“The President does not need the concurrence of either his military advisors or the U.S. Congress to order the launch of nuclear weapons,” the Congressional Research Service reminded readers last month in an updated “defense primer” on “Command and Control of Nuclear Forces.”
The CRS defense primer series consists of two-page introductions to a variety of basic military and intelligence topics. The primers do not generally present information that is altogether new to specialists, but they are a convenient way to increase national security literacy among non-specialist members of Congress and the public.
Recently updated items in the series include the following.
Defense Primer: Commanding U.S. Military Operations, CRS In Focus, updated December 20, 2018
Defense Primer: Intelligence Support to Military Operations, CRS In Focus, updated December 20, 2018
Defense Primer: U.S. Defense Industrial Base, CRS In Focus, updated December 20, 2018
Defense Primer: Procurement, CRS In Focus, updated December 20, 2018
Defense Primer: Information Operations, CRS In Focus, updated December 18, 2018
Defense Primer: Cyberspace Operations, CRS In Focus, updated December 18, 2018
Defense Primer: President’s Constitutional Authority with Regard to the Armed Forces, CRS In Focus, updated December 17, 2018
*
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
The Special Counsel Investigation After the Attorney General’s Resignation, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 2, 2019
Government Expenditures on Defense Research and Development by the United States and Other OECD Countries: Fact Sheet, updated December 19, 2018
Executive Branch Ethics and Financial Conflicts of Interest: Disclosure, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 2, 2019
DHS’s Cybersecurity Mission–An Overview, CRS In Focus, updated December 19, 2018
New U.S. Policy Regarding Nuclear Exports to China, CRS In Focus, December 17, 2018
Congress’s Authority to Influence and Control Executive Branch Agencies, updated December 19, 2018
Commercial artificial intelligence tools have recently emerged that are able to produce police reports. If the resulting reports are inaccurate, incomplete or biased, or if the process leaks confidential information, this could undermine the criminal justice system and harm citizens.
Too often, affected patients, clinicians, and regulators cannot see how the system works, why a decision was made, or whether meaningful human oversight occurred.
Existing tools from other domains, such as existing robust public engagement processes in drug development, when applied to AI deployment can help strengthen public trust in these systems and enhance perceptions of their legitimacy and the decisions they produce.
With thoughtful policy action, it is still possible to build systems that are fair, transparent, and accountable, and to earn the public trust that will ultimately determine AI’s future. We hope policymakers are ready to act.