FCC adds Kaspersky to its list of national security threats

The US Federal Communications Commission has added Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab to its list of entities that pose an “unacceptable risk to US national security,” according to a report from Bloomberg. This is the first time a Russian company has been added to the list, which is otherwise made up of Chinese companies, like Huawei and ZTE.

Businesses in the US are barred from using federal subsidies provided through the FCC’s Universal Service Fund to purchase any products or services from the companies on the list. In addition to Kaspersky, the FCC also added China Telecom and China Mobile International USA to its list on Friday.

“I am pleased that our national security agencies agreed with my assessment that China Mobile and China Telecom appeared to meet the threshold necessary to add these entities to our list,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in a press release (PDF). “Their addition, as well as Kaspersky Labs, will help secure our networks from threats posed by Chinese and Russian state backed entities seeking to engage in espionage and otherwise harm America’s interests.”

Kaspersky responded to the FCC’s move in a press release on its site, saying the agency’s decision was “made on political grounds” in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that the company “remains ready to cooperate with US government agencies to address the FCC’s and any other regulatory agency’s concerns.”

In 2017, Russian intelligence allegedly used Kaspersky’s antivirus software to steal classified documents from the National Security Agency — a claim denied by the Moscow-based company. Later that year, Former President Donald Trump signed a bill banning the use of Kaspersky products by federal agencies after accusing the company of having ties to the Kremlin.

Repost: Original Source and Author Link

Tech News

UFOs, national security, and what we know ahead of next week’s report

Last year’s biggest joke has seemingly become a reality this year: aliens haven’t invaded, but it seems there are UFOs flying around the sky around the globe and no one knows what they are. The public has been anticipating an unclassified report on the phenomenon for the past half-year and their patience has nearly paid off. The report is scheduled to be published next week, but we’ve already seen some major details drop.

UFO report briefing

The unclassified report on UFOs, which the government calls UAPs, is scheduled to be released on or before June 25. However, some members of Congress were given a private briefing on the matter yesterday, prompting comments that are both exciting and disappointing. The briefing follows multiple released videos allegedly showing unidentified aerial phenomena, some of which have prompted criticism over their blurry, grainy nature.

According to some of the politicians who participated in the private briefing, the information provided wasn’t terribly exciting, but it did raise some questions about national security and introduce at least some members to things they didn’t know before.

In a statement to the NY Post following the briefing, D-NY Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney said:

We take the issue of unexplained aerial phenomena seriously to the extent that we’re dealing with the safety and security of US military personnel or the national security interests of the United States, so we want to know what we’re dealing with. I think it’s important to understand that there are legitimate questions involving the safety and security of our personnel, and in our operations and in our sensitive activities, and we all know that there’s [a] proliferation of technologies out there. We need to understand the space a little bit better.

A number of other politicians reinforced the national security aspect of the briefing and phenomenon, but it doesn’t seem anything too mind-boggling was reveal during the meeting. D-Vt Rep. Peter Welch told the NY Post that he wasn’t ‘on the edge’ of his seat regarding the information provided, disappointing some who have taken his statement as evidence that the report won’t reveal anything new.

Videos to watch

Perhaps the biggest video to catch the general public’s attention this year was a recent 60 Minutes interview involving Luis Elizondo, former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). The interview followed months of video releases, increasingly unusual statements, and the ultimate declaration that UFOs are real and no one knows what they are.

Last month, former President Obama fueled the flames in response to a question on The Late Late Show with James Corden. Reggie Watts asked the former POTUS about UFOs, prompting Obama to respond, “When it comes to aliens, there are some things I just can’t tell you on air.”

Obama went on to explain that while he isn’t aware of any lab containing alien specimens and spaceships, he did say in a fairly serious tone:

But what is true, and I’m actually being serious here, there is footage and records of objects in the skies that we don’t know exactly what they are. We can’t explain how they move, their trajectory, they did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so I think that people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is. But I have nothing to report to you today.

This isn’t the first time Obama has answered a question about aliens, but it is the first time he spoke at such length about the peripheral topic of UFOs and in such a serious tone. Other former government officials have also chimed in with similar claims, including former CIA directors John Brennan and James Woolsey, as well as the former director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe.

Then, of course, there are the three declassified Navy videos showing what are allegedly UFOs/UAPs first released a few years ago:

Back in April, another video was released showing what is alleged to be a UAP in the shape of a large orb near a US Navy military ship positioned around San Diego. The object is filmed eventually descending into the ocean where it seemingly disappeared into the water:


Though some politicians’ comments about the briefing deflated hopes among enthusiasts, it seems the report may only be the start of something larger. Over the past several weeks, popular intellectual and neuroscientist Sam Harris has made some interesting statements claiming that he was approached to help disclose the phenomenon to the public.

In a post on his Trail of Saucers account, David Bates made note of all three unusual statements from Harris, each of which was given during different podcast interviews. According to Harris, someone close to or in the US government had contacted him about the UFO phenomenon, indicating that it is ‘alien’ in nature and that he can play a role in helping the public understand the matter.

During his time on the Lex Fridman Podcast last month, Harris revealed that he’d been approached, suggesting that he isn’t the only one:

I’ve received some private outreach, and perhaps you have, I know other people in our orbit have, people who are claiming that the government has known much more about UFOs than they have let on until now, and this conversation is actually about to become more prominent, and … whoever is left standing when the music stops, it’s not going to be a comfortable position to be in as a super rigorous scientific skeptic who’s been saying there’s no there there for the last 75 years.

Harris also touched on some seemingly far-fetched aspects of the phenomenon, indicating that it may not only be non-human in nature, but that the driving force behind it may have had ongoing involvement with humans for decades:

But the … what is being promised here is a disclosure that is frankly, either the most alarming or the most interesting thing in the world, depending on how you take it, but it’s not a representation of the facts that will give scientific skeptics any comfort, and that’s just … we’re faced with the prospect of having to apologize to the people we’ve been laughing at for the last fifty years who have been alleging that they’ve been abducted or that cattle have been anally probed, pick your punch line.


It’s hard to say what the government’s UAP report will reveal next week, but all signs point toward it being a piece of a larger, more interesting puzzle that expands beyond the bounds of Congress and hush-hush Department of Defense teams. Though the classified part of the report won’t be published, the rest of the report will be unclassified and available for anyone to read.

Repost: Original Source and Author Link


Ireland refuses to pay ransom demand in attack on its national health service

Ireland’s health service, the HSE, shut down all of its IT systems on Friday following a “significant” ransomware attack which has disrupted COVID-19 testing and other patient services, the BBC reports. The country’s COVID-19 vaccination program does not appear to have been affected.

A government official tells news station RTE that an international cyber criminal group is responsible for the attack. “This is not espionage. It was an international attack, but this is just a cyber criminal gang looking for money,” says Minister of State for Public Procurement and eGovernment Ossian Smyth.

Micheál Martin, the country’s Taoiseach (prime minister), says Ireland will not be paying any ransom.

According to the Financial Times, the government received a ransom demand to be paid in bitcoin. The attack appeared to affect data stored on the health system’s central servers, reports RTE, but it did not appear any patient data was compromised.

The HSE tweeted yesterday that it had taken down its IT systems as a precaution to protect them from the attack.

The attack had a severe impact on the country’s health and social care services on Friday, but emergency services continued to operate normally, according to health minister Stephen Donnelly. He reiterated that Ireland’s COVID vaccinations were continuing as planned.

The Ireland attack comes less than a week after a similar incident at Colonial Pipeline, which took one of the largest fuel pipelines in the US offline. The company reportedly paid a nearly $5 million ransom to the attackers in that instance, to get its systems back online.

Repost: Original Source and Author Link


Is Nvidia’s Arm deal really a U.K. national security threat?

Join Transform 2021 this July 12-16. Register for the AI event of the year.

A British government official added a new wrinkle to United Kingdom’s investigation of Nvidia’s proposed $40 billion Arm acquisition by directing the agency to probe the national security implications of the buyout.

The U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority, which scrutinizes mergers and acquisitions on anti-competition and monopoly grounds, launched an investigation into the deal’s impact on competition back in January. On Monday, the U.K.’s Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport directed the CMA to consider the national security component. The directive is ostensibly because the deal would transfer ownership of Arm, a crown jewel of the U.K.’s high-tech portfolio, to a foreign-owned (in this case, American) entity. The Secretary asked the CMA, whose role is similar to that of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, to report its findings by July 30.

Arm ecosystem partners I’ve spoken with hope the latest development is a sign regulators are waking up to the notion that the buyout is bad for just about everybody but Nvidia.

It’s an understandable sentiment. The fortunes of hundreds of licensees, developers, and others are so inexorably enmeshed with the Arm platform that they have no choice but to accept the deal and stick with the relationship post-acquisition. Many of them view the acquisition — a transfer of ownership from a neutral third party that benefits when everyone is successful to an aggressive competitor that stands to gain at their expense — as an existential threat. But they are unwilling to speak on the record for fear of retribution from Nvidia, should regulators approve the deal over their objections.

The FTC is reportedly taking a second, more intense look at the deal as well. Which it should.

Bad for everyone but Nvidia

Arm is a foundational building block for myriad electronics markets, including smartphones, wearables, automobiles, industrial robotics, IoT, and — increasingly — the datacenter, as I said in today’s Feibus Tech report, Nvidia and Arm: The Perils of Technology Platform Acquisitions. If Nvidia owned Arm, it could, for example, focus resources on the market it cares most deeply about — specifically, the datacenter, where its high-profit GPUs are a leading source of processing power for artificial intelligence applications. It could forcibly link its own GPUs to Arm cores — whether applications needed them or not — and rationalize much higher licensing fees as a result.

To allow any company with a vested interest to take the reins of an organization that has to date functioned as a neutral standards-setting body is blatantly anti-competitive.

The company underscored its interest in the datacenter last week at its annual GTC developer conference, when it announced a new Arm-based datacenter processor that will feature its own proprietary high-speed link to its GPUs. Project Grace, which is based on a new Arm datacenter platform unveiled last September, won’t hit the market before 2023.

Grace is widely seen as a shot across the bow at Intel, which dominates the datacenter CPU market. But it is far more than that.

Indeed, given that Nvidia hopes to be the eventual owner of Arm, the news of Project Grace should raise questions for regulators. For example, why does Nvidia feel it needs to buy Arm, when it can develop a new CPU as a licensee for a fraction of the cost?

Nvidia also raised eyebrows at GTC 21 when it revealed that Project Grace would feature NVLink, the company’s proprietary high-speed data connection between the CPU and its market-leading GPUs for AI in the datacenter. This means none of the growing number of AI alternatives would work with the new CPU.

As an Arm licensee, Nvidia’s design decision makes absolute sense. But coming from the hopeful owner of the platform, the move smacks of anticompetitive behavior. Once it owned Arm, would Nvidia carry the design choice over to that side of the house, thereby locking AI alternatives out of Arm-based datacenter systems? Would it weave NVLink into an Arm license, raising the price as a result? Might the company also cut competitive graphics designs out of the smartphone market?

All legitimate questions, and with potentially unsettling answers. The U.S. government should follow Britain’s lead on this investigation. When you get right down to it, allowing a company to buy what is effectively a standards-setting body that so many companies entrust with their livelihoods is a national security issue. We usually evoke national security concerns when a foreign company acquires an American company. But the concerns are just as valid when it’s the reverse, when the target is a foreign-based asset being acquired by a U.S. company.

Mike Feibus is president and principal analyst of FeibusTech, a Scottsdale, Arizona-based technology market research and consulting firm. Reach him at Follow him on Twitter @MikeFeibus.


VentureBeat’s mission is to be a digital town square for technical decision-makers to gain knowledge about transformative technology and transact.

Our site delivers essential information on data technologies and strategies to guide you as you lead your organizations. We invite you to become a member of our community, to access:

  • up-to-date information on the subjects of interest to you
  • our newsletters
  • gated thought-leader content and discounted access to our prized events, such as Transform 2021: Learn More
  • networking features, and more

Become a member

Repost: Original Source and Author Link


National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence issues report on how to maintain U.S. dominance

Join Transform 2021 for the most important themes in enterprise AI & Data. Learn more.

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence today released its report today with dozens of recommendations for President Joe Biden, Congress, and business and government leaders. China, the group said, represents the first challenge to U.S. technological dominance that threatens economic and military power for the first time since the end of World War II.

The commissioners call for a $40 billion investment to expand and democratize AI research and development a “modest down payment for future breakthroughs”, and encourage an attitude toward investment in innovation from policymakers akin that which led to building the interstate highway system in the 1950s.

The report recommends several changes that could shape business, tech, and national security. For example, amid a global shortage of semiconductors, the report calls for the United States to stay “two generations ahead” of China in semiconductor manufacturing and suggests a hefty tax credit for semiconductor manufacturers. President Biden pledged support for $32 billion to address a global chip shortage and last week signed an executive order to investigate supply chain issues.

“I really hope that Congress deeply considers the report and its recommendations,” AWS CEO Andy Jassy said today as part of a meeting held to approve the report. “I think there’s meaningful urgency to get moving on these needs, and it’s important to realize that you can’t just flip a switch and have these capabilities in place. It takes steady, committed hard work over a long period of time to bring these capabilities to fruition.”

Commissioners who helped compile the report include Oracle CEO Safra Catz, Microsoft chief scientist Eric Horvitz, Google Cloud AI chief Andrew Moore, and Jassy, who takes over as CEO of Amazon later this year. Publication of the final report is the last act of the temporary commission Congress formed in 2018 to advise federal policy.

The 756-page report calling for the United States to be AI-ready by 2025 was approved by commissioners in a vote today. Moore and Horvitz abstained from chapters 2 and 11 of the report due to perceived conflicts of interest.

“I think it bears repeating that to win in AI, we need more money, more talent, stronger leadership, and collectively we as a commission believe this is a national security priority, and that the steps outlined in the report represent not just our consensus, but a distillation of hundreds and hundreds of experts in technology and policy and ethics, and so I encourage the public and everyone to follow our recommendations,” commission chair and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said.

Now, Schmidt and other commissioners said, begins the work of selling these ideas to key decision makers in power.

Choice in the report include:

  • The intelligence community should seek to fully automate many tasks by 2030.
  • In line with earlier recommendations, the final report calls for the creation of a Digital Corps for hiring temporary or short-term tech talent, and a Digital Service Academy to create an accredited university to produce government tech talent. The report calls failure to recognize the need to develop a government technical workforce shortsighted and a national security risk.
  • Increase access to open source software for federal government employees in agencies like the Pentagon. The report refers to TensorFlow and PyTorch as “must-have tools in any AI developer’s arsenal.”
  • Private industry should form an organization with $1 billion in funding in the next five years that launches efforts to address inequality.
  • Identify service members with computational thinking.
  • Establish responsible AI leads in each national security agency and branch of the armed forces.
  • The report also calls for the U.S. State Department to increase its presence in U.S. and technology hubs around the world.
  • Triple the number of national AI research institutes. The first institutes were introduced in August 2020.
  • Set policy for agencies critical to national security to allow people to report irresponsible AI deployments.
  • Double AI research and development spending until 2026, when levels will hit $32 billion.
  • The report also calls immigration a “national security imperative” and that immigration policy could slow progress for China. Commissioners recommend doubling the number of employment-based green cards, creating visas for entrepreneurs and the makers of emerging and disruptive technology, and giving green cards to every AI PhD graduate from an accredited U.S. university. Leadership in 5G telecommunications and robotics are also referred to as national security imperatives in the report.

Government beyond defense

Within government, the report also goes beyond recommendations for the Pentagon, extending recommendations to Congress for border security and federal agencies like the FBI or Department of Homeland Security. For example, the report criticizes a lack of transparency of AI systems used by federal agencies as potentially affecting civil liberties and calls for Congress to amend impact assessment and disclosure reporting requirements to include civil rights and civil liberty reports for new AI systems or major updates to existing systems.

“For the United States, as for other democratic countries, official use of AI must comport with principles of limited government and individual liberty. These principles do not uphold themselves. In a democratic society, any empowerment of the state must be accompanied by wise restraints to make that power legitimate in the eyes of its citizens,” the report reads.

A statement from ACLU senior staff attorney Patrick Toomey, whose work focuses on national security, said the report acknowledges some dangers of AI in its recommendations, but “it should have gone further and insisted that the government establish critical civil rights protections now, before these systems are widely deployed by intelligence agencies and the military. Congress and the executive branch must prioritize these safeguards, and not wait until after dangerous systems have already become entrenched.”

The report argues that the consolidation of the AI industry threatens U.S. technological competitiveness in a number of important ways, exacerbating trends like brain drain and stifled competition.

China and U.S. foreign policy

Increases in funding and investment by China to be an AI leader by 2025 means more time is dedicated to China in the report than any other foreign nation. The report concludes that the United States could lose military technical superiority to China within the next decade.

“We have every reason to think that the competition with China will increase,” Schmidt said during the NSCAI meeting today.

To ward off rising models of techno-authoritarian governance like the kind practiced in China, the report calls for the United States to establish an Emerging Technology Coalition with allies. The report calls for high-level, ongoing diplomatic dialogue with China to discuss challenges emerging technology like AI presents in order to find areas for cooperation toward global challenges like climate change. That body could also act as a forum for sharing concerns or grievances about practices inconsistent with American values. Bilateral talks between the United States and China were previously recommended by AI policy expert and former White House economist R. David Edelman.

In defense, commissioners do not support a treaty for the global prohibition of AI-enabled autonomous weaponry since it is “not currently in the interest of U.S. or international security,” and because the report concludes that China and Russia would ignore any such commitment. Instead, the report calls for developing standards for autonomous weaponry.

In other matters related to foreign policy and international affairs, the commissions calls for an international agreement to never automate use of nuclear weapons, and to seek similar commitments from Russia and China.

The need for leadership is stressed throughout the report. For President Biden, the report recommends an executive order aimed at protecting intellectual property, and create a Technology Competitiveness Council in part to deal with intellectual property issues and establish national plans.

Oracle CEO Safra Catz called collaboration within and among Department of Defense, U.S. government, and allies critical, and said that leadership in government is needed. “There’s so many important steps that have to be taken now.”

“It is our great hope that like-minded democratic nations work together to make sure that technologies around AI do not leak into adversarial hands that will give them an advantage over our systems and that we will unite together in the safe and responsible deployment of this kind of technology in military systems,” commissioner and In-Q-Tel founder Gilman Louie said today.

The United States has been working with international groups like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI), while last year defense and diplomatic officials from United States allies met to discuss ethical use of AI in warfare.


VentureBeat’s mission is to be a digital town square for technical decision-makers to gain knowledge about transformative technology and transact.

Our site delivers essential information on data technologies and strategies to guide you as you lead your organizations. We invite you to become a member of our community, to access:

  • up-to-date information on the subjects of interest to you
  • our newsletters
  • gated thought-leader content and discounted access to our prized events, such as Transform
  • networking features, and more

Become a member

Repost: Original Source and Author Link

Tech News

Huawei files lawsuit against FCC’s national security threat label

The transition to the Biden administration may have sparked some hope in Huawei but, if recent news is any indication, it might still be fighting a losing battle. Biden’s pick to lead the Commerce Department already indicated her stance on keeping the status quo. Huawei is now picking up another fight in a different arena, this time challenging once more the constitutionality of the FCC’s recent decision to label Huawei as a threat to the national security of the US.

The bans and sanctions against Huawei come from multiple fronts but their root has always been a singular one. Huawei, along with ZTE, has been accused of being a tool for the Chinese government’s spying activities, mostly through backdoors in its latest networking equipment and devices. This allegation had multiple effects on Huawei’s businesses, from being banned from use by US carriers to having no access to materials and technologies to build its phones.

Huawei already challenged the FCC’s designation in court, revolving primarily around the agency’s ruling that carriers cannot use government subsidies towards purchasing Huawei equipment. Huawei argued that it dealt a critical blow on rural and smaller carriers that depended heavily on its more affordable hardware but the FCC countered that it will be asking Congress for additional money to help these networks move away from Huawei’s products.

The company has now filed a different lawsuit, this time directly arguing that the FCC’s label was unconstitutional and even harmful to the US industry. It further argued that not only did the FCC lack any “substantial evidence”, it wasn’t given a chance to defend itself either.

Huawei might be hoping that the new administration is more willing to listen and negotiate, but things might not exactly go in Huawei’s favor just yet. The Biden administration might not be too keen on stirring things up with regards to Huawei’s situation even while it tries to repair bridges with China that Trump and his team burned.

Repost: Original Source and Author Link


Why the OECD wants to calculate the AI compute needs of national governments

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) wants to help national governments understand their AI compute demand needs. As part of the work, the multinational economic policy group is creating a task force that draws together data from a range of sources to make it easy for policymakers to understand how their investment strategy compares to that of other nations. Alongside datasets and algorithms, compute or computing power is an essential part of training predictive models.

Former OpenAI policy director and AI Index co-chair Jack Clark will be a member of the OECD task force. He told VentureBeat that calculation of AI compute may seem like a wonky pursuit, but understanding capacity will be important for policymakers.

“Think of it this way — if no one measured resources like electricity or oil, it’d be difficult to build national and international policy around these things,” he said. “Compute is one of the key inputs to the production of AI, so if we can measure how much compute exists within a country or set of countries, we can quantify one of the factors for the AI capacity of that country.”

OECD AI Policy Observatory administrator Karine Perset said “There’s nothing that helps our member countries assess what they need and what they have, and so some of them are making large but not necessarily well-informed investments.”

The task force intends to develop an initial framework by this fall, and then begin gathering data. Perset said if the group succeeds in making a single metric for nations to measure compute resources, economists can then consider correlations between compute investments and other economic indicators, like income inequality or per capita income.

According to a database the OECD is compiling, Perset said approximately 80 countries have something like a national AI strategy. Initially, such efforts came from primarily Asian and European countries, but more policy is now coming from Africa and Latin America. Some countries focus AI policy on particular areas of interest. Egypt may focus on farming, she said, while France focuses on defense and transportation.

Establishing needs and means

The task force will be led by Nvidia VP of worldwide AI initiatives Keith Strier, who has worked with dozens of national governments during his five years as Global AI leader at consulting firm Ernst and Young. The AI compute demand task force will include up to 30 people and is being actively assembled now through conversations with some of the largest private AI hardware providers, like AMD, Intel, Microsoft, and TSMC.

There’s a remarkable gap in understanding AI despite it being a publicly identified policy priority for many governments, Strier said. “If you’re a prime minister or the president of a country, you want to know three things: How much AI infrastructure do I have? How does it compare to other countries? And is it enough? Those sound like simple enough questions, but if you can’t answer them, how could you possibly know you’re making the right investments?”

The establishment of the task force is the OECD’s latest effort to bring together officials representing national governments around the world to carry out AI policies. In May 2019, the OECD became the first organization to bring more than 40 nations together to agree to a set of AI principles. That was one of the first multinational agreements on the societal benefits nations want AI to have, but some see the principles as vague to the point of being meaningless to a machine learning engineer. In order to help nations put such principles into action, the OECD established its AI Policy Observatory roughly one year ago.

Helping nations understand what they need is almost an esoteric or philosophical question that speaks to the priorities of a nation-state or its elected officials. It also involves considering trade-offs between size, scale, and access. For example, distributing compute resources can be better for the environment and spread access to compute power to more people than building a single, giant supercomputer.

Last fall, an analysis of AI research found a growing compute divide between elite universities (and the Big Tech companies they often work with) and lower-tier schools. That same dynamic, Strier said, will occur among nation-states. “It’s not just about elite universities in the United States. This is all true on a national basis across the world,” he said.

Supercomputers and sovereign clouds

The OECD’s compute count will begin with establishing the levels of compute in datacenters or supercomputers owned and operated by government agencies. From there, the task force will assess the national AI clouds owned by sovereign governments, which Strier called a growing trend among nations in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East to support small to medium-size business adoption of AI.

As part of the National Defense and Authorization Act (NDAA) Congress passed earlier this month, the U.S. introduced a national AI cloud for researchers to power their experiments. That research cloud previously received support from members of Congress from both major political parties, as well as businesses like AWS, Google, Mozilla, and Nvidia.

In addition to the recently launched task force, the OECD AI Policy Observatory has three working groups. The first group is developing a framework for policymakers and procurements officers, as well as government agencies working with contractors to determine the level of risk associated with deploying any AI model. The second group is working on tools and educational resources for computer scientists and the public, and the third comprises national AI strategy leaders of member nations who share policy worth emulating and mistakes to avoid.

What to count and what to leave out

Pulling together a single metric presents a lot of potential obstacles. Chief among them: Private businesses could agree to share information, but they aren’t obligated to share anything. And two major uses of compute resources won’t be included: military AI usage and edge devices. The group also won’t consider public cloud offerings from companies like AWS and Azure.

Then there are ventures that mix state-backed business with public cloud offerings. For example, in December 2020 state-owned Saudi Arabian oil company Saudi Aramco partnered with Google Cloud, a deal that may make AI cloud services available to Saudi businesses. The task force will need to decide whether and how to count such efforts.

The current attempt to calculate nations’ AI compute needs is not the first effort to create a metric that will help nations understand the impact AI is having on business and society. In testimony before Congress last fall about the role AI will play in U.S. economic recovery, MIT professor and economist Daron Acemoglu warned against the potential impact of excessive automation, sharing analysis that found every robot replaces about 3.3 human jobs. And in 2019, economist Erik Brynjolfsson and colleagues from MIT created a model to measure investments in emerging technology like AI.


VentureBeat’s mission is to be a digital town square for technical decision-makers to gain knowledge about transformative technology and transact.

Our site delivers essential information on data technologies and strategies to guide you as you lead your organizations. We invite you to become a member of our community, to access:

  • up-to-date information on the subjects of interest to you
  • our newsletters
  • gated thought-leader content and discounted access to our prized events, such as Transform
  • networking features, and more

Become a member

Repost: Original Source and Author Link