Understanding the Convergence of Technologies and National Security Implications | GSF 2024

Join the CSIS International Security Program for the 2024 Global Security Forum on Wednesday, April 24, 2024. As CSIS's flagship annual security conference, the Forum convenes leaders from the defense and national security communities to discuss the top security challenges facing the country and the world. This year's conference will feature keynote discussions with General Charles Q. Brown, Jr., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Honorable Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence.
The theme of the 2024 Global Security Forum is "Gathering Strength in a Gathering Storm." Speakers will address how the United States can muster its strengths to counter multiple global challenges, posture for uncertainty, and prepare U.S. forces to deter and defeat aggression.
This year's Forum will also feature conversations with senior leaders from the government, military, private sector, and think tank community.
The conference will be held at CSIS headquarters and virtually. Further details on the schedule, participants, and registration will be updated below in the leadup to the Forum in April.
This event is made possible by the generous support of Leonardo DRS.
---------------------------------------------
A nonpartisan institution, CSIS is the top national security think tank in the world.
Visit www.csis.org to find more of our work as we bring bipartisan solutions to the world's greatest challenges.
Want to see more videos and virtual events? Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: cs.is/2dCfTve
Follow CSIS on:
• Twitter: csis
• Facebook: CSIS.org
• Instagram: csis

[@stacyMighty]

Now I understand how the perm burn got from my scalp across to the next ear, and down my neck when very bad headaches swelled my head for the last 4 years. I am learning. This makes a lot of sense now.

[@user-realman181]

I saw this in lord Essex building rolled up.i was in Bellos and holding csis letters

[@OutlastGamingLP]

Some takes after the first 15 minutes: 1. One panelist mentioned "Chip Wars" and some of the lessons they were trying to learn for biotech. I predict that the lesson they're trying to learn and improve on is not going to deliver 1:1 payoff as the counterfactual of "what if we pushed chips harder." Chip supremacy has been extremely easy to monopolize. Supply chains get dominated at come choke points by 1-2 players, and techniques are extremely expensive to try and match. I predict that naive attempts at staying at the State Of The Art in biotech will not yield the same strategic advantages as if - counterfactual - the US had done and intensive vertical integration of chip manufacturing technology. First of all, training a bunch of people to be extremely good at biotech is going to involve integrating a lot of universities and established research projects. You can buy all of the fanciest equipment, but you can't silo making the fanciest equipment because you're flatly not going to do the things necessary to have a silo'd effort to push the SOTA biotech within that bubble to >5-10 years ahead of everyone else. If you want to know why you're not going to do that? Well, attainable advances in SOTA in biotech are "multiplex gene editing," "genomics correlates dataset acquisition," "protein interactions/properties analysis, in the realm of crafting larger toolkits for molecular behaviors attainable with custom proteins," and "novel delivery vehicles for more reliable payload delivery on the level of whole body, whole tissues, and cell lines." What does that kind of research look like? Well, it doesn't look like anyone in the decision making process being at all squeamish about "playing God." My impression is that government attempts at interfacing with SOTA in that kind of way just flatly would fail to work. No one is going to step out and say "hey, it looks pretty cheap and attainable to start exploring the possibility of:" a. Collecting a bunch of data from a diverse population of chickens, on everything measurable about chickens b. Correlating all that data (>500,000 - 5 million individual chickens) in a program to tie features/measurables to genes c. Locating specific alleles that are highly correlated with desirable features (long life, health, intelligence, strength, resistance to toxins, etc) - possibly with other desirable features like presence in areas which don't directly code for proteins (because you have your eye on the "human" ball, and you don't wanna risk breaking that stuff in human subjects on your first try) d. Figuring out a combination of techniques like Prime and Base CRISPR editing - stuff that can work together as a package to do a broad variety of edits - and a vector for delivering those to a high % of cells in the whole organism or a whole tissue/cell type/cell line e. Actually trying it on some chickens at different stages of development. Embryo, fetus, hatchling, juvenile, adolescent, adult... And seeing what happens. Then you have a SOTA toolkit for gene editing. How fast are others going to catch up? Did making super chickens actually work politically in the mechanism of government? How many outside contractors/researchers/organizations did you need to involve? Is this actually going to be useful if you take it to the next stage of doing it with humans? Other areas in biotech are similar. You can try working on it, you can build up the ability to do simple destructive stuff, but the big payoffs are going to be outside the Overton Window or extremely expensive & expansive. Also, if you're thinking about it strategically, the only strategically useful payoffs you're going to be able to actualize are things like gene editing in adult humans for things like health, longevity, and - most of all - intelligence. Is the US government ever going to be able to find the political will to even acquire a dataset that correlates genetics to intelligence? My guess is no. They'll have a dataset with 2 million samples that correlates genetics with "academic attainment" - but that won't actually get you the most critical results. You'll end up with some more conscientious and diligent and emotionally well regulated people, but you won't get a John Von Neumann, or a program that can take a random low level government researcher and give them an injection that turns them into someone who can reinvent all the steps to complete the Manhattan project from the level of knowledge of nuclear tech which researchers before the Manhattan project had. 2. Quantum stuff requires you to listen to like 5 experts who each have a corner of the puzzle. It doesn't require a bunch of people running around saying the word "quantum." Some math answers are computable in NP-time, meaning computing them takes non-polynomial time - if you add another element then the problem takes (n+1)^2 steps, for others you've got P-time, or like (n+1) steps for each new element. This is how we have cryptography that can't be cracked except by theoretically huge computers. Generating the correct decoding without a key takes NP-time, so you can easily make a protocol that would take a computer the size of Jupiter to crack in a short enough time to be relevant. The problem is qNP and qP are different sets of problems than NP and P. Some calculations that take NP time on normal hardware take qP time on quantum hardware. Some of these calculations underlie important cryptographic protocols. It's basically just Y2K. We built infrastructure without looking ahead. We need to swap out that infrastructure with stuff that is "quantum hardened." And as for the info that's already out there, encrypted in non-quantum-hardened form, in the hands of enemies because you put your feet down on shaky ground and guarded the keys but not the encrypted data itself? Welp, you've lost that secrecy, eventually. That's just a breach that's already happened, the results are just a matter of time - unless you find out some of those files are all in one place, with no unknown or unreachable backups, and you can destroy it before the hardware gets good enough to decode it. Alright, that's all the time I have.

[@gogudelagaze1585]

For the bio stuff.. one big issue are the ethics involved. We see the same thing in autonomous weapons. It's clear that China doesn't have the same blockers that the west does and are making advances in the field. Regarding quantum stuff, we already have hardened encryption algorithms that can be applied today. Search for an article titled "NIST Announces First Four Quantum-Resistant Cryptographic Algorithms". And there are even more promising options that haven't been certified yet. Excellent comment, btw. Did not expect such a level from a YT comment, but I guess if there was a place where you could find something like this, this would be the right channel.

[@stacyMighty]

Now I understand

[@haji1740]

Coffee can be inconvenient when operating ones weapon system on the zero line. I recommend StrikeGum. Zero sugar, 15 calories, 90mg natural caffeine, 100mg alpha gpc. Be assured that each piece of StrikeGum will provide an energy boost comparable to an 8-ounce energy drink. Enhancing ones warrior skills and having both hands free.

[@GloxGlox-nl4cd]

Looks like you have potential consultants leaving comments.

[@johnv.6136]

Bio-Technology is a taboo as an offensive weapon - BioChem weaponry exists in many countries but it is a redline for most G7 or even G20 States. If you for example spoke about something that could make could be sprayed on a soldier to put down his weapon and stop fighting - that is indeed too taboo to discuss in open military circles. Warrior enhancement 'Limitless' type drugs maybe something we can talk about but we rely much to much on technology outside of Bio/Chem. Military runs on coffee for now until there is something better - future 'mentat' development would be very interesting to discuss. But let's just say for now it don't exist.

[@user-realman181]

So is this the ones whos been taking my ideas and selling to Google 360 apple 😊

[@dedykadysimbolon6773]

Tommy: Last time i think i want go to USA because of this Boston Missionaris has been died to us. But the actually happening this time is because New York is still chasing us. That's make me sick.

[@stacyMighty]

Yep, I may leave to return home to West Indies, Jamaica before 2026.

[@stacyMighty]

So this data that was sucked up, would it happen to be connected to the data missing from my children's baby pictures, and all my creative arts?

[@stacyMighty]

This is very scary

[@michaelerdmann4447]

What Allied-American ...Surveillance, Transparency, and Visioneering.... capabilities are already underway? sincerely Universal Planetary Metaverse (TM)

[@michaelerdmann4447]

Considering: •Technologically Interconnecting Advance •Progressive Digitizable Accountancy and •Conscientiously Integral Science sincerely ...Impulse, Instinct, Intelligence, Introspection, and Intuitiveness.... enroute to integrally greater ...sense, science, and salience.... coming forth and going forward.

[@michaelerdmann4447]

Considering: ... •UniPhotoElectroChemistry •BioCytoNeuroPsychiatry and •AnthropoPoliticoSocioTheophistry ..... as well as an integrally greater conscience embracing and engaging our ... •personal moralisations •populational legalities and •professional ethics .... going forward.

[@michaelerdmann4447]

...GameChangers, GameEvolutionaries and GameTransformationalizers.... in our Constitutionally Federalised Republic with Representative Democracy. 🙏🏼

[@michaelerdmann4447]

🙏🏼

[@dbporter]

This was hard to watch

[@non-human3072]

I'm concerned about Google's growing monopoly and its recent terms and conditions that suggest users can simply "leave their platform" if they disagree. This overlooks Google's pervasive presence across mobile operating systems, online services, and advertising. Google's Android and Apple's iOS dominate the mobile OS market, limiting consumer choice and competition. Almost every third-party service has some connection to Google, giving it unprecedented control over the digital ecosystem. The idea that users can easily leave Google's platform ignores the reality of its dominance and the lack of viable alternatives. This highlights the urgent need to break up Google to promote competition, transparency, and consumer choice. Breaking up Google would address antitrust concerns and foster a more competitive digital landscape. It's time to ensure a vibrant and diverse digital economy that benefits everyone, not just a few tech giants.

[@telesniper2]

14:27 absolutely NOT TRUE

[@GloxGlox-nl4cd]

Nice to be one of the low percent 😊😊

[@user-realman181]

Trace

[@stacyMighty]

They are not funny but okay