Previously, fundamental and promising developments in the field of Internet communications and other innovations were financed mainly from budget funds. The Internet evolved from a project directly overseen by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The basic research that ultimately led to the founding of Google was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). This point was described by David Hart in his 2004 article " On the Origins of Google ." One final example to understand the scale of government intervention in science: DARPA invested more than $ 1 billion in AI for military purposes between 1983 and 1993, but ultimately abandoned the initiative due to slower-than-expected progress. ...
However, the topic of AI applications for military purposes and cybersecurity is quite acute today in American political circles. Some strategic documents related to US national security quote the words of V. Putin, said in 2017: "Whoever becomes the leader in this area <in the field of AI> will be the master of the world." The entire statement of the President of the Russian Federation on the issue of AI can be found here . Also, North American leaders have serious concerns about China's success in military development using AI.
These reasons force the state - military departments and intelligence, whether they like it or not, to cooperate with the commercial sector, since private development, in many ways, is ahead of all existing budgetary development sectors in the United States. The complex relationship between the IT sector, represented by commercial developers (corporations) and political leadership, will be discussed in this article.
To get down from the plateau of illusions and find out what the relationship between the leaders of the American IT business and officials really is, let us turn to the report on US National Security dated 08/26/2020, which explicates this problem, which requires the special attention of all interested parties. From my point of view, the essence of the main conflicting reasons is as follows:
- ( , : , , ).
- ( , ).
- ( , ).
- ( « » , 80% «» « ».
- (: , «Google , », New York Times, 1 2018 .,) , , . , .
Mistrust in the military
Let us consider point four in more detail, since the remaining points contain well-founded logical fears of a private commercial company regarding the specifics of its business, products, etc. The Center for New American Security (CNAS) and the Copia Institute prepared a study in which the heads of large commercial IT organizations in the United States were interviewed. The title of the report bears the self-explanatory title: "The Difficult Relationship Between Washington and Silicon Valley ."
First, the responses to polls and interviews support the conventional wisdom that the relationship between politics and technology is strained and sometimes hostile.
Second, all survey and interview participants described productive sessions — meetings, conferences, brainstorming sessions — that ultimately led nowhere. In an earlier CNAS study of DOD efforts to work with Silicon Valley, tech industry and government officials alike complained about an increasingly frustrating phenomenon they called "technology tourism": government officials seek meetings with top tech company officials without specific goals and without a plan of concrete results or further interaction.
Third, interoperability is sharply deteriorating due to the existing differences between specialized knowledge in the technical and political communities. And the lack of policy knowledge, for technical professionals, is not perceived as a particular problem.
Fourthly, there is a problematic of consensus themes. Techies are interested in: data localization, cryptocurrencies, technology and civil society, the Internet of Things. They see controversial topics for themselves: cybersecurity, encryption and the fight against terrorism.
Interestingly, there is a general frustration between Washington officials and representatives of tech corporations about the lawyers (legal departments), which severely impede mutual contact on both sides. The American lawyer is a metastructural being. Also, the press, investors, international organizations and industry associations received unpleasant reviews for their participation in joint discussions.
Why are officials against the introduction of artificial intelligence?
The report would not be complete if we did not consider another significant aspect in the relationship between innovative technologies and people who make decisions. This aspect can be transposed to all countries and officials at all levels.
The integration of AI into existing systems changes standardized procedures and changes well-defined roles for personnel. Members of Project Maven (Project Maven - an AI algorithm for identifying insurgent targets in Iraq and Syria) reported resistance to AI integration, as integration can be disruptive without delivering the promised benefits.
CIA Deputy Director of Technological Development D. Meyerrick also expressed concern about the willingness of senior leaders to accept the analysis generated by artificial intelligence. She was concerned that the risk aversion culture of the defense establishment could pose big challenges to the future competitiveness of the United States due to the pace of development of enemy technology.
Some analysts are concerned that DOD will not harness the game-changing AI potential of war, but instead will simply use algorithms to incrementally improve existing processes or reinforce current operational concepts without the threat of dramatic organizational changes. command positions. In addition, the military could completely reject some artificial intelligence applications if the technology threatens maintenance equipment or military missions.
In social theory, opposition to innovation can be explained by the difference in social dispositions, i.e. loss of social status, unnecessary for a decision-maker. Here we are dealing with the notorious unemployment, which is a consequence of the introduction of AI into various aspects of the economy, administration and public administration (the essence of disruptive technologies is described in "The Fourth Industrial Revolution" by K. Schwab [2]). The loss of work will affect not only drivers and cashiers, but a large number of officials, including the military and special services.
Output
Fundamental differences between government and commercial approaches to problem solving undermine the success of intersectoral collaboration. Cooperation is difficult due to the large difference in the objectives and pace of operations. Also, as a problem, one can single out the loss of status positions on the part of responsible persons and mistrust in technologies based on machine learning. Lack of progress in intersectoral interaction, to a large extent, although not unambiguously, is a problem of the government, - say “IT specialists”.
Literature:
- Bell D. The Coming Post-Industrial Society, M.: Academia, 2004 - 788 p.
- Schwab K The Fourth Industrial Revolution, M .: Eksmo, 2016 - 208 p.