Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang, and witnesses specializing in artificial intelligence (AI) and national security, testified on using AI for military combat before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technology and Innovation. Topics included AI ethics, cyber threats, data used to train AI, the importance of collaboration between allies, and how the use of AI impacts democratic vs. communist values.

We take you live now to a House Armed Services Subcommittee hearing on the Pentagon's utilization of artificial intelligence on the battlefield.

You're watching live coverage here on C-SPAN 3.

I ask for unanimous general consent that the chair be authorized to declare a recess at any time Without objection so ordered I want to briefly review the the 3 commandments of the city subcommittee 1 is that we shall start on time which we just did so that's good We're going to enforce the five-minute rule, but if time allows we'll entertain a second round of questions, and it often does.

But I bring this up, I wanna stress the third commandment, which is thou shalt not use acronyms or jargon, which I think is particularly important in this discussion, because discussions about AI can quickly generate or degenerate into jargon-laden discussions.

We have 3 true experts on this topic, but Just don't assume your average member of Congress, or let me just say, don't assume I understand what you're talking about when you get into the nuances of AI.

So we want to have a discussion in the open that your average American can understand today.

We're asking you to demystify a lot of the concepts surrounding AI.

And in thinking about this topic, it may sound counterintuitive, but I've been going back to the history of the early Cold War.

In particular, I'm obsessed with the Korean War, which is the moment in which the Cold War first turned very hot, and at great cost to Americans, at even greater cost to the Korean people themselves.

And I was reading this sort of obscure book about it, and came across the words of a historian named David Rees, who said, at the heart of West's military thought lies the belief that machines must be used to save its men's lives.

Korea would progressively become a horrific illustration of the effects of a limited war where 1 side possessed the firepower and the other the manpower.

There's a lot of different ways to interpret this in the current context, and particularly in the context of this hearing.

1 is that AI could potentially increase the destructive power of modern warfare.

The other is AI has the potential to decrease it, or at least decrease the exposure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines take when they put themselves in a combat situation.

Or the third, and what is unique in contrast to the early Cold War is that the machines themselves might somehow take power and go beyond our ability to control them.

Today we want to dig into all of these different hypotheses.

The only thing is I've dug into this topic, and I want to commend the ranking member, Mr.

Khanna, for the way in which he's worked with me to really use the subcommittee to explore AI concepts.

We had a very fascinating discussion with Elon Musk last week.

I'll say there were some sources of disagreement.

And the only thing I've become convinced is that the CCP, if they win this competition or win the sort of AI component of this competition, will likely use that technology for evil as a way of perfecting a repressive totalitarian surveillance state, as well as exporting that model around the world.

Whereas we in the West, we in the free world at least have the chance of using it for good.

So to make sense of all these things, we're lucky to have 3 incredible witnesses.

And you might be the most successful MIT dropout of all time at this point.

But there's actually probably a unique subset of people that qualify there.

Klon Kitchen is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and someone many of us on Capitol Hill look for advice when talking about the intersection of technology and warfare and Dr.

Hania Mahmoudian of data robot is an absolute AI expert as well.

I've been looking forward to this hearing for a long time.

I look forward to an open and honest discussion.

And with that, I yield to the ranking member, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you for convening this panel and your interest in a bipartisan way in addressing AI and making sure that our military is leading with AI.

I've appreciated how you've approached this throughout your chairmanship.

I'm not going to be long because I know people want to hear for the witnesses.

I would just say that My understanding is that China is spending almost 10 times as much as the U.S.

As a percent of their military budget on AI, and we really need to think about the modern technologies that are going to be needed to have a most effective national security strategy.

So I'm particularly curious from the witnesses about how they think America can maintain and have the lead in AI technology going forward, what are the investments we need to make, and what are the standards we need to have to ensure that our AI is used most effectively.

Wang, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

Chairman Gallagher, Ranking Member Khanna, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Alexander Wang, and I'm the founder and CEO of Scale AI.

It is an honor to be here today to testify at the dawn of this new era of warfare.

1 that will be dominated by AI and what the United States must do to win.

In 2016, I founded Scale with a mission to accelerate the development of AI.

From our earliest days of working with the leading autonomous vehicle programs at General Motors and Toyota, technology companies such as Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI, and partnerships with the U.S.

Air Force, We've been at the forefront of AI development for more than 7 years.

The country that is able to most rapidly and effectively integrate new technology into war fighting wins.

If we don't win on AI, we risk ceding global influence, technological leadership, and democracy to strategic adversaries like China.

The national security mission is deeply personal for me.

I grew up in the shadow of the Los Alamos National Lab.

My parents were physicists and worked on the technology that defined the last era of warfare, the atomic bomb.

The Chinese Communist Party deeply understands the potential for AI to disrupt warfare and is investing heavily to capitalize on the opportunity.

I saw this firsthand 4 years ago when I went on an investor trip to China that was both enlightening and unsettling.

China was making rapid progress developing AI technologies like facial recognition and computer vision and using these for domestic surveillance and repression.

That same year, President Xi Jinping said, quote, we must ensure that our country marches in the front ranks where it comes to theoretical research in an important area of AI and occupy the high ground in critical and AI core technologies, end quote.

China's investing the full power of its industrial base for AI.

This year, they're on track to spend roughly 3 times the U.S.

The PLA is also heavily investing in AI-enabled autonomous drone swarms, adaptive radar systems, autonomous vehicles, and China's launched over 79 large language models since 2020.

To lead the world in the development of AI, we must lead the world in the amount of high quality data powering AI.

Scale is firmly committed to doing our part to support the US government and ensure America maintains its strategic advantage.

We annotate and prepare vast troves of data for the US government.

We partnered with DIU to develop a data engine that will support the Army's robotic combat vehicle program.

3, we developed Scale Donovan, our AI-powered decision-making platform that rapidly helps the US government make sense of real-world information.

The DoD has also taken a number of steps in the right direction, most notably with the launch of the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.

While this progress is promising, more must be done to achieve AI overmatch.

AI overmatch is our five-pillar plan to maintain the United States' security and technological edge in this new era.

It is critical to increase America's investment to maintain our leadership.

Despite record AI investment in the FY24 president's budget, the U.S.

Is still spending 3 times less than China.

AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on.

The DoD creates more than 22 terabytes of data daily, most of which is wasted.

AI warfare requires leading the world in developing AI-ready data.

Scale fully supports the CDIO and its legislative mandate to establish a centralized data repository which would enable the DoD to harness the power of data with AI.

It is 1 of the most important ways to ensure that AI models are accurate, reliable, and uphold the DoD's ethical AI principles.

The administration has embraced this concept by highlighting SCALE's role building an evaluation platform for frontier LLMs at DEF CON.

Congress should authorize and fund new programs with the mission of developing innovative AI-powered war fighting capabilities.

Since Project Maven was started more than 6 years ago, no new AI Pathfinder projects have begun.

The US should invest in rapidly training the DoD workforce for AI.

Scales already worked on this with the DoD to tackle this challenge head-on.

Louis, we established an AI center which has created more than 300 AI-focused jobs ranging from entry-level labelers to machine learning engineers with advanced degrees.

The race for global AI leadership is well underway and I cannot be more excited to do everything in my power to ensure that the U.S.

It is in moments like this that Congress, the DOD and the tech industry can either rise to the challenge together or stand idle.

I have included my further remarks in a written statement to be submitted for the record.

And thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.

Kitchen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Good morning, Chairman Gallagher, Ranking Member Khanna, and members of the committee.

Thank you for the privilege of testifying.

I'd like to use my opening statement to make 3 points.

First, I believe artificial intelligence and particularly emerging capabilities like generative AI are a national security lifeline for the United States.

The national security community has discussed the potential of AI for years, but now it seems these technologies are finally maturing to where they can be applied at scale, with few doubting that they will soon reshape almost every aspect of our lives, including how we fight and win wars.

The importance of AI is felt as acutely in Beijing as it is in Washington.

But until recently, I was not at all confident that the United States would hold the AI advantage.

If you assume this advantage comes down to algorithms, data, and hardware, just 1 year ago, I would have given the United States the advantage on algorithms, the Chinese the advantage on data, and I would have called hardware a jump ball.

Large language models and other generative AIs may be moving the competition back to the American advantage.

The US dominates the underlying computer science giving birth to these advancements, and we remain the home of choice for global talent.

On hardware, a strong bipartisan consensus is allowing us to meaningfully constrain China's access to cutting-edge capabilities like advanced graphics processing units, and even more can and should be done.

For example, limiting Chinese cloud services would be an excellent next step.

While the Chinese economy and people continue to generate a deluge of digitized data, And while the Chinese Communist Party continues to have unfettered access to these data, the promise of synthetic data and the fact that many of the new AI models are indexed on the open Internet may blunt the CCP's advantage.

It is my hope, for example, that the Chinese government's political fragility, strict content controls, and general oppression of its own people will compromise or bias much of the data that it collects, diluting its utility and ultimately limiting the development of Chinese AI.

At the very least, I think that the United States has an opportunity to surge ahead of Beijing if we are aggressive and deliberate.

Large language models and other generative technologies, if properly realized, could provide an economic base for a new era of American prosperity and security.

For years, we have known that the United States is not investing in its military sufficiently to meet the demands of the nation.

The truth of this has been laid bare as our defense industrial race struggles to keep up with the demand of the conflict in Ukraine, for example.

But according to 1 recent study, existing generative AI capabilities could add the equivalent of $2.6 trillion to $4.4 trillion annually to the global economy, and that this estimate would double if we include the impact of embedding generative AI into existing software that is currently used.

I believe AI is offering us an opportunity to get our economic house in order, to lay a foundation for our nation's long-term prosperity, and to build a national security enterprise that is properly resourced.

But finally, while AI offers all this promise and more, it also has serious national security risks.

Most acutely, a flood of misinformation and the exponential growth of conventional and novel cyber attacks.

By now we have all seen the photos, videos, and other media generative AIs are creating, and these capabilities have already been democratized.

Virtually anyone can create and distribute synthetic media that will undoubtedly be used to undermine American confidence in our democratic institutions.

Similarly, generative AIs will offer hostile cyber actors potent tools for generating and automating traditional and new online attacks.

In a world where we are already overwhelmed by online threats, generative AIs will soon pour gas on these fires.

There is much more that I could say on these matters, but I trust we'll cover them more fully on the course of this hearing.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.

Mahmoudian, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Chairman Gallagher, Ranking Member Khanna, and the members of the Cyber Information Technologies and Innovation Subcommittee.

Thank you for the opportunity today to testify before the subcommittee on the critical issues of machine learning and human warfare, artificial intelligence on the battlefield.

Haniyeh Mahmoudian, and I am a global AI ethicist at DataRobot.

In my personal capacity, I am an advisory member to the National AI Advisory Committee and Co-Chair AI Futures Working Group.

Today, I testify in my individual capacity.

AI holds immense potential and is increasingly becoming an essential component of modern military strategies and operations, with potential to profoundly impact operational efficiency and decision making.

realm of cyber security, AI can help military protect its network and systems against increasingly sophisticated cyber threats and also assist them in offensive cyber operations.

AI can also play a critical role in predicting and prevention of injuries among military personnel.

AI can efficiently track real-time fatigue and injuries, which can aid prevention of MSK and other bodily injuries, which, along its consequences, is a major reason for medical disability and consequent discharge from service.

Thus, it is imperative that the United States expedites the adoption of AI to sustain our strategic military leadership and advantage.

While these benefits are significant, it is crucial to ensure that the use of AI in the military context adheres to law and ethical guidelines.

In recent years, insufficient scrutiny of AI and evaluation of AI systems, coupled with a limited comprehension of AI's potential adverse effect, have led to numerous instances where AI, despite being developed with good intentions, ended up harming individuals and groups it was designed to help.

This suggests that consideration of AI ethics have often been relegated to secondary thought when it comes to building and deploying AI systems.

However, it is encouraging that the Department of Defense has taken initiatives to develop AI ethics principles that will apply to both combat and non-combat functions.

As former Secretary Esper has remarked, AI technology will change much about the battlefield of the future, but nothing will change America's steadfast commitment to responsible and lawful behavior.

Incorporation of responsible AI frameworks and fostering trust in AI systems requires consideration of people, process, and technology.

Investment in AI and AI ethics literacy for military personnel at all levels is a key step to ensuring responsible and appropriate use of AI.

To successfully adopt AI and have it at scale at the Department of Defense requires that the department implement AI governance frameworks and adopt risk management processes to manage and mitigate risks associated with AI.

1 of the challenges in adoption of AI in the government, especially in the Department of Defense, is a slow procurement process.

As mentioned earlier, AI is an evolving space.

Therefore, it is paramount for us to make sure that we have a faster procurement cycle, but ensuring that we also have proper evaluation of AI tools by using robust governance processes.

In conclusion, AI holds transformative potential.

However, along these benefits, it is vital to establish ethical frameworks and comprehensive governance processes that ensures effectiveness, reliability, and human oversight.

Thank you to all our witnesses for your thoughtful testimony.

Wang, I'd like to begin by asking you to respond a bit to some of what Mr.

Kitchens laid out in terms of our advantages and disadvantages relative to China in the AI race.

How do you see those advantages – relative advantages and disadvantages?

So, I certainly agree that America is the place of choice for the most talented AI scientists in the world.

So we certainly continue to have an advantage there And the evidence is clear.

If you look at CHAT-GPT, GPT-3, GPT-4, as well as the transformer model that underpins it, all of those were invented in the United States.

When it comes to data, I actually also agree that we have a potential very powerful advantage here, specifically when it pertains to military implementations.

So in America, we have the largest fleet of military hardware in the world.

This fleet generates 22 terabytes of data every day.

And so if we can properly set up and instrument this data that's being generated into pools of AI-ready data sets, then we can create a pretty insurmountable data advantage when it comes to military use of artificial intelligence.

Now, I think this is something that we need to work together and actually move towards as a country.

Today, most of this data goes unused or is wasted in some manner.

We need to fix that to create a longstanding and durable advantage in artificial intelligence data.

And when it comes to computational power, NVIDIA, which is the world's leader in chips for artificial intelligence, is an American company.

These technologies are innovated and built in America, and so again, there I think we have an advantage.

Why is it, at present, I know a lot of this is in your written testimony, that it is wasted?

What's preventing us from harnessing that data?

And I guess more broadly, what's preventing us, why have we not had new Pathfinder projects since Maven?

So data is something that is significantly more valuable with the advent of these artificial intelligence algorithms.

So a very simplistic way to look at AI is that you have these algorithms that analyze troves and troves of high quality data, identify patterns in those data, and then can emulate those patterns going forward.

So we see that with models like chat GPT which are able to read troves and troves of language data, things that humans have written over years and years, then it can emulate how a human might speak in a lot of these instances.

So these artificial intelligence algorithms have made data significantly more valuable than they have in the past.

And so it's a new paradigm that the DoD needs to adapt towards.

As we all know, the DoD is a fragmented organization.

There's many different constituencies and organizations that each have their own approach to data.

And like 1 of my witnesses mentioned, there's an education process and an upskilling process that needs to happen.

Everyone within the DoD needs to understand that data is actually the ammunition in an AI war.

And if we have that recognition as a entire department and as a country, I think it becomes very clear for us to take the right actions to actually collect all this data and move forward.

It sounds as though you're suggesting that with the right leadership and organization, DOD could actually be a leader in this space.

I wonder if it could also be a leader in terms of the guardrails that a lot of our constituents are asking us about, right?

I think most, your average American understands we need to win this competition, but is concerned about uncontrolled AI and everyone's seen Terminator, et cetera, et cetera.

What is your assessment of the DoD's ethical framework?

Is that potentially a foundation that could be built upon, expanded to ensure we're on the same page within the 5 Eyes Alliance, within the NATO Alliance, and then gradually bring more and more people into that sort of free world framework for AI?

I think it's really critical that the United States takes the lead on this topic, particularly as it pertains to ensuring that artificial intelligence is used in accordance with our values and our principles.

The DoD has established ethical AI principles, which I believe are great.

And those principles are ones that we should continue to adhere.

I think now it comes down to implementation.

How are we going to actually make sure that these principles are followed?

That's where I think a test and evaluation regime is incredibly important and critical to the increased deployment of these AI systems.

As the DoD looks to apply AI to every function within its operation, everywhere from warfighting to back office functions and logistics, we need to have proper test and evaluation mechanisms that ensure that every instance of artificial intelligence deployed follows our ethical AI principles.

So I think we need to set up the framework by which we can ensure all this deployment follows those principles and really lead the world in terms of thinking on how AI can be used in accordance with democratic principles.

the other witnesses that I'll have to save for a second round.

See if I can do in 5 minutes here 3 quick questions and quick answers, I hope.

Kitchen mentioned global talent, and we have an advantage.

But we also have immigration issues here that's hindering that talent.

Indeed, should we change some of the immigration barriers that exist to get that global talent here to the U.S., make sure we're not losing that talent to other countries?

So immigration policy is outside of my area of expertise, what I would say is that maintaining our access and continuing to be the preferred home of global talent will be essential for national security.

This question deals with the procurement issue that the doctor mentioned, if you could.

Can you give this committee as a follow-up some suggestions on procurement changes just within the area of AI?

Is that something that could be carved out?

Because this is an area of great significance and you mentioned that and I agree it's a major, major problem.

It's a problem generally but can we do something specifically with that that you could suggest to this committee?

So 1 area that we can think about and I have to emphasize that military is not my area of expertise But 1 area that I can bring from the business perspective, because on the business side we also go through procurement cycles through proof of value or proof of concept.

So 1 of the challenges that we also see over there is a long process of evaluation, which if we have standard procedure in place, it would – these type of processes, these type of evaluations, as long as they're standardized, it can go much faster.

Wang, you're familiar, though, on the military side.

I think there have been immense strides in building fast procurement methods for the Department of Defense.

Notably, the CDAO, the Chief Digital and AI Office, has set up a TradeWins program, which is 1 of the fastest procurement methods for new technologies, new and innovative technologies in the DoD.

DIU as an organization has also been actively partnering with many innovative tech companies in bringing their technologies into the DOD.

And so there are there are current programs that I think we can double down on.

These both of these instances I mentioned at the CDAO and at DIU are working and I think what we need to look towards in the next era of AI is doubling down on some of these fast procurement methods and ensure that we continue innovating.

Is that something that you could follow up with the committee and provide that kind of information on how it could be tailored or double down, as you said, more efficiently, something we could exchange with the military?

Wang, if it might be the proper person, but the others can comment in the 2 minutes I have left.

Wang mentioned that we have a data advantage in the U.S., but we're not capturing all that data.

But we, I think inherently in our democracy with privacy right protections, we are at a disadvantage in terms of how, you know, Chinese operate themselves.

And, you know, it can't just be broken down into information military and otherwise.

See all Unknown transcripts on Cspan

Hearing on the Use of AI in the Military and Combat