In a disturbing report, the U.S. Defense Science Board (DSB) is urging the Pentagon to take "immediate action" to defend against and defeat a multitude of military threats enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) systems being developed by strategic competitors such as China and Russia.
The DSB's "Autonomy" report also faulted the military for ignoring the vulnerabilities of its electronic equipment and defending against threats posed by enemy AI with its single-minded focus on developing offensive weaponry.
It also discovered that AI in commercial and academic settings is moving faster than the military's ability to counter it. There is, in effect, an "AI Arms Race" and DSB is concerned the U.S. might wind up with the short end of the stick.
The DSB is a committee of civilian experts appointed to advise the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) on scientific and technical matters. Established in 1956, DSB provides independent advice and recommendations on scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition process and other matters of special interest to the DoD.
"For years, it has been clear that certain countries could, and most likely would, develop the technology and expertise to use cyber and electronic warfare against U.S. forces," said the report.
"Yet most of the U.S. effort focused on developing offensive cyber capabilities without commensurate attention to hardening U.S. systems against attacks from others. Unfortunately, in both domains, that neglect has resulted in DoD spending large sums of money today to 'patch' systems against potential attacks."
That cycle could repeat itself in AI. The report recommended the undersecretary of defense for intelligence should "raise the priority of collection and analysis of foreign autonomous systems."
The report also recommended the Pentagon's office of acquisition technology and logistics should organize a community of researchers should practice combating enemy AI weapons by running tests and scenarios to discover "counter-autonomy technologies, surrogates, and solutions."
"Such a community would not only explore new uses for autonomy, counter-autonomy, and countering potential adversary autonomy, but also more realistically inform what the tactical advantages and vulnerabilities would be to both the U.S. and adversaries in adopting or adapting commercially available technology," said the study.