How Will Artificial Intelligence Transform the Military? | Foreign Affairs Interview

Foreign Affairs invites you to listen to its podcast, the Foreign Affairs Interview. This episode with Michèle Flournoy was originally published on November 30, 2023.
From killer robots to smarter logistics, artificial intelligence promises to change the way the U.S. military fights and develops weapons. As this new technology comes online, the opportunities are coming into focus-but so are the dangers.
In a new piece for Foreign Affairs, Michèle Flournoy argues the U.S. military has no choice but to move forward with AI and to do so quickly. Flournoy served as the Pentagon’s policy chief during the Obama administration and today is a co-founder and managing partner at the consulting company WestExec Advisors.
Deputy Editor Kate Brannen talked to her about how the U.S. Defense Department will need to change the way it does business if it wants to integrate AI safely and responsibly.
Sources:
“AI Is Already at War” by Michèle A. Flournoy
www.foreignaffairs.com/united...

[@nathanngumi8467]

It is a race to the top!

[@kinngrimm]

Not sure i will be able to listen to this to the end as of 6:00. AGI is not automaticly autonomous. What she describes is a rouge AGI or even one with a consciousness not longer letting itself be pressed into service. By default in its essence the G stands for genral, like in "it could handle any task given". It does not in- or exclude allignment as that seems what she is getting at. Well one could even argue by default we would aim for an alligned AGI, meaning it does what we want it to do and would not act against our interests. Which ofcause will be difficult as we humans ourselves havent many if any generalized goals that humanity and with that any nation and any individual could always agree upon. Even if we would have such a thing, national and corporational and individual strive for dominance and surpramacy does not allow for many treaties to be signed, that includes many weapon bans where also the US does not let itself be shackled. That roughly there is also the cocktail for one desaster scenario concerning AGI as described by experts. The wish for dominance driving nationas and corporations to neglect safty concerns. Currently the engineers building these systems DO NOT HAVE A SCIENTFIC FOUNDATION. Meaning, *they do not really know what they do, they just try things out they believe could improve systems in ways they themselves can not predict how* . Which in its essence sounds quite biblically "forgive them as they don't know what they do". Only i doubt a machine god not aligned with our interests will be very forgiving, maybe it will ignore us aslong we don't get in the way.

[@jaymacpherson8167]

Many salient points made here, thank you. Getting them acted upon seems the greatest challenge. For instance, Congress’ demonstrated ignorance of cryptocurrency issues leaves me especially uncomfortable with its aptitude to address AI issues. We all are, and always will be, our own worst enemy.

[@VictoriaAlfredSmythe]

"We all are, & always will be, our own worst enemy." Certainly hope so, but fear we may confront a bigger enemy one day & hopefully will cause us to unite & save ourselves.

[@VictoriaAlfredSmythe]

Crypto is a scam. block-chain has valuable uses.

[@VictoriaAlfredSmythe]

thank you from manhattan

[@kinngrimm]

28:40 Here is an open question. How do you achiev alginment of americans within, whereby many seem pro russia or pro china and anti-democracy? Maybe though that shouldn't be the task of the pentagon ^^. Still before that isn't settled, the whole defense sector seems to me open to mischief.

[@kinngrimm]

20:00 wait what? private funds for most likely secretive government agencies without congress approval and oversight *i assume*. How is that not giving her pause? Say there is a none-partisan fund, controlled by congress, where private citizens could anonymously put money in, that i guess could be ok. As then congress put that money where its needed. But having people of means give money to what they like, not necessarily what the people as a whole need want or maybe this being even detremental to their freedoms, that seems an option from how she described it. I get she intends to achiev efficiency and faster processes, but at what cost?