Tag: artificial intelligence
Stevenson’s army, April 6
–Conflicts in Poland over Ukraine policies.
– Poland ready to give more MiGs.
– Putin blames Ukraine war on US.
– NYT has detailed graphics on Russian offensive.
– FP details Chinese spying.
– Vox has history of US industrial policy
– Reuters says China to inspect ships in Taiwan strait.
-Israeli concerns over Milley Iran comment.
– Semafor has report on Coast Guard’s global role.
– Freedom caucus & Progressives have some common goals.
Charlie added a Thursday bonus:
– WH has released a 12 page review of the Afghanistan withdrawal. AP summarizes.-
-FP says we need an economic war council for dealing with China.
-Lawfare praises State rules for military AI.
– FT says US opposes roadmap for Ukraine in NATO.
-Economist has fascinating story about improvements in camouflage.
– I’ve come across several Georgetown youtubes on the all-volunteer force at 50.
-Poli sci prof confirms decline in committee legislating
– Another reports benefits in grandstanding.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Quandaries of the modern professor
Two challenges strike me this week:
- What to do about student use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to prepare written product.
- What to do about the risk that a student may be a spy for a foreign government.
These are real-life quandaries.
AI tools in the classroom
ChatGPT and other AI tools that prepare written product in response to user inquiries are the immediate problem. They go a step beyond what we are all used to. We all use search engines to look for relevant bibliography. We also read Wikipedia to get oriented to a new subject or check facts. I am fortunately not teaching classes with assigned written products these days, but I am supervising graduate students preparing theses. What do I think about use of generative tools to produce written material? Do I feel the same about their use as an exploratory tool and as a final product?
It seems to me the answer to that second question has to be no. Final product has to come from the student her/himself, with citations to sources. But I can’t really object to AI use as an exploratory tool. We all need to start someplace. My own habit is to start as much as possible with primary source materials, but I am an historian. I don’t really see why a political scientist or an economist shouldn’t ask generative AI to summarize the latest data on election results or business cycles. That is a small step past using a search engine on those terms. Even if current AI technology doesn’t deliver much, no doubt future generative tools will.
Learning is key
The real issue then is how you determine what the student has learned, beyond the products of the AI tools s/he may have used. It seems to me that isn’t so hard. Exams (without computers) can serve that purpose. So too can oral presentations or informal chats with the professor.
When I was a graduate student preceptor (teaching assistant) at Princeton, I received a paper from a student who hadn’t performed well in class. He referred in the first paragraph to the “pre-lapsarian Adam.” When I asked him what that meant, he was unable to respond. Plagiarism is not new. I didn’t need “Turnitin,” a software that can now check for it.
Spies in the classroom
No one who teaches international affairs anywhere on earth can be sure he/she hasn’t had a spy–past, present or future–in the classroom. Certainly a goodly number of students at SAIS, both Americans and non-Americans–later pursue careers in their home country intelligence agencies. We also get students who pursue degrees while they are still working for government agencies, or after they have completed careers in them, with intelligence responsibilities. Teaching them analytical methods and policy frameworks is a good idea, not a bad one.
The problem is current spies who hide their true identities. That is what the Washington Post says SAIS’s Russian student pretending to be a Brazilian did. The Post focuses on what he himself might have been doing. The example they give is reporting last year on US attitudes towards a Russian invasion of Ukraine. That Moscow could have gotten reading the daily press. The Post also focuses on what he might have done in the future. Penetrating the International Criminal Court’s computer systems is the case in point, as he had an internship lined up there before being arrested. That seems to me more serious.
Another issue
But I would point to another issue: recruitment. International affairs schools are brimming with students who will go on to bigger and better things, in government and in the private sector. A covert agent might have a field day lining up people living on student stipends and finding it difficult to pay tuition or otherwise make ends meet. Once recruited, such an individual becomes subject to lifetime blackmail.
The consequences could be long term and catastrophic.
The tougher problem
Spies in the classroom seems to me a much tougher problem than AI in the classroom. A professor can be expected to know when students are learning. But professors don’t command the tools required to ferret out covert operatives. That is an intelligence and law enforcement responsibility, not an academic one. Covert spies in the classroom could compromise classmates (or professors) and create problems for decades in the future.
There are more than 750,000 foreign students in the US. Do we really think the CIA and FBI are capable of keeping an eye on even a small fraction of them? And would we want the limitations that would necessarily come if they tried to do so?
No easy answers
Nor would I want the university administration to take on that responsibility. The most we can expect from it is to make reasonable efforts to ensure students are not using false identities. Beyond that, I suppose we’ll need to keep a watch out for suspicious behavior. But I confess as a Foreign Service officer I met several Americans who spied for foreign governments: Walter Kendall Myers (Cuba), Aldrich Ames (Soviet Union and Russia), and Felix Bloch (Soviet Union). I suspected none of them.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 4
– NYT says Ukraine is shooting down Russian drones with missiles that cost far more than their targets.
– WSJ says defense industry consolidation impedes increased production.
– Soldier cellphones make them targets.
– Franklin Foer says maybe we need the old folks in Congress.
– Military Times is happy with the number of veterans in the new Congress.
– WaPo column says cheating with AI-written essays can be curbed by requiring hand-written submissions. It also explains why handwritten notes make you smarter than typing them.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 8
– House votes today on NDAA under suspension of the rules –requires 2/3. Senate votes next week.
– Blinken discusses limits on Ukraine weapons.
– NYT explains ChatGPT, while Atlantic says such AI means the end of written essay tests. [OK, let’s do orals.]
-WOTR assesses new digital battlefield.
– Hill lists top lobbyists.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 11
– Fred Kaplan explains the pipeine context.
– NYT reports on DarkSide.
– WSJ notes that TSA [!] not CISA is responsible for pipeline cybersecurity.
–Shots fired at Iranian boats.
– Open Secrets has new foreign lobbying data. Look at China’s.
– Politico says WH now requires approval of quotes in background briefings.
– Provocative article: WOTR writer says DOD is doing AI all wrong, shouldn’t be top-down.
– Former CIA official says IC shouldn’t do propaganda.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | July 27 – July 31
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- From Peoples Into Nations: A History of Eastern Europe | July 27, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:30 PM EST | Wilson Center | Register Here
Eastern Europe has produced more history than any region on earth, for bad and for good. But where is it? And how does a critical historian write its history? Nationalists argue that nations are eternal, Connelly argues that they formed recently: in the 1780s, when the Habsburgs attempted to make their subjects German, thereby causing a panic among Hungarians and Czechs that they might disappear from history. The region’s boundaries are the boundaries of a certain painful knowledge: that nations come and go, and urgently require protection.
Speakers:
John Connelly: Sidney Hellman Ehrman Professor of History and Director of Institute for East European, Eurasian, & Slavic Studies at University of California (Berkeley)
Christian F. Ostermann: Director, History & Public Policy Program, Cold War International History Project, North Korea Documentation Project, Nuclear Proliferation International History Project, Wilson Center
Eric Arnesen: Fellow, the George Washington University - Crisis in Northern Mozambique | July 28, 2020 | 10:00 – 10:45 AM EST | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
The recent escalation of violence in the Cabo Delgado province threatens the overall security of the region and has caused a substantial increase in humanitarian needs. Since 2017, the conflict in northern Mozambique has displaced nearly 250,000 people and killed 1,000 others, with violence escalating rapidly in 2020. The Islamic State has tried to capitalize on the chaos, and the Government of Mozambique has struggled to combat armed actors while also navigating climate shocks and the response to Covid-19.
Please join us for a discussion on the conflict in Mozambique’s northern provinces, the implications for regional security, and steps the international community can take to respond to the humanitarian needs.
Speakers:
Mamadou Sou: Head of Delegation, Southern Africa, International Committee of the Red Cross
Emilia Columbo: Non-Resident Senior Associate, Africa Program, CSIS
Jacob Kurzter: Interim Director & Senior Fellow, Humanitarian Agenda, CSIS - Western Balkans Partnership Summit | July 29, 2020 | 10:15 – 11:30 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Atlantic Council will host a Summit of leaders from the Western Balkans Six—Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia—as they agree on bold, practical actions to advance regional economic cooperation. These significant steps will help the region emerge from the devastating impact of COVID-19 with greater economic development opportunities.
The expected economic and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Balkans demand urgent regional action to avoid sustained economic stagnation and the potential instability that comes with it. This agreement will demonstrate leaders’ commitment to foster economic growth by pursuing the free movement of goods, persons, and services across the region’s borders. The measure will also set in motion a significant plan for attracting foreign investment and accelerating the effective deployment of COVID-19 recovery funds.
Building on its efforts and extensive networks in Southeastern Europe, the Atlantic Council convenes this Western Balkans Partnership Summit to facilitate and promote concrete steps among the leaders toward regional economic integration that can stimulate post-COVID-19 economic recovery, boost the region’s long-term competitiveness, and strengthen its attractiveness for investors. Tangible measures agreed at the Summit—linked to and embedded in existing regional initiatives and dialogues—will send an important political message about the Western Balkans’ Euro-Atlantic future at a time of heightened uncertainty.
Speakers:
Damon M. Wilson (Moderator): Vice President, Atlantic Council
H.E. Stevo Pendarovski: President of the Republic of North Macedonia
H.E. Aleksandar Vučić: President of the Republic of Serbia
H.E. Avdullah Hoti: Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo
H.E. Edi Rama: Prime Minister of the Republic of Albania
H.E. Zoran Tegeltija: Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina
H.E. Dragica Sekulić: Minister of Economy of Montenegro - Re-Orienting National Security for the AI Era | July 29, 2020 | 2:30 – 3:30 PM EST | Brookings Institution | Register Here
Artificial intelligence technology has already begun and will continue to transform the economy, education, people’s daily lives, and national security. The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) is an independent federal commission established to examine the state of the AI-national security landscape and determine what policies will maintain U.S. leadership in AI research, improve international cooperation, and advance shared principles for ethical and responsible use of AI. On July 22, NSCAI submitted their second quarter recommendations to Congress and the executive branch.
On July 29, Brookings will host a conversation with NSCAI Chair Dr. Eric Schmidt and Vice Chair Mr. Robert Work on the current state of artificial intelligence in the national security environment, and the commission’s latest recommendations to spur progress on the responsible development and deployment of AI technologies.
Speakers:
John R. Allen (Moderator): President, Brookings Institution
Eric Schmidt: Chair, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence
Robert O. Work: Vice Chair, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence - The Future of Trust & Sense-Making | July 30, 2020 | 12:30 PM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Trust – between people, between populations, and between human and machine – is an increasingly challenging convention as we navigate the “post-truth” era and the unprecedentedly complex information age. The concept of trust is arguably humanity’s most empowering trait, enabling cooperation between people on a grand scale and in pursuit of our most complicated endeavors. Our ability to build trust with machines has accelerated our exploration and will push the bounds of human cognition as we learn to augment our thinking with computers. In an unfathomably vast information environment, humans will be repeatedly forced to preserve trust in our observations against a deluge of data. We will have to learn to trust computers to make sense of it all.
How will we negotiate these situations given the challenges posed by misinformation, disinformation, and technically enabled deceptions like deep fake images, video, and audio? Will our predilection for conflict, power, and force projection disrupt this journey? Will we successfully graduate from our present trials by nurturing the concept of trust as we develop new methods to preserve ideals of objectivity, truth, and cooperation?
What might we witness in the coming years with respect to trust in devices, people, and institutions? What is the future of trust, and what are its implications for sense-making? What do all these things imply about our future digital lives?
Speakers:
Dr. David Bray (Moderator): Director, GeoTech Center, Atlantic Council
John Marx: Liaison Officer, Air Force Research Laboratory
Stephen Rodriguez: Non-Resident Senior Fellow & Senior Adviser, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Alex Ruiz: Founder, Phaedrus Engineering
Dr. Tara Kirk Sell: Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security
Sara-Jayne Terp: Co-Founder, CogSec Collaboration - From Dissent to Democracy: The Promise & Perils of Civil Resistance Traditions | July 31, 2020 | 9:30 – 10:45 AM EST | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Nonviolent protest has proven to be a strong driver for democratization, and recent years have shown a rise in protest movements globally—from Hong Kong to Algeria to Sudan. Yet, popular uprisings don’t always lead to democratic transitions, as seen in the Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt or Yemen. Why do some transitions driven by movements end in democracy while others do not?
In his new book, “From Dissent to Democracy,” Jonathan Pinckney systematically examines transitions initiated by nonviolent resistance campaigns and argues that two key factors explain whether or not democracy will follow such efforts. First, a movement must sustain high levels of social mobilization. Second, it must direct that mobilization away from revolutionary “maximalist” goals and tactics and towards support for new institutions.
Join USIP as we host activists and scholars of nonviolent resistance for a discussion of the book’s broader lessons on how to support democratization efforts around the world. The conversation will explore new insights into the intersection of democratization and nonviolent resistance, as well as actionable recommendations for activists and policymakers working toward democratic transitions.
Speakers:
Maria Stephan (Moderator): Director, Nonviolent Action, U.S. Institute of Peace
Erica Chenoweth: Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights & International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Zachariah Mampilly: Marxe Chair of International Affairs, City University of New York
Hardy Merriman: President & CEO, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
Jonathan Pinckney: Program Officer, Nonviolent Action, U.S. Institute of Peace
Huda Shafig: Program Director, Karama
RSS - Posts
