Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET)

Please check out my discussion with General Tim Haugh at Capital Factory in Austin this weekend! As the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Haugh gave great insights into the potential for AI to improve our nation's security and how the organizations he leads are uniquely prepared to harness its benefits. We discussed: ❓ The different applications of AI for intelligence and cyber operations ❓ Measuring up AI opportunities and challenges ❓ The future of CYBERCOM 2.0 and the authorities necessary to carry out the mission as technologies rapidly change ❓ Public-private partnerships ❓ The threat landscape vis-a-vis AI developments ...and much more! Many thanks to General Tim Haugh and his staff, Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), AFWERX, NavalX, Capital Factory, Devon Bistarkey, Mary Alice McMorrow, and all the people who supported and turned out for the event in Austin! https://lnkd.in/eThp6tnz

What can we do to prepare for AI systems that can help anyone hack critical infrastructure or build a bioweapon? A lot, actually! CSET's Helen Toner joined Alison Snyder of Axios at #SXSW to talk about what a smart approach looks like. 🔗 Watch the full interview: https://lnkd.in/epRde9pp

Mia Hoffmann and Owen J. Daniels from Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) say #Europe's apparent shift on #AI policy could change the global landscape for AI governance.

In Barron's, Cole McFaul and I argue that the U.S.-China AI competition could hinge on cost rather than capabilities and explain why DeepSeek has more in common with Huawei than Sputnik. Gift link below:

What does the EU's shifting strategy mean for AI? CSET's Mia Hoffmann & Owen J. Daniels have a new piece out for the Tech Policy Press. Read it now 👇

Very excited to share that my (first sole-authored!) op-ed was just been published in The Hill! In the piece, I argue that Washington’s recent science cuts are a gift to Beijing, undermining the US’ innovation advantage over China. China is rapidly catching up—and even surpassing—the U.S. in critical tech sectors such as advanced manufacturing, consumer drones, electric vehicles, and 5G. How have they been so successful? Much of this progress was made through careful study and replication of certain aspects of the U.S. innovation ecosystem. The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) was inspired by the NSF, and the NSFC modeled its biomedical research division on the NIH. One of my favorite tidbits from the piece: following NIH and other US science agencies, the NSFC introduced ‘indirect costs’ (the current target of the WH science cuts) in 2014 to better support PRC universities and research institutions. “If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, China’s actions confirm that the U.S. innovation ecosystem remains a core strength in the technological competition between Washington and Beijing—one that the United States should not give away willingly.” But Washington risks doing just that, with significant staff and funding reductions proposed at key science agencies like NSF, NIH, NASA, FDA, and NIST. These cuts threaten America's greatest asset in US-PRC tech competition: our robust basic R&D ecosystem. Universities not only train future scientists and entrepreneurs alike, they also attract the world’s best and brightest to the US. More often than not, these folks want to stay in the US after graduating (we should let them!). These measures are only the latest in a trend of weakening US federal support for basic science. Federal R&D funding (as a percentage of GDP) is at a 25 year low, and NSF’s budget was cut by 8 percent last year. Without sustained federal support, the US’ innovation advantage over China will continue to diminish. There’s a lot more in the piece, would love to hear your thoughts! https://lnkd.in/etPvqg_W And if you are a visual learner, check out my thread on X: https://lnkd.in/emdqpvE4

Just published an op-ed with Sam Bresnick in Barron’s! In it, we argue that recently released PRC AI models from DeepSeek and Alibaba are challenging a core assumption of top US AI labs: that investing heavily in compute to train the most advanced AI models will generate the revenue required to justify the costs. While leading U.S. tech companies continue to make enormous investments in compute to train closed-source AI, the performance gap between closed- and open-source models continues to shrink. US AI models will likely continue to lead their Chinese counterparts for the foreseeable future, but performance is not the only factor that matters in the AI race. Cost influences adoption too. This is a familiar playbook for PRC tech companies: “good enough” tech can outperform the leading edge. We’ve seen this before in other tech sectors: ICT, EVs, drones, etc. Today, DeepSeek's R1 model is 25x cheaper than OpenAI’s o1. That matters. Much more in the article! Gift link here: https://lnkd.in/eqex4ADg

We have an absolute banger of a role open at Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) right now - our beloved Igor Mikolic-Torreira is heading into retirement next year, so we're looking for a new Director of Analysis. This role on our leadership team is really the heart of CSET. Igor is the quiet mastermind behind the scenes, helping guide our research, manage and mentor our team of 20+ analysts, and ensure the quality of our work stays high. From the posting: > "Ideal candidates are seasoned policy professionals with impeccable leadership, project and people management skills. They excel at identifying and prioritizing important policy questions, envisioning how CSET analyses might contribute to developing actionable recommendations, organizing people and resources to execute such analyses, and ensuring effective communication of the results to policymakers working at the nexus of technology and national security. They have a proven record of growing and developing junior researchers into effective policy analysts and analytic leaders." Share far and wide with the best research leaders you know - and if you have this kind of experience and a vision of which questions at the intersection of AI and national security matter most for the future, apply! https://lnkd.in/exZdY_j7

CSET's Helen Toner was on the Clearer Thinking podcast with Spencer Greenberg. 🎧 Check it out:

"Safety isn’t just about hand-wringing over potential risks, but is about securing long-term and effective performance of powerful models and ensuring society reaps their benefits. Conflating safety and regulation ignores the space for non-governmental actors to continue to take AI safety into account and lead the charge, even in a deregulated environment." Read Owen J. Daniels new post: