Live data from Hacker News

National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

nscai.gov

61–70 of 115 posts

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#61

> First, U.S. courts have severely restricted what types of computer-implemented and biotech-related inventions can be protected under U.S. patent law.6 Critical AI and biotech-related inventions have been denied patent protection since 2010.7 Facing uncertainty in obtaining and retaining patent protection, inventors pursue trade secret protection. Trade secrets do not readily promote innovation markets, because trad…

I am wondering, if AI and biotech inventions are denied, why are there so many AI parents given to Google recently?

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#62

At 756 pages, this looks to be longer than many textbooks. > Microelectronics power all AI, and the United States no longer manufactures the world’s most sophisticated chips. We do not want to overstate the precariousness of our position, but given that the vast majority of cutting-edge chips are produced at a single plant separated by just 110 miles of water from our principal strategic competitor, we must reevaluat…

Who ends up reading this sort of report?

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#63
post #51
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is a concern just how dependent the entire world is on TSMC. "The best human operator cannot defend against multiple machines making thousands of maneuvers per second potentially moving at hypersonic speeds and orchestrated by AI across domains." Attacks by drone swarms are already here. The first one was Syria vs. Russia in 2018.[1] There was an attack on Saudi oil facilities in 2019.[2] Much of this has l…

I think looking at it as the USA 'falling behind in manufacturing' isn't quite the right lens to use when looking at the strategic issues here. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to tease out some of the issues and assumptions. The strategic concern they are raising is not economic, it's a security issue and the two are quite different. From the strategic security view it doesn't matter so much who makes these…

I really like your response and cant really argue with your points. I just want to add another aspect that I think you missed, the cultural mindset of the US.

Pre ww2 the US was pretty isolationist. A very, "Sounds like a whole lot of your problem and not mine" kind of country. The foot dragging for both world wars is pretty evident. I've read and personally do believe it's attributed by the fact we are a melting pot of people. That's important for the distinction of, "I left xyz country for a reason and came to this country to get away from their bullshit." That's a very toned down version of what my own dad told me on my 18th birthday when he gave me the full story of leaving soviet occupied Poland. I'm pretty sure theres a lot of grand amd great grand folks with similar sentiments when they left the old country in the late 1800s and early 1900s. People didnt uproot and enter a foreign land with no support just because they bored and doing well in their home country. This, I believe, leads to a self reliance mindset since there's a... disdain... for the rest of the world.

So the security aspect, absolutely. I think the want for all manufacturing in general stems from the self reliance, isolationist desire with security as a very good, logical excuse. However, even in bizarro world if a security argument wasn't good enough alone, this anti-global-reliance wouldn't go away.

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#64
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is a concern just how dependent the entire world is on TSMC. "The best human operator cannot defend against multiple machines making thousands of maneuvers per second potentially moving at hypersonic speeds and orchestrated by AI across domains." Attacks by drone swarms are already here. The first one was Syria vs. Russia in 2018.[1] There was an attack on Saudi oil facilities in 2019.[2] Much of this has l…

I mean it’s not like intel and their fans are utterly worthless, they may not be on par with TSMC 5nm yet, but in the end given a strong strategic need, I don’t think we’d be without advanced chips for very long if TSMC is overtaken by China. There’s also the fact that a war between China and Taiwan is almost certainly going to go hot with the USA too, possibly leading to nuclear exchanges… It’s much more likely that…

Maybe China could go for a double tap - limited flagged strikes with the calculation that the USA would refrain from involvement or 1-1 retaliate (which China could eat). Wait 18 mths for the chip shortage to erode capability and then really go for it.

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it’s not like intel and their fans are utterly worthless, they may not be on par with TSMC 5nm yet, but in the end given a strong strategic need, I don’t think we’d be without advanced chips for very long if TSMC is overtaken by China. There’s also the fact that a war between China and Taiwan is almost certainly going to go hot with the USA too, possibly leading to nuclear exchanges… It’s much more likely that…

I wonder how many countries today are not in war simply because of fear of retaliation from the USA.

I mean, America being the world police is a meme, but also has some truth to it...

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#66
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think looking at it as the USA 'falling behind in manufacturing' isn't quite the right lens to use when looking at the strategic issues here. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to tease out some of the issues and assumptions. The strategic concern they are raising is not economic, it's a security issue and the two are quite different. From the strategic security view it doesn't matter so much who makes these…

Falling behind in manufacturing seems to include the entire supply chain, not just fabs. Global supply chains are fragile, so we’d do well to build as much physical infrastructure and expertise on shore as possible. This is a policy problem more than anything else.

The problem of US-based or ally-based technology companies that fall behind competitively or economically and then are allowed to fail inescapably ensures US dependence for essential/secure tech supplies on others, some with motives contrary to our well-being. This chink in our commercial, military, and security armor should wake the US government to the necessity of underwriting some essential industries, products, or services -- as China famously does.

The US gov't has underwritten a few niche industries for decades such as supercomputing (e.g. Cray and TMC) and crypto. But for some reason they've been reluctant to do this more broadly for other essential industries like microelectronics, telecom, battery tech, and more. Clearly the potential repercussions of such oversights should compel this laissez-faire policy to be reconsidered.

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#67

At 756 pages, this looks to be longer than many textbooks. > Microelectronics power all AI, and the United States no longer manufactures the world’s most sophisticated chips. We do not want to overstate the precariousness of our position, but given that the vast majority of cutting-edge chips are produced at a single plant separated by just 110 miles of water from our principal strategic competitor, we must reevaluat…

> supply chain resilience Resilience to what exactly? Is the report suggesting the country holding the 'keys' is hostile?

Resilience to the destabilization of economies or nations through selective political pressure, as in:

China Appears to Warn India: Push Too Hard and the Lights Could Go Out https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/28/us/politics/china-india-h...

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many countries today are not in war simply because of fear of retaliation from the USA.

I mean, America being the world police is a meme, but also has some truth to it...

> but also has some truth to it...

That is one heck of an understatement.[0] The global economic benefit of the stability brought by the US military being top-dog is vast, and appears to benefit many countries including China. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Pax Americana, but the global economic benefit, not so much imho.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#69
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting they are not?

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on my questions. China's place on the world stage is largely dependent on having customers. If there is no where for them to sell their manufactured goods, then they are not in a position of power.

Selling goods does not rely solely on competitive prices. It may also reflect the lack of alternative vendors, or the negative repercussions of defying political pressure -- as eastern European countries who rely on Russia for gas and oil to heat their houses have discovered, and near neighbors to China whos's fishing vessels now routinely cross into their waters have discovered.

Often the ability to sell is motivated by more than just economics.

Re: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence's Final Report

#70
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never got that logic—the US has been in armed conflict in various forms since the end of WWII, whether directly or through the CIA. It seems more like nukes enable violence from my perspective.

Being involved in conflicts where hundreds or thousands die is mostly preferable to being involved in wars where tens or hundreds of thousands die. Overall violent death is down on planet Earth drastically over time.

Food for thought: The Wars in the Congo are a counter example. 2nd Congo War is thought to have caused 5.4 million deaths and officially ended in 2003, just 18 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

Post reply on HN