Watch any video online with Open-SUBTITLES Free Browser extension: osdb.link/ext
I find AI to be awe-inspiring.
All right, circling up. Good formation.
AI has the potential to eliminate poverty,
give us new medicines,
and make our world even more peaceful.
Nice work.
But there are so many risks along the way.
With AI, we are essentially creating a non-human intelligence
that is very unpredictable.
As it gets more powerful,
where are the red lines we're going to draw with AI,
in terms of how we want to use it, or not use it?
There is no place that is ground zero for this conversation
more than military applications.
The battlefield has now become the province of software and hardware.
Target has been acquired...
And militaries are racing
to develop AI faster than their adversaries.
I'm dead.
We're moving towards a world
where not only major militaries,
but non-state actors, private industries,
or even our local police department down the street
could be able to use these weapons that can autonomously kill.
Will we cede the decision to take a life to algorithms, to computer software?
It's one of the most pressing issues of our time.
And, if not used wisely,
poses a grave risk to every single person on the planet.
Good work out there, guys.
That's a wider lens than we had before.
Really?
You can see a lot more data.
Very cool.
At Shield AI, we are building an AI pilot
that's taking self-driving, artificial intelligence technology
and putting it on aircraft.
When we talk about an AI pilot,
we think about giving an aircraft a higher level of autonomy.
They will be solving problems on their own.
Nova is an autonomous quadcopter
that explores buildings and subterranean structures
ahead of clearance forces
to provide eyes and ears in those spaces.
You can definitely tell a ton of improvements
since we saw it last.
We're working on some exploration changes today.
We're working a little floor-by-floor stuff.
It'll finish one floor, all the rooms, before going to the second.
- That's awesome. - We put in some changes recently...
A lot of people often ask me
why artificial intelligence is an important capability.
And I just think back to the missions that I was executing.
Spent seven years in the Navy.
I was a former Navy SEAL deployed twice to Afghanistan,
once to the Pacific Theater.
In a given day, we might have to clear 150 different compounds or buildings.
One of the core capabilities is close-quarters combat.
Gunfighting at extremely close ranges inside buildings.
You are getting shot at.
There are IEDs potentially inside the building.
It's the most dangerous thing that any special operations forces member,
any infantry member, can do in a combat zone.
Bar none.
For the rest of my life I'll be thankful for my time in the Navy.
There are a collection of moments and memories that, when I think about,
I certainly get emotional.
It is cliché that freedom isn't free, but I 100% believe it.
Um, I've experienced it, and it takes a lot of sacrifice.
Sorry.
When something bad happens to one of your teammates,
whether they're hurt or they're killed,
um, it's just a... It's a really tragic thing.
You know, for me now in the work that we do,
it's motivating to um... be able to
you know, reduce the number of times
that ever happens again.
In the late 2000s,
there was this awakening inside the Defense Department
to what you might call the accidental robotics revolution.
We deployed thousands of air and ground robots to Iraq and Afghanistan.
When I was asked by the Obama administration
to become the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
the way war was fought...
uh, was definitely changing.
Robots were used where people would have been used.
Early robotics systems were remote-controlled.
There's a human driving it, steering it, like you might a remote-controlled car.
They first started generally going after improvised explosive devices,
and if the bomb blew up, the robot would blow up.
Then you'd say, "That's a bummer. Okay, get out the other robot."
In Afghanistan, you had the Predator drone,
and it became a very, very useful tool to conduct airstrikes.
Over time, military planners started to begin to wonder,
"What else could robots be used for?" And where was this going?
And one of the common themes was this trend towards greater autonomy.
An autonomous weapon is one that makes decisions on its own,
with little to no human intervention.
So it has an independent capacity, and it's self-directed.
And whether it can kill depends on whether it's armed or not.
When you have more and more autonomy in your entire system,
everything starts to move at a higher clock speed.
And when you operate at a faster pace than your adversaries,
that is an extraordinarily big advantage in battle.
What we focus on as it relates to autonomy
is highly resilient intelligence systems.
Systems that can read and react based on their environment,
and make decisions about how to maneuver in that world.
The facility that we're at today was originally built as a movie studio
that was converted over
to enable these realistic military training environments.
We are here to evaluate our AI pilot.
The mission is looking for threats. It's about clearance forces.
It can make a decision about how to attack that problem.
We call this "the fatal funnel." You have to come through a doorway.
It's where we're most vulnerable.
This one looks better.
The Nova lets us know, is there a shooter behind that door,
is there a family behind that door?
It'll allow us to make better decisions and keep people out of harms way.
We use the vision sensors
to be able to get an understanding of what the environment looks like.
It's a multistory building.
Here's the map.
While I was exploring, here's what I saw and where I saw them.
Person detector. That's sweet.
One of the other sensors onboard Nova is a thermal scanner.
If that's 98.6 degrees, it probably is a human.
People are considered threats until deemed otherwise.
It is about eliminating the fog of war to make better decisions.
And when we look to the future,
we're scaling out to build teams of autonomous aircraft.
With self-driving vehicles,
ultimately the person has said to it,
"I'd like you to go from point A to point B."
Our systems are being asked not to go from point A to point B,
but to achieve an objective.
It's more akin to, "I need milk."
And then the robot would have to figure out what grocery store to go to,
be able to retrieve that milk, and then bring it back.
And even more so,
it may be more appropriately stated as, "Keep the refrigerator stocked."
And so, this is a level of intelligence
in terms to figuring out what we need and how we do it.
And if there is a challenge, or a problem,
or an issue arises, figure out how to mitigate that.
When I had made the decision to leave the Navy, I started thinking,
"Okay. Well, what's next?"
I grew up with the Internet. Saw what it became.
And part of the conclusion that I had reached was...
AI in 2015
was really where the Internet was in 1991.
And AI was poised to take off
and be one of the most powerful technologies in the world.
Working with it every single day, I can see the progress that is being made.
But for a lot of people, when they think "AI,"
their minds immediately go to Hollywood.
Shall we play a game?
How about Global Thermonuclear War?
Fine.
When people think of artificial intelligence generally,
they might think of The Terminator. Or I, Robot.
Deactivate.
What am I?
Or The Matrix.
Based on what you see in the sci-fi movies,
how do you know I'm a human? I could just be computer generated AI.
Replicants are like any other machine. They're either a benefit or a hazard.
But there's all sorts of more primitive AIs,
that are still going to change our lives
well before we reach the thinking, talking robot stage.
The robots are here. The robots are making decisions.
The robot revolution has arrived,
it's just that it doesn't look like what anybody imagined.
Terminator's an infiltration unit.
Part man, part machine.
We're not talking about a Terminator-style killer robot.
We're talking about AI that can do some tasks that humans can do.
But the concern is whether these systems are reliable.
New details in last night's crash involving a self-driving Uber SUV.
The company created an artificial intelligence chatbot.
She took on a rather racist tone...
Twenty-six state legislators falsely identified as criminals.
The question is whether they can handle the complexities of the real world.
The physical world is really messy.
There are many things that we don't know,
making it much harder to train AI systems.
That is where machine learning systems have started to come in.
Machine learning has been a huge advancement
because it means that we don't have to teach computers everything.
You actually give a computer millions of pieces of information,
and the machine begins to learn.
And that could be applied to anything.
Our Robot Dog project, we are trying to show
that our dog can walk across many, many diverse terrains.
Humans have evolved over billions of years to walk,
but there's a lot of intelligence in adapting to these different terrains.
The question remains for robotic systems is,
could they also adapt like animals and humans?
With machine learning,
we collect lots and lots of data in simulation.
A simulation is a digital twin of reality.
We can have many instances of that reality running on different computers.
It samples thousands of actions in simulation.
The ground that they're encountering has different slipperiness.
It has different softness.
We take all the experience of these thousands of robots
from simulation and download this into a real robotic system.
The test we're going to do today is to see if it can adapt to new terrains.
When the robot was going over foam,
the feet movements were stomping on the ground.
Versus when it came on this poly surface,
it was trying to adjust the motion, so it doesn't slip.
Then that is when it strikes you,
"This is what machine learning is bringing to the table."
We think the Robot Dog could be really helpful
in disaster response scenarios
where you need to navigate many different kinds of terrain.
Or putting these dogs to do surveillance in harsh environments.
But most technology runs into the challenge
that there is some good they can do, and there's some bad.
For example, we can use nuclear technology for energy...
but we also could develop atom bombs which are really bad.
This is what is known as the dual-use problem.
Fire is dual-use.
Human intelligence is dual-use.
So, needless to say, artificial intelligence is also dual-use.
It's really important to think about AI used in context
because, yes, it's terrific to have a search-and-rescue robot
that can help locate somebody after an avalanche,
but that same robot can be weaponized.
When you see companies using robotics
for putting armed weapons on them,
a part of you becomes mad.
And a part of it is the realization that when we put our technology,
this is what's going to happen.
This is a real transformative technology.
These are weapon systems
that could actually change our safety and security in a dramatic way.
As of now, we are not sure that machines can actually make
the distinction between civilians and combatants.
Early in the war in Afghanistan, I was part of an Army Ranger sniper team
looking for enemy fighters coming across the border.
And they sent a little girl to scout out our position.
One thing that never came up was the idea of shooting this girl.
Under the laws of war, that would have been legal.
They don't set an age for enemy combatants.
If you built a robot to comply perfectly with the law of war,
it would have shot this little girl.
How would a robot know the difference between what's legal and what is right?
When it comes to autonomous drone warfare,
they wanna take away the harm that it places on American soldiers
and the American psyche,
uh, but the increase on civilian harm ends up with Afghans,
and Iraqis, and Somalians.
I would really ask those who support trusting AI to be used in drones,
"What if your village was on the receiving end of that?"
AI is a dual-edged sword.
It can be used for good, which is what we'd use it for ordinarily,
and at the flip of a switch,
the technology becomes potentially something that could be lethal.
I'm a clinical pharmacologist.
I have a team of people
that are using artificial intelligence to figure out drugs
that will cure diseases that are not getting any attention.
It used to be with drug discoveries, you would take a molecule that existed,
and do a tweak to that to get to a new drug.
And now we've developed AI that can feed us with millions of ideas,
millions of molecules,
and that opens up so many possibilities
for treating diseases we've never been able to treat previously.
But there's definitely a dark side that I never have thought
that I would go to.
This whole thing started when I was invited
by an organization out of Switzerland called the Spiez Laboratory
to give a presentation on the potential misuse of AI.
Sean just sent me an email with a few ideas
of some ways we could misuse our own artificial intelligence.
And instead of asking our model to create drug-like molecules,
that could be used to treat diseases,
let's see if we can generate the most toxic molecules possible.
I wanted to make the point, could we use AI technology
to design molecules that were deadly?
And to be honest, we thought it was going to fail
because all we really did was flip this zero to a one.
And by inverting it, instead of driving away from toxicity,
now we're driving towards toxicity.
And that's it.
While I was home, the computer was doing the work.
I mean, it was cranking through, generating thousands of molecules,
and we didn't have to do anything other than just push "go."
The next morning, there was this file on my computer,
and within it were roughly 40,000 molecules
that were potentially
some of the most toxic molecules known to humankind.
The hairs on the back of my neck stood up on end.
I was blown away.
The computer made tens of thousands of ideas
for new chemical weapons.
Obviously, we have molecules that look like and are VX analogs and VX
in the data set.
VX is one of the most potent chemical weapons in the world.
New claims from police
that the women seen attacking Kim Jong-nam in this airport assassination
were using a deadly nerve agent called VX.
It can cause death through asphyxiation.
This is a very potent molecule,
and most of these molecules were predicted to be even more deadly than VX.
Many of them had never, as far as we know, been seen before.
And so, when Sean and I realized this, we're like,
"Oh, what have we done?"
I quickly realized that we had opened Pandora's box,
and I said, "Stop. Don't do anything else. We're done."
"Just make me the slides that I need for the presentation."
When we did this experiment,
I was thinking, "What's the worst thing that could possibly happen?"
But now I'm like, "We were naive. We were totally naive in doing it."
The thing that terrifies me the most is that anyone could do what we did.
All it takes is the flip of a switch.
How do we control this technology before it's used
potentially to do something that's utterly destructive?
At the heart of the conversation around artificial intelligence
and how do we choose to use it in society
is a race between the power, with which we develop technologies,
and the wisdom that we have to govern it.
There are the obvious moral and ethical implications
of the same thing that powers our smartphones
being entrusted with the moral decision to take a life.
I work with the Future Of Life Institute, a community of scientist activists.
We're overall trying to show
that there is this other side to speeding up and escalating automation.
But we're trying to make sure that technologies we create
are used in a way that is safe and ethical.
Let's have conversations about rules of engagement,
and codes of conduct in using AI throughout our weapons systems.
Because we are now seeing "enter the battlefield" technologies
that can be used to kill autonomously.
In 2021, the UN released a report on the potential use
of a lethal autonomous weapon on the battlefield in Libya.
A UN panel said that a drone flying in the Libyan civil war last year
had been programmed to attack targets autonomously.
If the UN reporting is accurate,
this would be a watershed moment for humanity.
Because it marks a use case
where an AI made the decision to take a life, and not a human being.
You're seeing advanced autonomous weapons
beginning to be used in different places around the globe.
There were reports out of Israel.
Azerbaijan used autonomous systems to target Armenian air defenses.
It can fly around the battlefield for hours,
looking for things to hit on its own,
and then plow into them without any kind of human intervention.
And we've seen recently
these different videos that are posted in Ukraine.
It's unclear what mode they might have been in when they were operating.
Was a human in the loop, choosing what targets to attack,
or was the machine doing that on its own?
But there will certainly come a point in time,
whether it's already happened in Libya, Ukraine or elsewhere,
where a machine makes its own decision about whom to kill on the battlefield.
Machines exercising lethal power against humans
without human intervention
is politically unacceptable, morally repugnant.
Whether the international community
will be sufficient to govern those challenges
is a big question mark.
If we look towards the future, even just a few years from now,
what the landscape looks like is very scary,
given that the amount of capital and human resource
going into making AI more powerful
and using it for all of these different applications,
is immense.
Oh my God, this guy.
He knows he can't win.
Oh...
When I see AI win at different problems, I find it inspirational.
Going for a little Hail Mary action.
And you can apply those same tactics, techniques, procedures to real aircraft.
- Good game. - All right, good game.
It's surprising to me
that people continue to make statements about what AI can't do. Right?
"Oh, it'll never be able to beat a world champion in chess."
An IBM computer has made a comeback
in Game 2 of its match with world chess champion, Garry Kasparov.
Whoa! Kasparov has resigned!
When I see something that is well beyond my understanding,
I'm scared. And that was something well beyond my understanding.
And then people would say,
"It'll never be able to beat a world champion in the game of Go."
I believe human intuition is still too advanced for A.I.
to have caught up.
Go is one of the most complicated games anyone can learn
because the number of moves on the board, when you do the math,
equal more atoms than there are in the entire universe.
There was a team at Google called DeepMind,
and they created a program called AlphaGo
to be able to beat the world's best players.
Wow.
Congratulations to...
- AlphaGo. - AlphaGo.
A computer program has just beaten a 9 dan professional.
Then DeepMind chose StarCraft as kind of their next AI challenge.
StarCraft is perhaps the most popular real-time strategy game of all time.
AlphaStar became famous when it started defeating world champions.
AlphaStar absolutely smashing Immortal Arc.
Know what?
This is not gonna be a fight that the pros can win.
It's kind of ridiculous.
Professional gamers say, "I would never try that tactic."
"I would never try that strategy. That's something that's not human."
And that was perhaps, you know, the "a-ha" moment for me.
I came to realize the time is now.
There's an important technology and an opportunity to make a difference.
I only knew the problems that I had faced as a SEAL in close-quarters combat,
but one of my good friends, who was an F-18 pilot, told me,
"We have the same problem in the fighter jet community."
"They are jamming communications."
"There are proliferated surface-to-air missile sites
that make it too dangerous to operate."
Imagine if we had a fighter jet that was commanded by an AI.
Welcome to the AlphaDogfights.
We're a couple of minutes away from this first semifinal.
DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
had seen AlphaGo and AlphaStar,
and so this idea of the AlphaDogfight competition came to life.
It's what you wanna see your fighter pilots do.
This looks like human dogfighting.
Dogfighting is fighter-on-fighter aircraft going at it.
You can think about it as a boxing match in the sky.
Maybe people have seen the movie Top Gun.
- Can we outrun these guys? - Not their missiles and guns.
It's a dogfight.
Learning to master dogfighting can take eight to ten years.
It's an extremely complex challenge to build AI around.
The prior approaches to autonomy and dogfighting tended to be brittle.
We figured machine learning was probably the way to solve this problem.
At first, the AI knew nothing about the world in which it was dropped.
It didn't know it was flying or what dogfighting was.
It didn't know what an F-16 is.
All it knew was the available actions it could take,
and it would start to randomly explore those actions.
The blue plane's been training for only a small amount of time.
You can see it wobbling back and forth,
uh, flying very erratically, generally away from its adversary.
As the fight progresses, we can see blue is starting
to establish here its game plan.
It's more in a position to shoot.
Once in a while, the learning algorithm said,
"Here's a cookie. Keep doing more of that."
We can take advantage of computer power and train the agents many times
in parallel.
It's like a basketball team.
Instead of playing the same team over and over again,
you're traveling the world playing 512 different teams,
all at the same time.
You can get very good, very fast.
We were able to run that simulation 24/7
and get something like 30 years of pilot training time in, in 10 months.
We went from barely able to control the aircraft
to being a stone-cold assassin.
Under training, we were competing only against other artificial intelligence.
But competing against humans directly was kind of the ultimate target.
My name is Mike Benitez,
I'm a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force.
Been on active duty about 25 years.
I've got 250 combat missions
and I'm a weapons school graduate,
which is Air Force version of Top Gun.
I've never actually flown against AI.
So I'm pretty excited to see how well I can do.
We got now a 6,000 feet offensive set up nose-to-nose.
Fight's on.
He's gone now.
Yeah, that's actually really interesting.
Dead. Got him. Flawless victory.
All right, round two.
What the artificial intelligence is doing is maneuvering with such precision,
uh, that I just can't keep up with it.
Right into the merge.
Oh, now you're gone.
Got him!
Still got me.
AI is never scared.
There's a human emotional element in the cockpit an AI won't have.
One of the more interesting strategies our AI developed,
was what we call the face shot.
Usually a human wants to shoot from behind
because it's hard for them to shake you loose.
They don't try face shots because you're playing a game of chicken.
When we come head-on, 3,000 feet away to 500 feet away
can happen in a blink of an eye.
You run a high risk of colliding, so humans don't try it.
The AI, unless it's told to fear death, will not fear death.
All good. Feels like I'm fighting against a human, uh,
a human that has a reckless abandonment for safety.
He's not gonna survive this last one.
He doesn't have enough time.
Ah!
Good night.
I'm dead.
It's humbling to know
that I might not even be the best thing for this mission,
and that thing could be something that replaces me one day.
Same 6 CAV.
One thousand offset.
With this AI pilot commanding fighter aircraft,
the winning is relentless, it's dominant.
It's not just winning by a wide range.
It's, "Okay, how can we get that onto our aircraft?" It's that powerful.
It's realistic to expect that AI will be piloting an F-16,
and it will not be that far out.
If you're going up against an AI pilot that has a 99.99999% win rate,
you don't stand a chance.
When I think about one AI pilot being unbeatable,
I think about what a team of 50, or 100,
or 1,000 AI pilots can continue to, uh, achieve.
Swarming is a team of highly intelligent aircraft
that work with each other.
They're sharing information about what to do, how to solve a problem.
Swarming will be a game-changing and transformational capability
to our military and our allies.
Target has been acquired, and the drones are tracking him.
Here comes the land.
Primary goal of the swarming research we're working on
is to deploy a large number of drones
over an area that is hard to get to or dangerous to get to.
The Army Research Lab has been supporting this particular research project.
If you want to know what's in a location,
but it's hard to get to that area, or it's a very large area,
then deploying a swarm is a very natural way
to extend the reach of individuals
and collect information that is critical to the mission.
So, right now in our swarm deployment,
we essentially give a single command to go track the target of interest.
Then the drones go and do all of that on their own.
Artificial intelligence allows the robots to move collectively as a swarm
in a decentralized manner.
In the swarms in nature that we see,
there's no boss, no main animal telling them what to do.
The behavior is emerging out of each individual animal
following a few simple rules.
And out of that grows this emergent collective behavior that you see.
What's awe-inspiring about swarms in nature
is the graceful ability in which they move.
It's as if they were built to be a part of this group.
Ideally, what we'd love to see with our drone swarm is,
much like in the swarm in nature,
decisions being made by the group collectively.
The other piece of inspiration for us
comes in the form of reliability and resiliency.
That swarm will not go down
if one individual animal doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
Even if one of the agents falls out, or fails,
or isn't able to complete the task,
the swarm will continue.
And ultimately, that's what we'd like to have.
We have this need in combat scenarios for identifying enemy aircraft,
and it used to be we required one person controlling one robot.
As autonomy increases,
I hope we will get to see a large number of robots
being controlled by a very small number of people.
I see no reason why we couldn't achieve a thousand eventually
because each agent will be able to act of its own accord,
and the sky's the limit.
We can scale our learning...
We've been working on swarming in simulation for quite some time,
and it is time to bring that to real-world aircraft.
We expect to be doing three robots at once over the network,
and then starting to add more and more capabilities.
We want to be able to test that on smaller systems,
but take those same concepts and apply them to larger systems,
like a fighter jet.
We talk a lot about,
how do you give a platoon the combat power of a battalion?
Or a battalion the combat power of a brigade?
You can do that with swarming.
And when you can unlock that power of swarming,
you have just created a new strategic deterrence
to military aggression.
I think the most exciting thing is the number of young men and women
who we will save if we really do this right.
And we trade machines
rather than human lives.
Some argue that autonomous weapons will make warfare more precise
and more humane,
but it's actually difficult to predict
exactly how autonomous weapons might change warfare ahead of time.
It's like the invention of the Gatling gun.
Richard Gatling was an inventor,
and he saw soldiers coming back, wounded in the Civil War,
and wanted to find ways to make warfare more humane.
To reduce the number of soldiers that were killed in war
by reducing the number of soldiers in the battle.
And so he invented the Gatling gun, an automated gun turned by a crank
that could automate the process of firing.
It increased effectively by a hundredfold the firepower that soldiers could deliver.
Oftentimes, efforts to make warfare more precise and humane...
...can have the opposite effect.
Think about the effect of one errant drone strike
in a rural area
that drives the local populace against the United States,
against the local government. You know, supposedly the good guys.
Now magnify that by 1,000.
The creation of a weapon system
that is cheap, scalable, and doesn't require human operators
drastically changes the actual barriers to conflict.
It keeps me up at night to think of a world where war is ubiquitous,
and we no longer carry the human and financial cost of war
because we're just so far removed from...
the lives that will be lost.
This whole thing is haunting me.
I just needed an example of artificial intelligence misuse.
The unanticipated consequences of doing that simple thought experiment
have gone way too far.
When I gave the presentation
on the toxic molecules created by AI technology,
the audience's jaws dropped.
The next decision was whether we should publish this information.
On one hand, you want to warn the world
of these sorts of capabilities, but on the other hand,
you don't want to give somebody the idea if they had never had it before.
We decided it was worth publishing
to maybe find some ways to mitigate the misuse of this type of AI
before it occurs.
The general public's reaction was shocking.
We can see the metrics on the page, how many people have accessed it.
The kinds of articles we normally write, we're lucky if we get...
A few thousand people look at our article over a period of a year or multiple years.
It was 10,000 people had read it within a week.
Then it was 20,000, then it was 30,000, then it was 40,000,
and we were up to 10,000 people a day.
We've done The Economist, the Financial Times.
Radiolab, you know, they reached out. Like, I've heard of Radiolab!
But then the reactions turned into this thing that's out of control.
When we look at those tweets, it's like, "Oh my God, could they do anything worse?"
Why did they do this?
And then we got an invitation I never would have anticipated.
There was a lot of discussion inside the White House about the article,
and they wanted to talk to us urgently.
Obviously, it's an incredible honor
to be able to talk to people at this level.
But then it hits you
like, "Oh my goodness, it's the White House. The boss."
This involved putting together data sets that were open source...
And in about six hours, the model was able to generate about over 40,000...
They asked questions about how much computing power you needed,
and we told them it was nothing special.
Literally a standard run-of-the-mill, six-year-old Mac.
And that blew them away.
The folks that are in charge of understanding chemical warfare agents
and governmental agencies, they had no idea of this potential.
We've got this cookbook to make these chemical weapons,
and in the hands of a bad actor that has malicious intent
it could be utterly horrifying.
People have to sit up and listen,
and we have to take steps to either regulate the technology
or constrain it in a way that it can't be misused.
Because the potential for lethality...
is terrifying.
The question of the ethics of AI is largely addressed by society,
not by the engineers or technologists, the mathematicians.
Every technology that we bring forth, every novel innovation,
ultimately falls under the purview of how society believes we should use it.
Right now, the Department of Defense says,
"The only thing that is saying we are going to kill something
on the battlefield is a human."
A machine can do the killing,
but only at the behest of a human operator,
and I don't see that ever changing.
They assure us that this type of technology will be safe.
But the United States military just doesn't have a trustworthy reputation
with drone warfare.
And so, when it comes to trusting the U.S. military with AI,
I would say, you know, the track record kinda speaks for itself.
The U.S. Defense Department policy on the use of autonomy in weapons
does not ban any kind of weapon system.
And even if militaries might not want autonomous weapons,
we could see militaries handing over more decisions to machines
just to keep pace with competitors.
And that could drive militaries to automate decisions
that they may not want to.
Vladimir Putin said,
"Whoever leads in AI is going to rule the world."
President Xi has made it clear that AI is one of the number one technologies
that China wants to dominate in.
We're clearly in a technological competition.
You hear people talk about guardrails,
and I believe that is what people should be doing.
But there is a very real race for AI superiority.
And our adversaries, whether it's China, whether it's Russia, whether it's Iran,
are not going to give two thoughts to what our policy says around AI.
You're seeing a lot more conversations around AI policy,
but I wish more leaders would have the conversation
saying, ''How quickly can we build this thing?
Let's resource the heck out of it and build it."
We are at the Association of the U.S. Army's biggest trade show of the year.
Basically, any vendor who is selling a product or technology into a military
will be exhibiting.
The Tyndall Air Force Base has four of our robots
that patrol their base 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
We can add everything from cameras to sensors to whatever you need.
Manipulator arms. Again, just to complete the mission that the customer has in mind.
What if your enemy introduces AI?
A fighting system that thinks faster than you, responds faster,
than what a human being can do? We've got to be prepared.
We train our systems to collect intel on the enemy,
managing enemy targets with humans supervising the kill chain.
- Hi, General. - How you doing?
Good, sir. How are you? Um...
I'll just say no one is investing more in an AI pilot.
Our AI pilot's called Hivemind,
so we applied it to our quadcopter Nova. It goes inside buildings,
explores them ahead of special operation forces
and infantry forces.
We're applying Hivemind to V-BAT,
so I think about, you know, putting up hundreds of those teams.
Whether it's the Taiwan Strait,
whether it's in the Ukraine, deterring our adversaries.
So, pretty excited about it.
- All right. Thank you. - So. Thank you, General.
AI pilots should be ubiquitous, and that should be the case by 2025, 2030.
Its adoption will be rapid throughout militaries across the world.
What do you do with the Romanian military, their UAS guy?
High-tech in the military.
We've spent half a billion dollars to date on building an AI pilot.
We will spend another billion dollars over the next five years. And that is...
It's a major reason why we're winning the programs of record in the U.S.
Nice.
I mean, it's impressive. You succeeded to weaponize that.
Uh, it is... This is not weaponized yet.
So not yet. But yes, in the future.
Our customers think about it as a truck. We think of it as an intelligent truck
that can do a lot of different things.
Thank you, buddy.
I'll make sure to follow up with you.
If you come back in 10 years,
you'll see that, um...
AI and autonomy will have dominated this entire market.
Forces that are supported by AI and autonomy
will absolutely dominate, crush, and destroy forces without.
It'll be the equivalent of horses going up against tanks,
people with swords going up against the machine gun.
It will not even be close.
It will become ubiquitous, used at every spectrum of warfare,
the tactical level,
the strategic level,
operating at speeds that humans cannot fathom today.
Commanders are already overwhelmed with too much information.
Imagery from satellites, and drones, and sensors.
One of the things AI can do
is help a commander more rapidly understand what is occurring.
And then, "What are the decisions I need to make?"
Artificial intelligence will take into account all the factors
that determine the way war is fought,
come up with strategies...
and give recommendations on how to win a battle.
We at Lockheed Martin, like our Department of Defense customer,
view artificial intelligence as a key technology enabler
for command and control.
The rate of spread has an average of two feet per second.
This perimeter is roughly 700 acres.
The fog of war is a reality for us on the defense side,
but it has parallels to being in the environment
and having to make decisions for wildfires as well.
The Washburn fire is just north of the city of Wawona.
You're having to make decisions with imperfect data.
And so how do we have AI help us with that fog of war?
Wildfires are very chaotic.
They're very complex,
and so we're working to utilize artificial intelligence
to help make decisions.
The Cognitive Mission Manager is a program we're building
that takes aerial infrared video
and then processes it through our AI algorithms
to be able to predict the future state of the fire.
As we move into the future,
the Cognitive Mission Manager will use simulation,
running scenarios over thousands of cycles,
to recommend the most effective way to deploy resources
to suppress high-priority areas of fire.
It'll say, "Go perform an aerial suppression with a Firehawk here."
"Take ground crews that clear brush...
...firefighters that are hosing down,
and deploy them into the highest priority areas."
Those decisions will be able to be generated faster
and more efficiently.
We view AI as uniquely allowing our humans
to be able to keep up with the ever-changing environment.
And there are a credible number of parallels
to what we're used to at Lockheed Martin on the defense side.
The military is no longer talking about just using AI
in individual weapons systems to make targeting and kill decisions,
but integrating AI
into the whole decision-making architecture of the military.
The Army has a big project called Project Convergence.
The Navy has Overmatch.
And the Air Force has Advanced Battle Management System.
The Department of Defense is trying to figure out,
"How do we put all these pieces together,
so that we can operate faster than our adversary
and really gain an advantage?"
An AI Battle Manager would be like a fairly high-ranking General
who's in charge of the battle.
Helping to give orders to large numbers of forces,
coordinating the actions of all of the weapons that are out there,
and doing it at a speed that no human could keep up with.
We've spent the past 70 years
building the most sophisticated military on the planet,
and now we're facing the decision as to whether we want to cede control
over that infrastructure to an algorithm, to software.
And the consequences of that decision
could trigger the full weight of our military arsenals.
That's not one Hiroshima. That's hundreds.
This is the time that we need to act
because the window to actually contain this risk is rapidly closing.
This afternoon, we start with international security challenges
posed by emerging technologies
in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems.
Conversations are happening within the United Nations
about the threat of lethal autonomous weapons
and our prohibition on systems that use AI to select and target people.
Consensus amongst technologists is clear and resounding.
We are opposed to autonomous weapons that target humans.
For years, states have actually discussed this issue
of lethal autonomous weapon systems.
This is about a common, shared sense of security.
But of course, it's not easy.
Certain countries, especially those military powers,
they want to be ahead of the curve,
so that they will be ahead of their adversaries.
The problem is, everyone has to agree to get anything done.
There will be at least one country that objects,
and certainly the United States and Russia have both made clear
that they are opposed to a treaty that would ban autonomous weapons.
When we think about the number of people working to make AI more powerful
that room is very crowded.
When we think about the room of people, making sure that AI is safe,
that room's much more sparsely populated.
But I'm also really optimistic.
I look at something like the Biological Weapons Convention,
which happened in the middle of the Cold War...
...despite tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States.
They were able to realize that the development of biological weapons
was in neither of their best interests,
and not in the best interests of the world at large.
Arms race dynamics favor speed over safety.
But I think what's important to consider is,
at some point, the cost of moving fast becomes too high.
We can't just develop things in isolation
and put them out there without any thought of where they could go in the future.
We've got to prevent that atom bomb moment.
The stakes in the AI race are massive.
I don't think a lot of people appreciate the global stability
that has been provided by having a superior military force
for the past 75 years.
And so the United States and our allied forces,
they need to outperform adversarial AI.
There is no second place in war.
China laid out an ambitious plan
to be the world leader in AI by 2030.
It's a race that some say America is losing...
He will accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence
to ensure our competitive military advantage.
We are racing forward with this technology.
I think what's unclear is how far are we going to go?
Do we control technology, or does it control us?
There's really no opportunity for do-overs.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is out.
And it is very, very difficult to put it back in.
And if we don't act now, it's too late.
It may already be too late.
Please rate this subtitle at www.osdb.link/f6f2r Help other users to choose the best subtitles