just a reminder to us all, I think, how little we understand right, about these relationships, especially now, uh, with Xi's concentration of power. And also a situation where we've had nearly three years of covid isolationBill: Right. And so it's really hard to go talk to people, even the fewer and fewer numbers, people who, who know something and can talk. Back to the standing committee. I, I think certainly just from friends and contacts the biggest surprise you know, I think, uh was Li Keqiang and Wang Yang not sticking around. And as that long explainer said without naming them they were good comrades who steps aside for the good of the party in the country,Chris: Because that happens so often,Bill: whatever that means. Um, but really the, the bigger surprise was that, oh, Cai Qi showing up. Who I think when you look at the standing committee, I think the general sense is, okay, the, these people are all, you know, not, they're loyal, but they're also competent, like Li Qiang, Chris: Right, Bill: The likely new premier number two on the standing committee is pretty competent. The Shanghai lockdown, disaster aside, Cai Qi on the other hand, was just, looks more like, it's just straight up loyalty to Xi. I think he was not really on anybody's short list of who was gonna make it on there. And so, it does feel like something happened, right?Chris: Yeah. Well, um, a couple things there. I think, um, one, let's start with the. The issue you raised about the economic team cuz I think that's actually very important. Um, you know, I, at some level, sometimes I feel like I'm sort of tiring my, of my role as official narrative buster or a windmill tilter.Uh, whether, whether it's pushback from Li Keqiang or the myth of the savior premier as I was calling it, which, uh, we didn't see, or that these norms actually aren't very enduring and it's really about power politics. I, I think I'm kind of onto a new one now, which is, you know, Xi Jin ping's new team of incompetent sycophants.Right? That's kind of the label that's, uh, come out in a lot of the takes, uh, since the Congress. But to your point, I mean, you know, Li Qiang has run the three most important economic powerhouses on China's east coast, either as governor or as party chief. Right. He seems to have had a, a good relationship with both.Private sector businesses and, and foreign, you know, people forget that, you know, he got the Tesla plant built in Shanghai in a year basically. Right. And it's, uh, responsible for a very significant amount of, of Tesla's total input of vehicles. Output of vehicles. Excuse me. Um, likewise, I hear that Ding Xuexiang, even though we don't know a lot about him, uh, was rather instrumental in things.Breaking the log jam with the US uh, over the de-listing of Chinese ADRs, uh, that he had played an important role in convincing Xi Jinping it would not be a good idea, for example, to, uh, you know, we're already seeing, uh, sort of decoupling on the technology side. It would not be a good idea to encourage the Americans to decouple financially as well. So the point is I think we need to just all kind of calm down, right? And, and see how these people perform in office. He Lifeng, I think is perhaps, you know, maybe more of a question mark, but, But here too, I think it's important for us to think about how their system worksThe political report sets the frame, right? It tells us what. Okay, this is the ideological construct we're working off of, or our interpretation, our dialectical interpretation of what's going on. And that, I think the signal there was what I like to call this fortress economy, right? So self-sufficiency and technology and so on.And so then when we look at the Politburo appointments, you can see that they align pretty closely to that agenda, right? These people who've worked in state firms or scientists and you know, so on and forth.Bill: Aerospace, defenseChris: Yeah, Aerospace. Very close alignment with that agenda. I'm not saying this is the right choice for China or that it even will be successful, I'm just saying it makes sense, you know,Bill: And it is not just sycophants it is actually loyal but some expertise or experience in these key sectors Chris: Exactly. Yeah, and, and, and, and of interest as well. You know, even people who have overlapped with Xi Jinping. How much overlap did they have? How much exposure did they have? You know, there's a lot of discussion, for example, about the new propaganda boss, Li Shulei being very close to Xi and likewise Shi Taifeng.Right? Uh, both of whom were vice presidents at the party school when, when Xi also was there. Um, but remember, you know, he was understudy to Hu Jintao at the time, you know, I mean, the party school thing was a very small part of his portfolio and they were ranked lower, you know, amongst the vice presidents of the party school.So how much actual interaction did he have? So there too, you know, I think, uh, obviously. , yes these people will do what Xi Jinping wants them to do, but that doesn't mean they're not competent. On Cai Qi, I agree with you. I think it's, it's, it's difficult. You know, my speculation would be a couple of things.One, proximity matters, right? He's been sitting in Beijing the last five years, so he is, had the opportunity to, uh, be close to the boss and, and impact that. I've heard some suggestions from contacts, which I think makes some. He was seen as more strictly enforcing the zero Covid policy. Right. In part because he is sitting in Beijing than say a Chen Min'er, right.Who arguably was a other stroke better, you know, candidate for that position on the Politburo standing committee. And there, you know, it will be interesting to see, you know, we're not sure the musical chairs have not yet finished. Right. The post party Congress for people getting new jobs. But you know, for example, if Chen Min'er stays out in Chongqing, that seems like a bit of a loss for him.Bill: Yeah, he needs to go somewhere else if he's got any hope of, um, sort of, But so one thing, sorry. One thing on the Politburo I thought was really interesting, and I know we've talked about offline, um, is that the first time the head of the Ministry State Security was, was. Promoted into the Politburo - Chen Wenqing. And now he is the Secretary of the Central Political Legal Affairs Commission, the party body that oversees the entire security services system and legal system. and what do you think that says about priorities and, and, and where Xi sees things going?Chris: Well, I think it definitely aligns with this concept of Xi Jiping's of comprehensive national security. Right. We've, we've seen and heard and read a lot about that and it seems that the, uh, number of types of security endlessly proliferate, I think we're up to 13 or 14Bill: Everything is National Security in Xi's China.Chris: Yeah. Everything is, is national security. Uh, that's one thing I think it's interesting perhaps in the, in the frame of, you know, in an era where they are becoming a bigger power and therefore, uh, have more resources and so on. You know, is that role that's played by the Ministry of State Security, which is, you know, they have this unique role, don't they?They're in a way, they're sort of the US' Central Intelligence Agency and, and FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation combined, and that they do have that internal security role as well, but, They are the foreign civilian anyway, uh, foreign intelligence collection arm. So perhaps, you know, over time there's been some sense that they realized, yes, cyber was great for certain things, but you still need human intelligence.Uh, you know, we don't know how well or not Chen Wenqing has performed, but you know, obviously there, this has been a relentless campaign, you know, the search for spies and so on and so forth. Um, I also think it says something about what we seem to be seeing emerging here, which is an effort to take what previously were these, you know, warring, uh, administrative or ministerial factions, right, of the Ministry of Public Security MPS, the MSS, uh, and even the party's, uh, discipline watchdog, the, uh, Central Commission on Discipline inspection, you know, in an effort to sort of knit those guys into one whole.And you know, it is interesting.Chen wending has experience in all three of those. He started off, I think as a street cop. Um, he did serve on the discipline inspection commission under, uh, Wang Qishan when things were, you know, really going in that department in the early part of, Xi's tenure and then he's headed, uh, the Ministry of State Security.I think, you know, even more interesting probably is. The, uh, formation of the new secretariat, right? Where we have both Chen Wenqing on there and also Wang Xiaohong as a minister of Public Security, but also as a deputy on the CPLAC, right? And a seat on the secretariat. And if we look at the, um, The gentleman who's number two in the discipline inspection, uh, space, he was a longtime police officer as well.So that's very unusual. You know, uh, his name's escaping me at the moment. But, um, you know, so in effect you have basically three people on the Secretariat with security backgrounds and, you know, that's important. It means other portfolios that might be on the secretariat that have been dumped, right? So it shows something about the prioritization, uh, of security.And I think it's interesting, you know, we've, we've often struggled to understand what is the National Security Commission, how does it function, You know, these sort of things. And it's, it's still, you know, absolutely clear as mud. But what was interesting was that, you know, from whatever that early design was that had some aspect at least of looking a bit like the US style, National Security Commission, they took on a much more sort of internal looking flavor.And it had always been my sort of thought that one of the reasons Xi Jinping created this thing was to break down, you know, those institutional rivalries and barriers and force, you know, coordination on these, on these institutions. So, you know, bottom line, I think what we're seeing is a real effort by Xi Jinping to You know, knit together a comprehensive, unified, and very effective, you know, stifling, really security apparatus. And, uh, I don't expect to see that change anytime soon. And then, you know, as you and I have been discussing recently, we also have, uh, another Xi loyalist Chen Yixin showing up as Chen Wenqing's successor right at the Ministry of State SecurityBill: And he remains Secretary General of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission too.Chris: Exactly. So, you know, from, from a, a sheet home where Xi Jinping five years ago arguably had very loose control, if at all, we now have a situation where he's totally dominant. Bill: I think the, the official on the Secretariat, I think it's Liu Jinguo.Chris: That's the one. Yes. Thank you. I'm getting old…Bill: He also has, has a long history of the Ministry of Public Security system. Um, but yeah, it does, it does seem like it's a, it's a real, I mean it, I I, I don't wanna use the word securitization, but it does like this is the indication of a, of a real, sort of, it just sort of fits with the, the general trend towards much more focus on national security. I mean, what about on the, the Central Military Commission? Right? Because one of the surprises was, um, again, and this is where the norms were broken, where you have Zhang Youxia, who should have retired based on his age, but he's 72, he's on the Politburo he stays as a vice chair of the CMCChris: Yep. Yeah, no, at, at, at the rip old age of 72. It's a little hard, uh, to think of him, you know, mounting a tank or something to go invade Taiwan or whatever the, you know, whatever the case may be. But, you know, I, I think here again, the narratives might be off base a little bit, you know, it's this issue of, you know, well he's just picked, you know, these sycophantic loyalists, He's a guy who has combat experience, right?And that's increasingly rare. Um, I don't think it's any surprise that. That himself. And, uh, the, uh, uh, gentleman on the CMC, uh, Li, who is now heading the, um, Joint Chiefs of Staff, he also has Vietnam combat experience, not from 79, but from the, uh, the border incursions that went on into the80s. Um, so it's not that surprising really.But, but obviously, you know, Zhang Youxia is very close to Xi Jinping, their father's fought together, right? Um, and they have that sort of, uh, blood tie and Xi is signaling, I want, uh, I. Political control and also technologically or, or, um, you know, operationally competent people. I think the other fascinating piece is we see once again no vice chairman from the political commissar iatside of the PLA.I think that's very interesting. You know, a lot of people, including myself, were betting that Miao HuaWould, would, would get the promotion. He didn't, you know, we can't know. But my sense is in a way, Xi Jiping is still punishing that side of the PLA for Xu Caihou's misdoings. Right. You know, and that's very interesting in and of itself.Also, it may be a signal that I don't need a political commissar vice chairman because I handle the politicsBill: And, and, and he, yeah. And in this, this new era that the, the next phase of the Xi era, it, it is, uh, everybody knows, right? It's, it's all about loyalty to Xi.Chris: we just saw right, uh, today, you know, uh, yet, yet more instructions about the CMC responsibilities, Chairman, responsibility systems. Bill: Unfortunately they didn't release the full text but it would be fascinating to see what's in there.Chris: And they never do on these things, which is, uh, which is tough. But, um, you know, I think we have a general sense of what would be in it, . But, but even that itself, right, you know, is a very major thing that people, you know, didn't really pick up. Certain scholars, certainly like James Mulvenon and other people who are really good on this stuff noticed it. But this shift under Hu Jintao was a CMC vice chairman responsibility system. In other words, he was subletting the operational matters certainly to his uniformed officers, Xi Jinping doesn't do thatBill: Well, this, and here we are, right where he can indeed I mean, I, I had written in the newsletter, um, you know, that she had, I thought, I think he ran the table in terms of personnel.Chris: Oh, completely. Yeah.Bill: And this is why it is interesting he kept around folks like Wang Huning, but we'll move on. The next question I had really was about Xi's report to the party Congress and we had talked, I think you'd also, um, you've talked about on our previous podcasts, I mean there, there seems to be a pretty significant shift in the way Xi is talking about the geopolitical environment and their assessment and how they see the world. Can you talk about a little bit?Chris: Yeah, I mean, I think definitely we saw some shifts there and, uh, you know, you and I have talked a lot about it. You know, there are problems with word counting, right? You know, and when you look at the thing and you just do a machine search, and it's like, okay, well security was mentioned 350 times or whatever, but, but the, you know, in what context?Right. Um, and, uh, our, uh, mutual admiration society, the, uh, the China Media project, uh, I thought they did an excellent piece on that sort of saying, Remember, it's the words that go around the buzzword that matter, you know, just as much. But what we can say unequivocally is that two very important touchstones that kind of explain their thinking on their perception of not only their external environment, but really kind of their internal environment, which had been in the last several political reports, now are gone. And those are this idea of China's enjoying a period of strategic opportunity and this idea that peace and development are the underlying trend of the times. And, you know, on the period of strategic opportunity, I think it's important for a couple reasons. One, just to kind of break that down for our listeners in a way that's not, you know, sort of, uh, CCP speak, , uh, the, the basic idea was that China judged that it's external security environment was sufficiently benign, that they could focus their energies on economic development.Right? So obviously that's very important. I also think it was an important governor, and I don't think I've seen anything out there talking about its absence in this, uh, political report on this topic, It was a, it was an important governor on sort of breakneck Chinese military development, sort of like the Soviet Union, right?In other words, as long as you were, you know, sort of judging that your external environment was largely benign, you. Didn't really have a justification to have a massive defense budget or to be pushy, you know, in the neighborhood, these sort of things. And people might poo poo that and sort of say, Well, you know, this is all just rhetoric and so on. No, they actually tend to Bill: Oh, that's interesting. Well, then that fits a little bit, right, Cuz they added the, the wording around strategic deterrence in the report as well which is seen as a, you know, modernizing, expanding their nuclear forces, right?Chris: Exactly, right. So, you know, that's, uh, an important absence and the fact that, you know, the word, again, word searching, right. Um, strategic and opportunity are both in there, but they're separated and balanced by this risks and challenges, languages and, and so on. Bill: Right the language is very starkly different. Chris: Yeah. And then likewise on, on peace and development. This one, as you know, is, is even older, right? It goes back to the early eighties, I believe, uh, that it's been in, in these political reports. And, uh, you know, there again, the idea was sort of not only was this notion that peace and economic development were the dominant, you know, sort of trend internationally, globally, they would be an enduring one. You know, this idea of the trend of the times, right? Um, now that's missing. So what has replaced it in both these cases is this spirit of struggle, right? Um, and so that's a pretty stark departure and that in my mind just sort of is a real throwback to what you could call the period of maximum danger for the regime in the sixties, right? When they had just split off with the Soviets and they were still facing unremitting hostility from the west after the Korean War experience and, and so on. So, you know, there's definitely a, a decided effort there. I think also we should view the removal of these concepts as a culmination of a campaign that Xi Jinping has been on for a while.You know, as you and I have discussed many times before, from the minute he arrived, he began, I think, to paint this darker picture of the exterior environment. And he seems to have always wanted to create a sort of sense of urgency, certainly maybe even crisis. And I think a big part of that is to justifying the power grab, right? If the world outside is hostile, you need, you know, a strongman. Bill: Well that was a lot of the propaganda going into the Party of Congress about the need for sort of a navigator helmsman because know, we we're, we're closest we have ever been to the great rejuvenation, but it's gonna be really hard and we need sort of strong leadership right. It was, it was all building to that. This is why Ci needs to stay for as long as he wants to stay.Chris: and I think we saw that reflected again just the other day in this Long People's Daily piece by Ding Xuexing, right, Where he's talking again about the need for unity, the throwback, as you mentioned in your newsletter to Mao's commentary, there is not to be lost on any of us you know, the fact that the Politburo standing committee's. Uh, first field trip is out to Yan'an, right? I mean, you know, these are messages, right? The aren't coincidental.Bill: No, it, it is. The thing that's also about the report that's interesting is that while there was, speaking of word counts, there was no mention of the United States, but it certainly feels like that was the primary backdrop for this entire discussion around. So the, the shifting geopolitical, uh, assessments and this broader, you know, and I think one of the things that I, and I want to talk to as we get into this, a little bit about US China relations, but is it she has come to the conclusion that the US is implacably effectively hostile, and there is no way that they're gonna get through this without some sort of a broader struggle?Chris: I don't know if they, you know, feel that conflict is inevitable. In fact, I kind of assume they don't think that because that's pretty grim picture for them, you know? Um, but I, I do think there's this notion that. They've now had two years to observe the Biden administration. Right? And to some degree, I think it's fair to say that by certain parties in the US, Xi Jinping, maybe not Xi Jinping, but a Wang Qishan or some of these characters were sold a bit of a bag of goods, right?Oh, don't worry, he's not Trump, he's gonna, things will be calmer. We're gonna get back to dialogue and you know, so on and so forth. And that really hasn't happened. And when we look at. Um, when we look at measures like the recent, chip restrictions, which I'm sure we'll discuss at some point, you know, that would've been, you know, the, the wildest dream, right of certain members of the Trump administration to do something that, uh, that's that firm, right? So, um, I think the conclusion of the Politburo then must be, this is baked into the cake, right? It's bipartisan. Um, the earliest we'll see any kind of a turn here is 2024. I think they probably feel. Um, and therefore suddenly things like a no limits partnership with Russia, right, start to make more sense. Um, but would really makes sense in that if that is your framing, and I think it is, and you therefore see the Europeans as like a swing, right, in this equation. This should be a great visit, right, for Chancellor Scholz, uh, and uh, I can't remember if it was you I was reading or someone else here in the last day or so, but this idea that if the Chinese are smart, they would get rid of these sanctions on Bill: That was me. Well, that was in my newsletterChris: Yeah. Parliamentary leaders and you know, Absolutely. Right. You know, that's a no brainer, but. I don't think they're gonna do it , but, but you know, this idea definitely that, and, and when they talk in the political report, you know, it, it's, it's like, sir, not appearing in this film, right, from Money Python, but we know who the people who are doing the bullying, you know, uh, is and the long armed jurisdiction and , so on and so forth and all, I mean, all kidding aside, I think, you know, they will see something like the chip restrictions effectively as a declaration of economic war. I don't think that's going too far to say that.Bill: It goes to the heart of their sort of technological project around rejuvenation. I mean, it is, it is a significant. sort of set of really kind of a, I would think, from the Chinese perspective aggressive policies against them,Chris: Yeah, and I mean, enforcement will be key and we'll see if, you know, licenses are granted and how it's done. And we saw, you know, already some, some backing off there with regard to this US person, uh, restriction and so on. But, but you know, it's still pretty tough stuff. There's no two ways aboutBill: No, and I, I wonder, and I worry that here in DC. You know, where the mood is very hawkish. If, if people here really fully appreciate sort of the shift that's taking, that seems to be taking place in Beijing and how these actions are viewed.Chris: Well, I, I think that's a really, you put your hand on it really, really interesting way, Bill, because, you know, let's face it really since the Trump trade war started, right? We've all analysts, you know, pundits, uh, even businesses and government people have been sort of saying, you know, when are the Chinese gonna punch back? You know, when are they going to retaliate? Right? And we talk about rare earths and we talk about Apple and TeslaBill: They slapped some sanctions on people but they kind of a jokeChris: And I guess what I'm saying is I kind of worry we're missing the forest from the trees. Right. You know, the, the, the work report tells us, the political report tells us how they're reacting. Right. And it is hardening the system, moving toward this fortress economy, you know, so on and so forth. And I wanna be real clear here, you know, they're not doing this just because they're reacting to the United States. Xi Jinping presumably wanted to do this all along, but I don't think we can say that the actions they perceive as hostile from the US aren't playing a pretty major role in allowing him to accelerate.Bill: Well, they called me. Great. You justifying great Accelerationist, right? Trump was called that as well, and, and that, that's what worries me too, is we're in. Kind of toxic spiral where, where they see us doing something and then they react. We see them do something and we react and, and it doesn't feel like sort of there's any sort of a governor or a break and I don't see how we figure that out.Chris: Well, I think, you know, and I'm sure we'll come to this later in our discussion, but you know, uh, yes, that's true, but you know, I'm always deeply skeptical of these inevitability memes, whether it's, you know, Thucydides trap or, you know, these other things. Last time I checked, there is something called political agency, right?In other words, leaders can make choices and they can lead if they want to, right? They have an opportunity to do so at in Bali, and you know, we'll have to see some of the, you know, early indications are perhaps they're looking at sort of a longer meeting. So that would suggest maybe there will be some discussion of some of these longstanding issues.Maybe we will see some of the usual, you know, deliverable type stuff. So there's an opportunity. I, I think one question is, can the domestic politics on either side allow for seizing that opportunity? You know, that's an open.Bill: Interesting. There's a couple things in the party constitution, which I think going into the Congress, you know, they told us they were gonna amend the Constitution. There were expectations that it, the amendments were gonna reflect an increase in Xi's power, uh, things like this, this idea of the two establishments, uh, which for listeners are * "To establish the status of Comrade Xi Jinping as the core of the Party's Central Committee and of the whole Party"* "To establish the guiding role of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era"The thinking, and I, I certainly believe that, I thought that they would write that in. There was some talk that, uh, Xi Jinping Thought the longer version would be truncated to just Xi Jinping thought. that possibly he might get, a, a sort of another title like People's Leader. None of those happened. One thing that did happen, What's officially translated by the Chinese side in English as the two upholds- “Uphold the 'core' status of General Secretary Xi Jinping within the CC and “Uphold the centralized authority of the Party” those were written in. And so the question is, was there some kind of pushback or are we misreading we what mattered? And actually the two upholds are more important than the two of establishes.Chris: Well, I, and I think it, this may be a multiple choice answer, right? There might be elements of all the above in there. Uh, you know, I think it is important that he didn't get the truncation to Xi Jinping thought. You have to think that that was something he was keen on. In retrospect, it may be that it was something akin. I've always felt, you know, another thing that was on the table that didn't happen was reestablishing the party chairmanship. My view had always been he was using that largely as a bargaining chip. That, you know, in some ways it creates more trouble than it's worth you. If you're gonna have a chairman, you probably have to have vice chairman and what does that say about the succession? I mean, of course he could have, you know, a couple of geezers on there. as vice chairman too. , But I, my view was always is he was holding that out there to trade away. Right. You know, at, at the last minute. Um, maybe that's what happened with Xi Jinping thought. I don't know.You know, uh, there have been some media articles, one of which, You and I were discussing yesterday from, uh, the Japanese, uh, publication Nikkei, you know, that suggested that, you know, the elders had, this was their last gasp, right? So the Jiang Zemins and the Zeng Qinghongs and Hu Jinataos, so on. Um, I'm a little skeptical of that. It is possible. Uh, but, um, I, I'd be a little skeptical of that. You know, it's, it's not at all clear that they had any kind of a role, you know, even at Beidaihe this year and so on, Jiang Zemin didn't even attend the Party Congress so clearly, you know, he must be pretty frail or he thought it was not with his time. You know, a little hard to say, but, you know, I kind of struggle with the notion that, you know, the 105 year old Song Ping gets up on a chair or something and starts, starts making trouble. Right. You know, uh, the poor man's probably lucky if he stays awake during the meeting. Bill: One question, and again, because of the, just, you know, how much more opaque Chinese politics are than the really I think they've ever been. Um, but just one question. It mean, is it possible, for example, that you know, it's more important to get the personnel done. It's more, and then once you get your, you stack the central committee, you get the politburo, you get the standing committee, that these things are sort of a next phase.Chris: yeah, it's entirely possible and, and I think it, it, it does dovetail with this idea that, you know, another reflection from both the political report and the lineup in my mind, is Xi Jinping is a man in a hurry. Right? And he's kind of projected that, as you said, the great accelerator since he arrived.But I think he sees this next five years is really fundamental, right in terms of breaking through on these chokepoint technologies as they call them. You know, these sort of things. And so maybe therefore having the right people in place to handle, you know, uh, speedier policy, execution, you know, was more important.Likewise, I mean, he's sort of telegraphing, He's gonna be around for a while, right? No successor, no visible successor anywhere. Bill: A successor would need likely need five years on the standing committee. So we're looking at ten more years.Chris: Yes, exactly. And so there will be time. The other thing is, um, Xi Jinping is a, is a sort of determined fellow, right? You know, so of interest, even before the 19th Party Congress, I'd been hearing very strong rumors that the notion of lingxiu was out there, that he was contemplating it, right? And so then we see the buildup with, uh, Renmin lingxiu and so on and so forth.And, you know, it didn't happen clearly at the 19th. It didn't happen. But it doesn't mean it won't, you know, at some point. And I think it's really important also to think about, you know, We just saw a pretty serious, um, enterprise of the, you know, quote unquote norm busting, right? So what's to say that mid-course in this five years, he doesn't, uh, hold another sort of extraordinary conference of party delegates like them, Deng Xiaoping did in 1985, right, to push through some of these. You never know, right? In other words, these things don't necessarily have to happen. Just at Party Congresses. So my guess is, you know, this isn't over yet. Uh, but you know, at some level, given how the system was ramping up with those articles about Navigator and the people's leader stuff and so on, you know, that's usually a tell, and yet it didn't happen. And, and so something interesting there. Bill: now they're in the mode of, they're out with these sort of publicity, propaganda education teams where they go out throughout the country and talk about the spirit of the party Congress and push all the key messaging. Um, you know, so far none of those People's leader truncation have happened in that, which is I think an area where some people thought, Well, maybe that could sort of come after the Congress.Chris: What is interesting is it's all two establishments all the time in those discussions, so that's been very interesting since it didn't make it into the, uh, into the document. I guess the other thing is, At some level, is it sort of a distinction without a difference? You know, I, I haven't done the work on this to see, but my guess is short of, you know, the many times they've just junked the entire constitution and rewritten it, this is probably the most amendments there have been, you know, in the to at one time. You know, to the 1982 constitution, and most of them are his various buzzwords. Right. Um, and you know, I think you've been talking about this in the newsletter, there may very well be, uh, something to this issue of, you know, which is the superior thought two establishments or to upholds/safeguards?Bill: and even if the two establishes were superior and then it didn't go in, then somehow it will be theoretically flipped to what got in the ConstitutionChris: I mean, I guess the, the, the thing though where we, it's fair to say that maybe this wasn't his ideal outcome. To me, there's been a very clear and you know, structured stepwise approach on the ideology from the word go. Right? And the first was to create right out of the shoot, this notion of, you know, three eras, right?The, Mao period, Deng and those other guys we don't talk about it anymore, period. and Xi Jinping's new era, right? And then that was. You know, sort of crystallized right at the 19th Party Congress when you know, Xi Jinping thought for horribly long name went into the Constitution. And so, you know, the next step kind of seemed like that should be it.And as we've discussed before, you know, if he's able to get just Thought, it certainly enhances his ability to stay around for a very long time and it makes his diktats and so on even more unquestionable. But you know, you can say again, matter of prioritization. With a team where there's really no visible or other opposition, does it really matter? You know, in other words, no one's gonna be questioning his policy ideas anyway.Bill: Just an aside, but on his inspection, the new standing committee will go on group trip right after the Party Congress and the first trip sends key messages. And group went to Yan'an, you know, they went, they went to the caves. Um, and you know, in the long readout or long CCTV report of the meeting, the visit, there was a section where the tour guide or the person introducing some of the exhibits talked about how the, the famous song, the East Is Red was, by a person, written by the people sort of spontaneously, and it w it definitely caused some tittering about, well, what are they trying to signal for?You know, are we gonna be seeing some Xi songs? there's some kind of really interesting signaling going on that I don't think we quite have figured out how to parse Chris: My takeaway on all this has been, I, I need to go back and do a little more book work on, you know, what was, what was the content of the seventh party Congress? What were the outcomes? I mean, I have the general sense, right? Like you, I immediately, you know, started brushing up on it. But, you know, Xi delivered a, an abridged work report. Right, A political report, which is exactly what Mao did then. I mean, in other words, they're not kidding around with the parallelism here. The question is what's the message?Bill: Just for background, at the visit last week to Yan'an, and the first spot that was in the propaganda was the, the, site of the seventh party Congress which is where…to be very simplistic, the seventh party was really moment, you know, as at the end of the Yan'am rectification came in, it was the moment where sort of Mao fully asserted his dominance throughout the system. Mao Thought etc. Right? The signaling, you could certainly, could certainly take a view that, you know, he doesn't do these things by coincidence, and this is. This is signaling both of, you know, can through anything because they, livedin caves and ended up beating the Japanese and then won the Civil War. You know this, and we can, and by the way, we have a dominant leader. I mean, there are ways, again, I'm being simplistic, but the symbolism was not, I think one that would, for example, give a lot of confidence to investors, which I think is, you know, one, one of the many reasons we've seen until the rumors earlier this week, a, pretty big selloff in the, in the Hong Kong and manland stock markets rightChris: most definitely. And I think, you know, this is the other thing about, about what I was trying to get at earlier with, uh, forest and trees, right? You know, in other words, . Um, he's been at this for a while too. You know, there's a reason why he declared a new long march right in depths of the trade war with Trump.Bill: And a new historical resolution, only the third in historyChris: Yeah. And they have been stepwise building since then. And this is the next building block.Bill: The last thought, I mean, he is 69. He's. 10 years younger than President Joe Biden. He could go, he could be around for a long timeBill: well just quickly, cause I know, uh, we don't have that much more time, but I, you say anything about your thoughts on Hu Jintao and what happened?My first take having had a father and a stepfather had dementia was, um, you know, maybe too sympathetic to the idea that, okay, he's having some sort of a senior cognitive moment. You know, you can get. easily agitated, and you can start a scene. And so therefore, was humiliating and symbolic at the end of the Communist Youth League faction, but maybe it was, it was benign as opposed to some of the other stuff going around. But I think might be wrong so I'd love your take on that. Chris: Well, I, I think, you know, I, I kind of shared your view initially when I watched the, uh, I guess it was an AFP had the first, you know, sort of video that was out there and, you know, he appeared to be stumbling around a bit. He definitely looked confused and, you know, like, uh, what we were discussing earlier on another subject, this could be a multiple choice, you know, A and B or whatever type scenario as well.We don't know, I mean, it seems pretty well established that he has Parkinson's, I think the lead pipe pincher for me though, was that second longer one Singapore's channel, Channel News Asia put out. I mean, he is clearly tussling with Li Zhanshu about something, right. You know that that's. Yes, very clear. And you know, if he was having a moment, you know, when they finally get him up out of the chair and he seems to be kind of pulling back and so on, you know, he moves with some alacrity there, for an 80 year old guy. Uh, I don't know if he was being helped to move quickly or he, you know, realized it was time to exit stage.Right. But I think, you know, as you said in your newsletter, I, we probably will never know. Um, but to me it looked an awful lot like an effort by Xi Jinping to humiliate him. You know, I mean, there was a reason why they brought the cameras back in at that moment, you know? Unless we believe that that just happened spontaneously in terms of Hu Jintao has his freak out just as those cameras were coming back in the stone faces of the other members of the senior leadership there on the rostrum and you know, Wand Hunting, pulling Li Zhanshu back down kind of saying basically, look buddy, this is politics, don't you don't wanna, that's not a good look for you trying to care for Hu Jintao. You know, I mean obviously something was going on, you know? No, no question. Bill: Right. And feeds into the idea that Hu Chunhua, we all expected that he at least be on the Politburo again, and he's, he's off, so maybe something, something was going Chris: Well, I, I think what we know from observing Xi Jinping, right? We know that this is a guy who likes to keep people off balance, right? Who likes to keep the plate spinning. He, this is definitely the Maoist element of his personality, you know, whether it's strategic disappearances or this kind of stuff. And I think it's entirely plausible that he might have made some last minute switches right, to, uh, the various lists that were under consideration that caused alarm, you know, among those who thought they were on a certain list and and no longer were.Bill: and then, and others who were smart enough to realize that if he made those switches, they better just go with it.Chris: Yeah, go along with it. Exactly. I mean, you know, in some ways the most, aside from what happened to Hu Jintao, the, the most, um, disturbing or compelling, depending on how you wanna look at it, part of that video is when Hu Jintao, you know, sort of very, um, delicately taps Li Keqiang on the shoulder. He doesn't even look at it, just keeps looking straight ahead. Uh, and that's tough. And as you pointed out in the newsletter and elsewhere, you know, how difficult must have that have been for Hu Jintao's son Hu Haifeng, who's in the audience watching this all go on? You know, it's, uh, it's tough. Bill: And then two two days later attends a meeting where he praises Xi to high heaven.Chris: Yeah, exactly. So, so if the darker narrative is accurate, I guess one thing that concerns me a bit is, as you know, well, I have never been a fan of these, uh, memes about comparing Xi Jinping to either Stalin or Mao in part because I don't see him as a whimsical guy. They were whimsical people. I think because of his tumultuous upbringing, he understands the problems with that kind of an approach to life, but this was a very ruthless act. If that more malign, you know, sort of definition is true and that I think that says something about his mentality that perhaps should concern us if that's the case. Bill: It has real implications, not just for domestic also potentially for its foreign policy.Chris: Absolutely. I mean, what it shows, right to some degree, again, man in a hurry, this is a tenacious individual, right? if he's willing to do that. And so if you're gonna, you know, kick them in the face on chips and, you know, things like that, um, you should be taking that into consideration.Bill: And I think preparing for a more substantive response that is more thought out and it's also, it happened, it wasn't very Confucian for all this talk Confucian definitely not. and values. One last question, and it is related is what do you make of this recent upsurge or talk in DC from various officials that PRC has accelerated its timeline to absorb Taiwan, because nothing in the public documents indicates any shift in that timeline.Chris: No. Uh, and well, first of all, do they, do they have a timeline? Right? You know, I mean, the whole idea of a timeline is kind of stupid, right? You don't, if you're gonna invade somewhere, you say, Hey, we're gonna do it on on this date. I mean, 2049. Okay. Bill: The only timeline that I think you can point to is is it the second centenary goal and, and Taiwan getting quote unquote, you know, returning Taiwan to the motherland's key to the great rejuvenation,Chris: Yeah, you can't have rejuvenation without it. Bill: So then it has to be done by 2049. 27 years, but they've never come out and specifically said 27 years or 2049. But that's what No. that's I think, is where the timeline idea comes from.Chris: Oh yes, definitely. And, and I think some confusion of. What Xi Jinping has clearly set out and reaffirmed in the political report as these important, um, operational benchmarks for the PLA, the People's Liberation Army to achieve by its hundredth anniversary in 2027. But that does not a go plan for Taiwan make, you know, And so it's been confusing to me trying to understand this. And of course, you know, I, I'm joking, but I'm not, you know, if we, if we listen now to the chief of naval operations of the US Navy, you know, like they're invading tomorrow, basically.My former colleague from the CIA, John Culver's, done some very, you know, useful public work on this for the Carnegie, where he sort his endowment, where he sort of said, you know, look, there's certain things we would have to see, forget about, you know, a D-day style invasion, any type of military action that, that you don't need intelligence methods to find out. Right. You know, uh, canceling, uh, conscription, demobilization cycles, you know, those, those sort of things. Um, we don't see that happening. So I've been trying to come to grips with why the administration seems fairly seized with this and and their public commentary and so on. What I'm confident of is there's no smoking gun you know, unlike, say the Russia piece where it appears, we had some pretty compelling intelligence. There doesn't seem to be anything that says Xi Jinping has ordered invasion plans for 2024, you know, or, or, or even 2027. Um, so I'm pretty confident that's not the case. And so then it becomes more about an analytic framework. And I, from what I can tell, it's seems to be largely based on what, uh, in, you know, the intelligence community we would call calendar-int.. calendar intelligence. In other words, you know, over the next 18 months, a lot of stuff's going to happen. We're gonna have our midterm elections next week. It's pretty likely the Republicans get at least one chamber of Congress, maybe both.That would suggest that things like the Taiwan Policy Act and, you know, really, uh, things that have, uh, Beijing's undies in a bunch, uh, you know, could really come back on, uh, the radar pretty forcibly and pretty quickly. Obviously Taiwan, nobody talks about it, but Taiwan's having municipal elections around the same time, and normally that would be a very inside Taiwan baseball affair, nobody would care. But the way that KMT ooks like they will not perform, I should say, in those municipal elections. They could be effectively wiped out, you know, as a, as a sort of electable party in Taiwan. That's not a good news story for Beijing.And then of course we have our own presidential in 2024 and Taiwan has a presidential election in 24 in the US case.I mean, look, we could end up with a President Pompeo, right? Or a President DeSantis or others who. Been out there sort of talking openly about Taiwan independence and recognizing Taiwan. And similarly, I think whoever succeeds, uh, President Tsai in Taiwan, if we assume it will likely be a a, a Democratic Progressive party president, will almost by definition be more independence oriented.So I think the administration is saying there's a lot of stuff that's gonna get the Chinese pretty itchy, you know, over this next 18 month period. So therefore we need to be really loud in our signaling to deter. Right. And okay. But I think there's a risk with that as well, which they don't seem to be acknowledging, which is you might create a self-fulfilling prophecy.I mean, frankly, that's what really troubles me about the rhetoric. And so, for example, when Secretary Blinken last week or the before came out and said Yeah, you know, the, the, the Chinese have given up on the status quo. I, I, I've seen nothing, you know, that would suggest that the political report doesn't suggest. Bill: They have called it a couple of times so-called status quo.Chris: Well, Fair enough. Yeah. Okay. That's, that's fine. Um, but I think if we look at the reason why they're calling it the so-called status quo, it's because it's so called now because the US has been moving the goalposts on the status quo.Yeah. In terms of erosion of the commitment to the one China policy. And the administration can say all at once, they're not moving the goal post, but they are, I mean, let's just be honest.Bill: Now, and they have moved it more than the Trump administration did, don't you think?Chris: Absolutely. Yeah. Um, you know, no president has said previously we will defend Taiwan multiple times. Right. You know, um, and things like, uh, you know, Democracy, someone, I mean, this comes back also to the, the framing, right, of one of the risks I think of framing the relationship as democracy versus autocracy is that it puts a very, uh, heavy incentive then for the Biden administration or any future US administration to, you know, quote unquote play the Taiwan card, right, as part of said competition.Whereas if you don't have that framing, I don't think that's necessarily as automatic. Right? In other words, if that's the framing, well Taiwan's a democracy, so we have to lean in. Right? You know? Whereas if it's a more say, you know, straight realist or national interest driven foreign policy, you might not feel that in every instance you've gotta do that,Bill: No, and and I it, that's an interesting point. And I also think too that, um, I really do wonder how much Americans care, right? And, and whether or not we're running the risk of setting something up or setting something in motion that, you know, again, it's easy to be rhetorical about it, but that we're frankly not ready to deal withChris: Well, and another thing that's interesting, right, is that, um, to that point, Some of the administration's actions, you know, that are clearly designed to show toughness, who are they out toughing? You know, in some cases it feels like they're out toughing themselves, right? I mean, obviously the Republicans are watching them and so on and all of that.Um, but you know, interesting, uh, something that came across my thought wave the other day that I hadn't really considered. We're seeing pretty clear indications that a Republican dominated Congress after the midterms may be less enthusiastic about support to Ukraine, we're all assuming that they're gonna be all Taiwan support all the time.Is that a wrong assumption? You know, I mean, in other words, Ukraine's a democracy, right? And yet there's this weird strain in the Trumpist Wing of the Republican party that doesn't wanna spend the money. Right. And would that be the case for Taiwan as well? I don't know, but you know, the point is, I wonder if the boogieman of looking soft is, is sort of in their own heads to some degree.And, and even if it isn't, you know, sometimes you have to lead. Bill: it's not clear the allies are listening. It doesn't sound like the Europeans would be on board withChris: I think very clearly they're not. I mean, you know, we're about to see a very uncomfortable bit of Kabuki theater here, aren't we? In the next couple of days with German Chancellor Sholz going over and, um, you know, if you, uh, read the op-ed he wrote in Politico, you know, it's, it's painful, right? You can see him trying to, uh, Trying to, uh, you know, straddle the fence and, and walk that line.And, and obviously there are deep, deep divisions in his own cabinet, right? You know, over this visit, the foreign minister is publicly criticizing him, you know, and so on. So I think this is another aspect that might be worrisome, which is the approach. You know, my line is always sort of a stool, if it's gonna be stable, needs three legs, right.And on US-China relations, I think that is, you know, making sure our own house is in order. Domestic strengthening, these guys call it, coordinating with allies and partners, certainly. But then there's this sort of talking to the Chinese aspect and through a policy, what I tend to call strategic avoidance, we don't.Talk to them that much. So that leg is missing. So then those other two legs need to be really strong. Right. Um, and on domestic strengthening, Okay. Chips act and so on, that's good stuff. On allies and partners, there seems to be a bit of an approach and I think the chip restrictions highlight this of, look, you're either for us or against us.Right? Whereas I think in, you know, the good old Cold War I, we seem to be able to understand that a West Germany could do certain things for us vis-a-vis the Soviets and certain things they couldn't and we didn't like it and we complained, but we kind of lived with it, right? If we look at these chip restrictions, it appears the administration sort of said, Look, we've been doing this multilateral diplomacy on this thing for a year now, it's not really delivering the goods. The chips for framework is a mess, so let's just get it over with and drag the allies with us, you know? Um, and we'll see what ramifications that will have.Bill: Well on that uplifting note, I, I think I'm outta questions. Is there anything else you'd like to add?Chris: Well, I think, you know, something just to consider is this idea, you know, and maybe this will help us close on a more optimistic note. Xi Jinping is telling us, you know, he's hardening the system, he's, he's doing this fortress economy thing and so on. But he also is telling us, I have a really difficult set of things I'm trying to accomplish in this five years.Right? And that may mean a desire to signal to the us let's stabilize things a bit, not because he's having a change of heart or wants a fundamental rapprochement, so on and so forth. I don't think that's the case, but might he want a bit of room, right? A breathing room. Bill: Buy some time, buy some spaceChris: Yeah, Might he want that? He might. You know, and so I think then a critical question is how does that get sorted out in the context of the negotiations over the meeting in Bali, if it is a longer meeting, I think, you know, so that's encouraging for that. Right. To some degree. I, I, I would say, you know, if we look at what's just happened with the 20th party Congress and we look at what's about to happen, it seems with our midterms here in the United States, Who's the guy who's gonna be more domestically, politically challenged going into this meeting, and therefore have less room to be able to seize that opportunity if it does exist.Exactly. Because I, I think, you know, the, the issue is, The way I've been framing it lately, you know, supposedly our position is the US position is strategic competition and China says, look, that's inappropriate, and we're not gonna sign onto it and forget it.You know, my own view is we kind of have blown past strategic competition where now in what I would call strategic rivalry, I think the chip restrictions, you know, are, are a giant exclamation point, uh, under that, you know, and so on. And my concern is we're kind of rapidly headed toward what I would call strategic enmity.And you know, that all sounds a bit pedantic, but I think that represents three distinct phases of the difficulty and the relationship. You know, strategic enmity is the cold, the old Cold War, what we had with the Soviets, right? So we are competing against them in a brass tax manner across all dimensions. And if it's a policy that, you know, hurts us, but it hurts them, you know, 2% more we do it, you know, kind of thing. I don't think we're there yet. And the meeting offers an opportunity to, you know, arrest the travel from strategic rivalry to strategic enmity. Let's see if there's something there/Bill: And if, and if we don't, if it doesn't arrest it, then I think the US government at least has to do a much better job of explaining to the American people why we're headed in this direction and needs to do a much better job with the allies cuz because again, what I worry about is we're sort of heading down this path and it doesn't feel like we've really thought it through.You know, there are lots of reasons be on this path, but there's also needs to be a much more of a comprehensive understanding of the, of the costs and the ramifications and the solutions and have have an actual sort of theory of the case about how we get out the other side of this in a, in a better way.Chris: Yeah, I think that's important. I want to be real, um, fair to the administration. You know, they're certainly more thoughtful and deliberative than their predecessor. Of course, the bar was low, but, um, you know, they, they seem to approach these things in a pretty. Dedicated and careful manner. And I think they really, you know, take, take things like, uh, looking at outbound investment restrictions, you know, my understanding is they have been, you know, seeking a lot of input about unintended consequences and so on. But then you look at something like the chips piece and it just seems to me that those in the administration who had been pushing for, you know, more there for some time, had a quick moment where they basically said, look, this thing's not working with multilaterally, Let's just do it, you know? And then, oh, now we're seeing the second and third and other order consequences of it. And the risk is that we wind up, our goal is to telegraph unity to Beijing and shaping their environment around them as the administration calls it. We might be signaling our disunity, I don't know, with the allies, and obviously that would not be a good thingBill: That's definitely a risk. Well, thanks Chris. It's always great to talk to you and Thank you for listening to the occasional Sinocism podcast. Thank you, Chris.Chris: My pleasure. Sinocism is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sinocism.com/subscribe
The transcript and voiceover is from Whitney Webb's Speech to the First Annual Children's Health Defense Conference, October, 2022 Introduction and BackgroundFor years, the censorship of factual information that is inconvenient to certain powerful actors, including the US Federal Government and Big Pharma, has been steadily increasing as “information warfare” has become an ever present force in our lives.In a world where what were once obvious truths are under attack, even the very definitions of “journalist” and “journalism” have themselves become controversial and contested. Too often in this “information war”, the first casualty is the truth itself. Facts are rarely treated as sacred by the world's largest and most influential media outlets, but instead are treated as something to be twisted and manipulated for the benefit of their paying sponsors. In this environment, too many media personalities have become mercenaries for hire and, as a consequence, public trust in the media is cratering. Meanwhile, those who do aim to champion truth in their work are targeted, smeared and censored by tech companies and platforms aligned with “mercenary media”, unaccountable intelligence services, and out of control oligarchs.The following essay focuses on the ongoing insidious effort to normalize the censorship of factual information, the historical context of this war on dissenting voices, and how “journalism” today has increasingly become about protecting the powerful rather than holding them to account. Potential solutions to this existential crisis in journalism are also discussed.Journalism in Crisis: The War on DissentWith each passing day, it seems that Journalism is becoming less of a profession and more of a war zone. Indeed the difference between journalism and “information warfare” is becoming increasingly difficult to pinpoint.Whereas journalism continues to be defined as “writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation” – in practice, it has become a battlefield where the most powerful media outlets - that is, those closest to the centers of power – deliberately manipulate or omit facts to craft narratives that expressly benefit the powerful while also colluding to censor their more truthful competition. These media outlets act as mercenaries, with little or no regard for how their actions negatively impact our society and distort reality. Their allegiances lie not with the public, but with those with the deepest pockets.In doing so, in many cases these media mercenaries actively work to suppress the facts and malign those in journalism who do strive to champion the truth above all else. Instead of holding the powerful to account, many so-called journalists today act more as accessories to the crimes committed by the powerful against the public.Objective presentation of the facts, as far as the bulk of mainstream media is concerned, is dead and has been dead for some time. As a consequence, public trust in these media outlets has completely cratered. Yet, even the ostensible challenge to mainstream media, so-called independent or alternative media, is often troubled by similar issues, as the quest for clicks and fame can often supersede objective, factual reporting even outside the bounds of mainstream media. As a result, navigating the world of journalism has never been more difficult or more precarious than it is right now.But if some get their way, navigating the media landscape in search of truth will soon become impossible. There are major efforts, years in the making, to censor dissenting opinions under the guise of censoring “misinformation.” As many readers are undoubtedly aware, what was last year's “misinformation” with respect to COVID-19 injections has only recently undergone a dramatic change into “breaking news.” Yet, many of us who were right all along and were censored when factual information that is now recognized as true was erroneously labeled “misinformation,” have received no apologies or compensation from our lost income. In many cases, our old platforms have not been returned to us. The censorship hammer has not been wielded with incompetence, instead it has been and is being intentionally used to squeeze out those of us who would dare to speak the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be at the time.As the online censorship onslaught continues, it is becoming increasingly normalized. Growing restrictions, deplatforming and its other manifestations have become so pervasive that many have simply come to accept it as a “new normal.” This “new normal” for free speech is as insidious as it has been gradual, as we are being trained to accept unconstitutional limitations on what we can express on the websites that dominate online socialization.The argument that is often deployed to dismiss concerns regarding online censorship is the claim that the dominant social media companies are private, not public, entities. However, in reality, the Big Tech firms that dominate our online lives, particularly Google and Facebook, were either created with some involvement of the U.S. national security state or have become major U.S. government and/or military contractors over the past two decades. When it comes to censoring and deplatforming individuals for claims that run counter to U.S. government narratives, it should be clear that Google-owned YouTube, and other tech platforms owned by contractors to the U.S. military and intelligence communities, have a major conflict of interest in their stifling of speech.The line between “private” Silicon Valley and the public sector has become increasingly blurred, and it is now a matter of record that these companies have illegally passed information onto intelligence services such as the NSA, for use in what are blatantly unconstitutional surveillance programs aimed at American civilians. All indications point to the military-industrial complex having now expanded into the military-technology-industrial complex.These days, one need only look at important government commissions — such as the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, which was headed by former Google/Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt — to see how this de facto public-private partnership between Silicon Valley and the national security state functions, and its outsized role in setting important tech-related policies for both the private and public sectors. For example, that commission, largely comprised of representatives of the military, intelligence community and Big Tech, has helped set policy on “countering disinformation” online. More specifically, it has recommended weaponizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the express purpose of identifying online accounts to deplatform and speech to censor, framing this recommendation as essential to U.S. national security as it relates to “information warfare.”There are already several companies competing to market an AI-powered censorship engine to the national security state as well as the private sector, for use against journalists and non-journalists alike. One of these companies is Primer AI, a “machine intelligence” company that “builds software machines that read and write in English, Russian, and Chinese to automatically unearth trends and patterns across large volumes of data.” The company publicly states that their work “supports the mission of the intelligence community and broader DOD by automating reading and research tasks to enhance the speed and quality of decision-making.” Their current roster of clients includes not just the U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence community, but major American companies like Walmart and private “philanthropic” organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Primer's founder, Sean Gourley, who previously created AI programs for the military to track insurgents in post-invasion Iraq, asserted in an April 2020 blog post that “computational warfare and disinformation campaigns will become a more serious threat than physical war, and we will have to rethink the weapons we deploy to fight them.” In that same post, Gourley argued for the creation of a “Manhattan Project for truth” that would create a publicly available Wikipedia-style database built off of “knowledge bases [that] already exist inside many countries' intelligence agencies for national security purposes.” Gourley wrote that “this effort would be ultimately about building and enhancing our collective intelligence and establishing a baseline for what's true or not.” In other words, Gourley says we should let the CIA tell us what is true and what is false. He concludes his blog post by stating that “in 2020, we will begin to weaponize truth.” And, two years later, it seems that Gourley was right. That is what they have done.Since that year, Primer has been under contract with the U.S. military to “develop the first-ever machine learning platform to automatically identify and assess suspected disinformation.” That the term “suspected disinformation” was used is no accident, as many instances of online censorship have involved merely assertions, as opposed to confirmations, that censored speech, including censored journalism, is part of a nation state-connected or “bad actor”-connected disinformation campaign. While those campaigns do exist, legitimate and constitutionally protected speech that deviates from the “official” or government-sanctioned narrative are frequently censored under these metrics, often with little to no ability to meaningfully appeal the censor's decision. In other cases, posts “suspected” of being disinformation or that which are flagged as such (sometimes erroneously) by social media algorithms, are removed or hidden from public view without the poster's knowledge.In addition, “suspected disinformation” can be used to justify the censorship of speech that is inconvenient for particular governments, corporations and groups, as there is no need to have evidence or present a coherent case that said content is disinformation — one must only cast suspicion upon it in order to have it censored. Further complicating this issue is the fact that some claims initially labeled “disinformation” later become accepted fact or recognized as legitimate speech. This has happened on more than one occasion during the COVID-19 crisis, where journalists had their accounts deleted or their content censored merely for broaching issues like the lab-leak hypothesis as well as questions over mask and vaccine efficacy, among many other issues. A year or two later, much of this supposed “disinformation” has since become acknowledged as legitimate avenues of journalistic inquiry. The initial bout of blanket censorship on these topics was done at the behest of public and private actors alike due to their inconvenience to what had once been the prevailing narrative.In what appears to be the apparent fulfillment of Primer AI's pleas, the Biden administration has recently announced a push to “increase digital literacy” among the American public, while censoring also “harmful content” disseminated by so-called “domestic terrorists” as well as by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of U.S. government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, is synonymous with “Russian disinformation,” a now-discredited claim that has been used to heavily censor independent media.Regarding “increasing digital literacy,” the policy documents from the Biden administration make it clear that this refers to a new “digital literacy” education curriculum that is currently being developed by the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S.' domestically-focused intelligence agency, for a domestic audience. This “digital literacy” initiative would have previously violated U.S. law, until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, which lifted the World War II-era ban on the U.S. government directing propaganda at domestic audiences.The Biden administration's war on domestic terror policy also makes it clear that the censorship, as described above, is part of a “broader priority” of the administration, which it defines as follows:“[…] enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.”In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administration's domestic-terror strategy. In addition, this statement implies that Americans not agreeing with each other is problematic and frames that disagreement as a driver of violence, as opposed to a normal occurrence in a supposed democracy that has constitutional protections for freedom of speech. From this framing, it is implied that such violence can only be stopped if all Americans trust the government and agree with its narratives and “truths.” Framing deviations from these narratives as national security threats, as is done in this policy document, invites the labeling of non-conforming speech as “violence” or as “inciting violence” through the fomentation of disagreement. As a result, those who post non-conforming speech online may soon find themselves being labeled as “terrorists” by the state if this policy is not reversed.So what does this mean for journalists? Must all journalists conform to government-approved talking points lest they be accused of “inciting violence” and “terrorism”? If a journalist reports truthful information that makes the public angry at certain government institutions, are they to be deemed a national security threat in such a framework? While such a scenario may seem fantastical to some, one need look no further than the case of Julian Assange, who is currently being treated as a terrorist for publishing factual information that was inconvenient to powerful factions that manage the American empire.Information warfare, when waged by the powers that be in this country, is a war on the truth. It is a war to replace the truth with a narrative that supports their needs, not ours. It is a war to distort reality and to manipulate the public to support policies that are against their best interests. While they may frame such measures as necessary to “protect” democracy, the elimination and imminent criminalization of legitimate speech and legitimate journalism is the true threat to democracy, one that should deeply disturb all Americans. If the national security state controls and enforces the only permissible narratives and the only permitted version of the “truth,” whether for journalists or everyday Americans, they will then also control human perception, and — as a consequence — human behavior. One could argue that this is the ultimate goal of so much of what we are facing today – total control over human behavior.Thankfully, for those that seek to “weaponize” the truth and stamp out dissent, the truth is not as easily manipulated and distorted as they may think. At a visceral level, people gravitate towards the truth. They may succeed in hiding the truth from many or even most of us for a time, but – once it comes out – it spreads like wildfire. Governments around the world, the biggest media outlets in the world and even groups like the World Economic Forum are desperate to “rebuild trust” with the public. Despite these efforts, polls indicate that the public trusts them less than ever before. They may deplatform the truth, they may censor the truth and they may imprison those who tell the truth or label them terrorists – but their lies and their distortions can never, ever replace it.Whitney WebbWhitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond and hosts an independent podcast called Unlimited Hangout. You can support her work directly on Patreon. Her latest book has been published as a two volume set, which is readily available from Amazon and other booksellers.One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein, (Volume 1)One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 2)Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Who is Robert Malone at rwmalonemd.substack.com/subscribe
In this episode, Peter and Eric discuss how to successfully run a tech giant like Google, the arms race of AI, and how Quantum tech will change the world. You will learn about: 09:37 | AI will expand our knowledge of biology 15:19 | Creating algorithms that digitize everything 38:57 | USA v China: who will win the race to AI? 41:20 | The mindset needed to run a company like Google Eric Schmidt is best known as the CEO of Google from 2001-2011, including Executive Chairman of Google, Alphabet, and later on their Technical Advisor until 2020. He was also on the board of directors at Apple during 2006-2009 and is currently the Chairman of the board of directors at the Broad Institute. From 2019 to 2021, Eric chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. __________________________ Resources Levels: Real-time feedback on how diet impacts your health. levels.link/peter Consider a journey to optimize your body with LifeForce. Learn more about Abundance360. Eric's foundation, Schmidt Futures Listen to other episodes of Moonshots & Mindsets Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this "Ask Me Anything" session, Eric answers questions ranging from the future of advertising in Web 3 and how technology will affect emerging markets like Africa to leadership lessons learned at Google and the morality of AI Consciousness. You will learn about: 04:12 | Lessons learned working at Google 16:11 | How Google sculpted the ideal team 22:53 | Can we transcend our human nature with AI technology? 35:28 | Applying Web 3 models to today's advertising targeting Eric Schmidt is best known as the CEO of Google from 2001-2011, including Executive Chairman of Google, Alphabet, and later on their Technical Advisor until 2020. He was also on the board of directors at Apple during 2006-2009 and is currently the Chairman of the board of directors at the Broad Institute. From 2019 to 2021, Eric chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. __________________________ Resources Levels: Real-time feedback on how diet impacts your health. levels.link/peter Consider a journey to optimize your body with LifeForce. Learn more about Abundance360. What Eric's reading: The Genesis Machine by Amy Webb + Andrew Hessel Eric's foundation, Schmidt Futures Listen to other episodes of Moonshots & Mindsets Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: An Exercise in Speed-Reading: The National Security Commission on AI (NSCAI) Final Report, published by abiolvera on August 17, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary: More EAs should learn to speed-read. Main benefits of speed-reading: reading non-fiction books and articles faster and choosing how long to take on a report/book, rather than an open-ended amount of time. Speed-reading is not simply skimming. People often take weeks-long courses to develop all the related-subskills (I used a 36 chapter-a-day book). Specific sub-skills are: learning to not say the words aloud in your head, reading one or two lines at a time, and even using fewer eye-swipes to get the general sentiment of each sentence/paragraph. You'll have gotten the gist of each paragraph and chapter through efficient skimming of the parts of the book that summarize the chapter's directions (first/last paragraphs, table of contents, etc.) I use the 752-page NSCAI report as an example of speed-reading. The views in this article belong solely to the author and do not represent those of the U.S. government. Speed-Reading is Underutilized I've seen speed-reading be a critical asset within policy circles, particularly at the higher levels, since you have so many sources of intelligence and analysis to review daily. Even as an entry and mid-level diplomat, I found that speed-reading tactics made my portfolios more manageable. Very famous policymakers who sped-read: President John F. Kennedy took a speed-reading course with his brother, promoted its use among his cabinet ministers; President Jimmy Carter and his staffers learned the skill while in the White House; President Theodore Roosevelt was a known speed-reader. People earlier in their careers, researchers, and people with expertise in many domains should consider learning to speed-read. Learning to speed-read (via a self-paced course) has made large, important bodies of literature significantly more accessible. It allows me to decide how much time I think it's worth spending on a book, article or report, and to get as much information as I can within that self-imposed time constraint. I.e., reading is no longer an open-ended exercise; I choose how long it will take. You probably already use some aspects of speed-reading, like skimming through a paper where you're familiar with the topics or skipping to the section with new information. But I am specifically discussing the comprehensive speed-reading skillset, which aims to help you: Read text faster via tactics like minimizing eye swipes, not reading aloud in your head, absorbing a paragraph as one unit as you would a sentence or a group of words. Focus on parts of the book you'd remember if you did read it more closely. Quickly find the key messages and, knowing what to expect, read rapidly since you don't need to concentrate on the details to understand the book's direction. Learning to Speed-Read I want to emphasize the different subset skills of a true speed-reading course. Many of these subsets are you gaining a new ability, similar to learning a guitar strum. To develop speed-reading skills, start by using your finger as a pacer while you read, progressively increasing your speed. Once you're going as fast as you can, start dragging your finger over two lines at a time, and then across whole paragraphs so you're reading an entire paragraph with fewer eye swipes. These exercises will feel uncomfortable and unnatural at first; you're training your brain to absorb the information without slowing down by “saying” the individual words in your head or reading line by line. Next, learn to quickly obtain the key messages. You'll typically scan the table of contents and then the book itself to determine its structure. This pre-skim will help you read faster because you'll know the final conclusion...
Tiffany O'Donnell talks to Dr. José-Marie Griffiths, the president of Dakota State University in Madison, SD. President Griffiths has spent her career in research, teaching, public service, corporate leadership, workforce and economic development, and higher education administration, with special focus on work in STEM fields. She has served in presidential appointments to the National Science Board, the U.S. President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, and the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. She is a member of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, part of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for 2020.On today's episode, Dr. José-Marie Griffiths tells us about what led her to Dakota State University, the importance of allyship and mentorship, and that everyone has Imposter Syndrome. Follow Women Lead Change on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn and visit wlcglobal.org for more information. Own It! from Women Lead Change is sponsored by Mount Mercy University.Support the show
In episode 35 of The Gradient Podcast, guest host Sharon Zhou speaks to Jack Shanahan.John (Jack) Shanahan was a Lieutenant General in the United States Air Force, retired after a 36-year military career. He was the inaugural Director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). He was also the Director of the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (Project Maven). Currently, he is a Special Government Employee supporting the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence; serves on the Board of Advisors for the Common Mission Project; is an advisor to The Changing Character of War Centre (Oxford University); is a member of the CACI Strategic Advisory Group; and serves as an Advisor to the Military Cyber Professionals Association.Subscribe to The Gradient Podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Pocket Casts | RSSFollow The Gradient on TwitterOutline:(00:00) Intro(01:20) Introduction to Jack and Sharon(07:30) Project Maven(09:45) Relationship of Tech Sector and DoD(16:40) Need for AI in DoD(20:10) Bringing the tech-DoD divide(30:00) ConclusionEpisode Links:John N.T. Shanahan WikipediaAI To Revolutionize U.S. Intelligence Community With General ShanahanEmail: aidodconversations@gmail.com Get full access to The Gradient at thegradientpub.substack.com/subscribe
In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Eric Schmidt about the ways artificial intelligence is shifting the foundations of human knowledge and posing questions of existential risk. Eric Schmidt is a technologist, entrepreneur, and philanthropist. He joined Google in 2001 where he served as chief executive officer and chairman from 2001 to 2011, and as executive chairman and technical advisor thereafter. Under his leadership, Google dramatically scaled its infrastructure and diversified its product offerings while maintaining a culture of innovation. In 2017, he co-founded Schmidt Futures, a philanthropic initiative that bets early on exceptional people making the world better. He serves as chair of The Broad Institute, and formerly served as chair of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. He is the host of Reimagine with Eric Schmidt, a podcast exploring how society can build a brighter future after the COVID-19 pandemic. Most recently, he is the co-author of The Age of AI: And Our Human Future. Website: https://ericschmidt.com/ Twitter: @ericschmidt Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That’s why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life’s most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Begging, Pleading AI Orgs to Comment on NIST AI Risk Management Framework, published by Bridges on April 15, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The National Institute and Standards of Technology (NIST) is seeking public comment until April 29 on its Draft AI Risk Management Framework. NIST will produce a second draft for comment, as well as host a third workshop, before publishing AI RMF 1.0 in January 2023. Please send comments on this initial draft to AIframework@nist.gov by April 29, 2022. I would like to see places like ARC, OpenAI, Redwood Research, MIRI, Centre for the Governance of AI, CHAI, Credo AI, OpenPhil, FHI, Aligned AI, and any other orgs make efforts to comment. Without going into the reasons why deeply here on a public forum, I think influencing the development of NIST's AI Risk Management Framework could be high impact. The framework is intended for voluntary use in addressing risks in the design, development, use, and evaluation of AI products, services, and systems. NIST standards are often added to government procurement contracts, so these standards often impact what the federal government does or does not purchase through acquisitions. This in turn impacts industry and how they develop their products, services, and systems to meet government standards so they can get those sweet, sweet federal dollas. For example, the IRS issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting a contract with a company that would meet NIST SP 800-63-3 requirements for facial recognition technology. Another way NIST is influential is with commercial-off-the-shelf items (COTS) in that companies would benefit in making products, services, and systems that can be easily adapted aftermarket to meet the needs of the U.S. government so that they can reach both commercial and governmental markets. I have been somewhat disheartened by the lack of AI alignment or safety orgs with making comments on early-stage things where it would be very easy to move the Overton window and/or (in best-case scenario) put some safeguards in place against worst-case scenarios for things we clearly know could be bad, even if you we don't know how to solve alignment problems just yet. The NIST Framework moving forward (it will go through several iterations and updates) will be a great place to add in AI safety standards that we KNOW would at least allow us to avoid catastrophe. This is also a good time to beg and plead for more EAs to go into NIST for direct work. If you are thinking this might be a good fit for you and want to try it out, please consider joining Open Phil's Tech Policy Fellowship the next time applications open (probably late summer?). I am heartened that at least some orgs that at least sometimes if not always contemplate AI alignment and safety have recently provided public comment on AI stuff the U.S. gov is doing. E.g., Anthropic, CSET, Google (not sure if it was DeepMind folks), Stanford HAI (kind of) at least commented on the recent NAIRR Task Force Request for Information (RFI). Future of Life Institute has also been quite good at making comments of this type and has partnered with CHAI in doing so. But there is more room for improvement and sometimes these comments can be quite impactful (especially for formal administrative rulemaking, but we will leave that aside). In the above NAIRR Task Force example, there were only 84 responses. Five additional EA orgs saying the same thing in a unifying voice could make some marginal impactful in influencing the Task Force. NIST's work on the Framework is consistent with its broader AI efforts, recommendations by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, and the Plan for Federal Engagement in AI Standards and Related Tools. Congress has directed NIST to collaborate with the private and public sectors to develop...
On Episode 15 of Season 2, we're joined by Eric Horvitz, Microsoft's first ever Chief Scientific Officer. His research spans theoretical and practical challenges with developing systems that perceive, learn, and reason. He's the company's top inventor since joining in 1993 with over 300 patents filed. He has been elected Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Fellow of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). He was a member of the National Security Commission on AI and he also co-founded important groups like the Partnership on AI, a non-profit organization bringing together Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, DeepMind, IBM, and Microsoft to document the quality and impact of AI systems on things like criminal justice, the economy, and media integrity. In his interview, he discusses everything from Microsoft's relationship with AI to his own personal views on security implications of a future in which AI is ubiquitous. SUBSCRIBE TO THE ROBOT BRAINS PODCAST TODAY | Visit therobotbrains.ai and follow us on YouTube at TheRobotBrainsPodcast, Twitter @therobotbrains, and Instagram @therobotbrains. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The National Security Commission on AI included members from Oracle, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon. Some of its recommendations are already federal law.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
