Page 1 of 31

Introduction
Early in the 118th Congress, we were brought together by a shared recognition of the profoundchanges artificial intelligence (AI) could bring to our world: AI’s capacity to revolutionize therealms of science, medicine, agriculture, and beyond; the exceptional benefits that aflourishing AI ecosystem could offer our economy and our productivity; and AI’s ability toradically alter human capacity and knowledge. At the same time, we each recognized thepotential risks AI could present, including altering our workforce in the short-term and longterm, raising questions about the application of existing laws in an AI-enabled world, changing
the dynamics of our national security, and raising the threat of potential doomsday scenarios.
This led to the formation of our Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group (“AI Working Group”).
From the outset, the AI Working Group’s objective has been to complement the traditional
congressional committee-driven policy process, considering that this broad technology does
not neatly fall into the jurisdiction of any single committee. We resolved to bring leading
experts into a unique dialogue with the Senate on some of the most profound policy questions
AI presents. In doing so, we aimed to help lay the foundation for a better understanding in the
Senate of the policy choices and implications around AI.
Our efforts began with three educational briefings on AI for senators in the summer of 2023,
culminating in the first ever all-senators classified briefing focused solely on AI. These sessions
made clear there is broad bipartisan interest in AI and emphasized the need for further policy
discussions, acknowledging the complexity of the subject and the importance of well-informed
deliberations. To address more specific policy domains, the AI Working Group then hosted
nine bipartisan AI Insight Forums in the fall of 2023.

The topics for these nine forums included:
1. Inaugural Forum
2. Supporting U.S. Innovation in AI
3. AI and the Workforce
4. High Impact Uses of AI
5. Elections and Democracy
6. Privacy and Liability
7. Transparency, Explainability, Intellectual Property, and Copyright
8. Safeguarding Against AI Risks
9. National Security

Page 2 of 31

The Insight Forums were designed to complement previous and ongoing committee hearingsand promote an unvarnished discussion between AI stakeholders that are too often siloed fromone another. As senators, we acted as moderators, aiming to foster an environment whereexperts could challenge each other's perspectives in a candid and productive manner. We
invited all of our Senate colleagues as well as relevant Senate staff to attend.
To ensure these forums could effectively identify consensus areas, we recognized from thestart that we would need a diverse range of experts capable of representing different
perspectives on, and uses of, AI. In each forum, our aim was to include representation from: Across the AI ecosystem, encompassing developers, deployers, and users of AI fromstartups to established companies;

 Providers of key components of the AI supply chain, both in hardware and software; and Academia and civil society, from AI researchers and think tanks to labor unions and civilrights leaders.
In total, more than 150 experts participated in the forums. We extend our gratitude to each ofthem for their valuable time, insights, and continued engagement. A comprehensive list of
attendees and links to their written statements are available in the appendix.
The AI Insight Forums propelled the AI Working Group to better understand the policy
landscape of AI and helped inform a policy roadmap—pinpointing emerging areas of consensus
within respective policy domains, as well as areas of disagreement, while also revealing where
further work and research is needed.

Page 3 of 31

The Road Ahead
To build on the many AI initiatives already undertaken and ongoing at the federal level, thefollowing AI policy roadmap identifies areas of consensus that we believe merit bipartisan
consideration in the Senate in the 118th Congress and beyond. To be certain, this is not an
exhaustive menu of policy proposals.
As members of the AI Working Group, we are steadfast in our dedication to harnessing the fullpotential of AI while minimizing the risks of AI in the near and long term. We hope thisroadmap will stimulate momentum for new and ongoing consideration of bipartisan AI
legislation, ensure the United States remains at the forefront of innovation in this technology,
and help all Americans benefit from the many opportunities created by AI.

A few final overarching thoughts from the AI Working
Group:
Given the cross-jurisdictional nature of AI policy issues, we encourage committees to continue
to collaborate closely and frequently on AI legislation as well as agree on shared clear
definitions for all key terms.
Committees should reflect on the synergies between AI and other emerging technologies toavoid creating tech silos where the impact of legislation and funding could otherwise becollectively amplified.
We hope committees will continue to seek outside input from a variety of stakeholders andexperts to inform the best path forward for this quickly advancing technology.
Finally, we encourage the executive branch to share with Congress, in a timely fashion and on
an ongoing basis, updates on administration activities related to AI, including any AI-related
Memorandums of Understanding with other countries and the results from any AI-related
studies in order to better inform the legislative process.

Page 4 of 31

Supporting U.S. Innovation in AI
The AI Working Group encourages the executive branch and the Senate Appropriations
Committee to continue assessing how to handle ongoing needs for federal investments in AI
during the regular order budget and appropriations process, with the goal of reaching as soon
as possible the spending level proposed by the National Security Commission on Artificial
Intelligence (NSCAI) in their final report: at least $32 billion per year for (non-defense) AI
innovation.
The AI Working Group also encourages the Senate Appropriations Committee to work with therelevant committees of jurisdiction to develop emergency appropriations language to fill thegap between current spending levels and the NSCAI-recommended level, including thefollowing priorities:

 Funding for a cross-government AI research and development (R&D) effort, including
relevant infrastructure that spans the Department of Energy (DOE), Department ofCommerce (DOC), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute for Standards
and Technology (NIST), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA), and all other relevant agencies and departments. Thisshould include an all-of-government “AI-ready data” initiative, and direction for research
priorities in responsible innovation, including but not limited to:▪ Fundamental and applied science, such as biotechnology, advanced computing,robotics, and materials science▪ Foundational trustworthy AI topics, such as transparency, explainability, privacy,
interoperability, and security

 Funding the outstanding CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167) accounts not yet fully
funded, particularly those related to AI, including but not limited to:▪ NSF Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships▪ DOC Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs (Tech Hubs)▪ DOE National Labs through the Advanced Scientific Computing Research Programin the DOE Office of Science▪ DOE Microelectronics Programs▪ NSF Education and Workforce Programs, including the Advanced Technical
Education (ATE) Program Funding, as needed, for the DOC, DOE, NSF, and Department of Defense (DOD) to
support semiconductor R&D specific to the design and manufacturing of future
generations of high-end AI chips, with the goals of ensuring increased American

Page 5 of 31

leadership in cutting-edge AI through the co-design of AI software and hardware, anddeveloping new techniques for semiconductor fabrication that can be implemented
domestically.

 Authorizing the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) by passing the CREATE AI Act (S.
2714) and funding it as part of the cross-government AI initiative, as well as expanding
programs such as the NAIRR and the National AI Research Institutes to ensure all 50
states are able to participate in the AI research ecosystem.

 Funding a series of “AI Grand Challenge” programs, such as those described in Section
202 of the Future of AI Innovation Act (S. 4178) and the AI Grand Challenges Act (S. 4236),
drawing inspiration from and leveraging the success of similar programs run by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), DOE, NSF, NIH, and others likethe private sector XPRIZE, with a focus on technical innovation challenges in applicationsof AI that would fundamentally transform the process of science, engineering, or
medicine, and in foundational topics in secure and efficient software and hardware
design.

 Funding for AI efforts at NIST, including AI testing and evaluation infrastructure and the
U.S. AI Safety Institute, and funding for NIST’s construction account to address years ofbacklog in maintaining NIST’s physical infrastructure.

 Funding for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to update its information
technology (IT) infrastructure and procure modern data analytics software; ensure it has
the necessary personnel and capabilities for prompt, effective action; and enhanceinteragency support for BIS’s monitoring efforts to ensure compliance with export control
regulations.

 Funding R&D activities, and developing appropriate policies, at the intersection of AI androbotics to advance national security, workplace safety, industrial efficiency, economic
productivity, and competitiveness, through a coordinated interagency initiative.

 Supporting a NIST and DOE testbed to identify, test, and synthesize new materials to
support advanced manufacturing through the use of AI, autonomous laboratories, and AI
integration with other emerging technologies, such as quantum computing and robotics.

 Providing local election assistance funding to support AI readiness and cybersecurity
through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Election Security grants.

 Providing funding and strategic direction to modernize the federal government andimprove delivery of government services, including through activities such as updating IT
infrastructure to utilize modern data science and AI technologies and deploying new

Page 6 of 31

technologies to find inefficiencies in the U.S. code, federal rules, and procurement
programs.

 Supporting R&D and interagency coordination around the intersection of AI and criticalinfrastructure, including for smart cities and intelligent transportation systemtechnologies.

The AI Working Group supports funding, commensurate with the requirements needed toaddress national security threats, risks, and opportunities, for AI activities related to defense inany emergency appropriations for AI. Priorities in this space include, but are not limited to: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) testbeds and model evaluation tools.
 Assessment and mitigation of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) AIenhanced threats by DOD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOE, and otherrelevant agencies.

 Support for further advancements in AI-augmented chemical and biological synthesis, aswell as safeguards to reduce the risk of dangerous synthetic materials and pathogens.

 Increased funding for DARPA’s AI-related work.
 Development of secure and trustworthy algorithms for autonomy in DOD platforms.
 Ensuring the development and deployment of Combined Joint All-Domain Command andControl (CJADC2) and similar capabilities by DOD.

 Development of AI tools for service members and commanders to learn from andimprove the operation of weapons platforms.

 Creation of pathways for data derived from sensors and other sources to be stored,transported, and used across programs, including Special Access Programs (SAPs), to
reduce silos between existing data sets and make DOD data more adaptable to machinelearning and other AI projects.

 Building up in-house supercomputing and AI capacity within DOD, including resources forboth new computational infrastructure and staff with relevant expertise insupercomputing and AI, along with appropriate training materials for preparing the next
generation of talent in these areas.

 As appropriate, utilization of the unique authorities in AUKUS Pillar 2 to work
collaboratively with our allies for co-development of integrated AI capabilities.

Page 7 of 31

 Development of AI-integrated tools to more efficiently implement Federal Acquisition
Regulations.

 Use of AI to optimize logistics across the DOD, such as improving workflows across thedefense industrial base and applying predictive maintenance to extend the lifetime of
weapons platforms.

Furthermore, the AI Working Group: Encourages the relevant committees to develop legislation to leverage public-private
partnerships across the federal government to support AI advancements and minimize
potential risks from AI.

 Recognizes the rapidly evolving state of AI development and supports further federal
study of AI, including through work with Federally Funded Research and Development
Centers (FFRDCs).

 Encourages the relevant committees to address the unique challenges faced by startups
to compete in the AI marketplace, including by considering whether legislation is needed
to support the dissemination of best practices to incentivize states and localities to invest
in similar opportunities as those provided by the NAIRR.

 Supports a report from the Comptroller General of the United States to identify any
significant federal statutes and regulations that affect the innovation of artificial
intelligence systems, including the ability of companies of all sizes to compete in artificial
intelligence.

The AI Working Group also encourages committees to: Work with the DOC and other relevant agencies to increase access to tools, such as mockdata sets, for AI companies to utilize for testing.

 Encourage DOC and other relevant agencies such as the Small Business Administration(SBA) to conduct outreach to small businesses to ensure the tools related to AI that theagencies provide meet their needs.

 Identify ways the SBA and its partners, including the Small Business Development
Centers, Small Business Investment Companies, and microlenders, can support all
entrepreneurs and small businesses in utilizing AI as well as innovating and providing
services and products related to the growth of AI.

Page 8 of 31

 Clarify that business software and cloud computing services are allowable expenses under
the SBA’s 7(a) loan program to help small businesses more affordably incorporate
technological solutions including AI (Small Business Technological Advancement Act (S.
2330)).

AI and the Workforce
During the Insight Forums there was wide agreement that workers across the spectrum,
ranging from blue collar positions to C-suite executives, are concerned about the potential for
AI to impact their jobs. The AI Working Group recognizes the apprehension surrounding theinherent uncertainties of this technology, and encourages a conscientious consideration of the
impact AI will have on the workforce – including the potential for displacement of workers – tomake certain that American workers are not left behind. Additionally, there are opportunities
to collaborate with and prepare the American workforce to work alongside this newtechnology and mitigate potential negative impacts.

Therefore, the AI Working Group encourages:
 Efforts to ensure that stakeholders – from innovators and employers to civil society,unions, and other workforce perspectives – are consulted as AI is developed and thendeployed by end users.

 The committees of jurisdiction to explore ways to ensure that relevant internal andexternal stakeholder voices, including federal employees, impacted members of the
public, and experts, are considered in the development and deployment of AI systems
procured or used by federal agencies.

 Development of legislation related to training, retraining, and upskilling the private sector
workforce to successfully participate in an AI-enabled economy. Such legislation might
include incentives for businesses to develop strategies that integrate new technologies
and reskilled employees into the workplace, and incentives for both blue- and white-collar
employees to obtain retraining from community colleges and universities.

 Exploration of the implications and possible solutions (including private sector bestpractices) to the impact of AI on long-term future of work as increasingly capable generalpurpose AI systems are developed that have the potential to displace human workers,
and to develop an appropriate policy framework in response, including ways to combat
disruptive workforce displacement.

Page 9 of 31 The relevant committees to consider legislation to improve the U.S. immigration system
for high-skilled STEM workers in support of national security and to foster advances in AI
across the whole of society.

The AI Working Group also recognizes:
 The promise of the federal government’s adoption of AI to improve government service
delivery and modernize internal governance as well as upskilling of existing federal
employees to maximize the beneficial use of AI.

 Opportunities to recruit and retain talent in AI through programs like the U.S. Digital
Service, the Presidential Innovation Fellows, the Presidential Management Fellows, andothers authorized in the Intergovernmental Personnel Act and other relevant legislation,and encourages the relevant committees to consider ways to leverage these programs.
The AI Working Group is encouraged by the Workforce Data for Analyzing and Tracking
Automation Act (S. 2138) to authorize the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), with the assistanceof the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, to record the effect ofautomation on the workforce and measure those trends over time, including job displacement,
the number of new jobs created, and the shifting in-demand skills. The bill would also establish
a workforce development advisory board composed of key stakeholders to advise the U.S.
Department of Labor on which types of public and private sector initiatives can promoteconsistent workforce development improvements.

Page 10 of 31

High Impact Uses of AI
The AI Working Group believes that existing laws, including related to consumer protection
and civil rights, need to consistently and effectively apply to AI systems and their developers,
deployers, and users. Some AI systems have been referred to as “black boxes” which may raisequestions about whether companies with such systems are appropriately abiding by existinglaws. Thus, in cases where U.S. law requires a clear understanding of how an automatedsystem operates, the opaque nature of some AI systems may be unacceptable. We encourage
the relevant committees to consider identifying any gaps in the application of existing law to
AI systems that fall under their committees’ jurisdiction and, as needed, develop legislative
language to address such gaps. This language should ensure that regulators are able to accessinformation directly relevant to enforcing existing law and, if necessary, place appropriate,
case-by-case requirements on high-risk uses of AI, such as requirements around transparency,
explainability, and testing and evaluation.
AI use cases should not directly or inadvertently infringe on constitutional rights, imperil public
safety, or violate existing antidiscrimination laws. The AI Working Group acknowledges thatsome have concerns about the potential for disparate impact, including the potential for
unintended harmful bias. Therefore, when any Senate committee is evaluating the impact ofAI or considering legislation in the AI space, the AI Working Group encourages committees to
explore how AI may affect some parts of our population differently, both positively andnegatively.

The AI Working Group: Encourages committees to review forthcoming guidance from relevant agencies that
relates to high impact AI use cases and to explore if and when an explainability
requirement may be necessary.

 Supports the development of standards for use of AI in our critical infrastructure andencourages the relevant committees to develop legislation to advance this effort.

 Encourages the Energy Information Administration to include data center andsupercomputing cluster energy use in their regular voluntary surveys.

 Supports Section 3 of S. 3050, directing a regulatory gap analysis in the financial sector,
and encourages the relevant committees to develop legislation that ensures financial
service providers are using accurate and representative data in their AI models, and that
financial regulators have the tools to enforce applicable law and/or regulation related tothese issues.

Page 11 of 31 Encourages the relevant committees to investigate the opportunities and risks of the useof AI systems in the housing sector, focusing on transparency and accountability while
recognizing the utility of existing laws and regulations.

 Believes the federal government must ensure appropriate testing and evaluation of AI
systems in the federal procurement process that meets the relevant standards, andsupports streamlining the federal procurement process for AI systems and other softwarethat have met those standards.

 Recognizes the AI-related concerns of professional content creators and publishers,
particularly given the importance of local news and that consolidation in the journalism
industry has resulted in fewer local news options in small towns and rural areas. The
relevant Senate committees may wish to examine the impacts of AI in this area anddevelop legislation to address areas of concern.

Furthermore, the AI Working Group encourages the relevant
committees to: Develop legislation to address online child sexual abuse material (CSAM), including
ensuring existing protections specifically cover AI-generated CSAM. The AI Working
Group also supports consideration of legislation to address similar issues with nonconsensual distribution of intimate images and other harmful deepfakes.

 Consider legislation to protect children from potential AI-powered harms online by
ensuring companies take reasonable steps to consider such risks in product design andoperation. Furthermore, the AI Working Group is concerned by data demonstrating themental health impact of social media and expresses support for further study and action
by the relevant agencies to understand and combat this issue.

 Explore mechanisms, including through the use of public-private partnerships, to deter
the use of AI to perpetrate fraud and deception, particularly for vulnerable populations
such as the elderly and veterans.

 Continue their work on developing a federal framework for testing and deployment ofautonomous vehicles across all modes of transportation to remain at the forefront of thiscritical space. This effort is particularly critical as our strategic competitors, like theChinese Communist Party (CCP), continue to race ahead and attempt to shape the visionof this technology.

 Consider legislation to ban the use of AI for social scoring, protecting our fundamental
freedom in contrast with the widespread use of such a system by the CCP.

Page 12 of 31

 Review whether other potential uses for AI should be either extremely limited or banned.
AI is being deployed across the full spectrum of health care services, including for thedevelopment of new medicines, for the improvement of disease detection and diagnosis, andas assistance for providers to better serve their patients. The AI Working Group encourages therelevant committees to: Consider legislation that both supports further deployment of AI in health care andimplements appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients, as patients
must be front and center in any legislative efforts on health care and AI. This includes
consumer protection, preventing fraud and abuse, and promoting the usage of accurate
and representative data.

 Support the NIH in the development and improvement of AI technologies. In particular,
data governance should be a key area of focus across the NIH and other relevant
agencies, with an emphasis on making health care and biomedical data available formachine learning and data science research, while carefully addressing the privacy issues
raised by the use of AI in this area.

 Ensure that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the Food andDrug Administration (FDA) and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology, has the proper tools to weigh the benefits and risks of AIenabled products so that it can provide a predictable regulatory structure for productdevelopers.

 Consider legislation that would provide transparency for providers and the public about
the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used totrain the AI models.

 Consider policies to promote innovation of AI systems that meaningfully improve healthoutcomes and efficiencies in health care delivery. This should include examining theCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as
guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all
populations.

Page 13 of 31

Elections and Democracy
The AI Working Group encourages the relevant committees and AI developers and deployers toadvance effective watermarking and digital content provenance as it relates to AI-generated or
AI-augmented election content. The AI Working Group encourages AI deployers and content
providers to implement robust protections in advance of the upcoming election to mitigate AIgenerated content that is objectively false, while still protecting First Amendment rights.
The AI Working Group acknowledges the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for its workon the AI Toolkit for Election Officials, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency(CISA) for its work on the Cybersecurity Toolkit and Resources to Protect Elections, andencourages states to consider utilizing the tools EAC and CISA have developed.

Privacy and Liability
The AI Working Group acknowledges that the rapid evolution of technology and the varying
degrees of autonomy in AI products present difficulties in assigning legal liability to AI companies
and their users. Therefore, the AI Working Group encourages the relevant committees to consider
whether there is a need for additional standards, or clarity around existing standards, to hold AI
developers and deployers accountable if their products or actions cause harm to consumers, or tohold end users accountable if their actions cause harm, as well as how to enforce any such liability
standards.
The AI Working Group encourages the relevant committees to explore policy mechanisms to
reduce the prevalence of non-public personal information being stored in, or used by, AI systems,
including providing appropriate incentives for research and development of privacy-enhancing
technologies.
The AI Working Group supports a strong comprehensive federal data privacy law to protect
personal information. The legislation should address issues related to data minimization, data
security, consumer data rights, consent and disclosure, and data brokers.

Page 14 of 31

Transparency, Explainability,
Intellectual Property, and Copyright
The AI Working Group encourages the relevant committeesto: Consider developing legislation to establish a coherent approach to public-facing
transparency requirements for AI systems, while allowing use case specific requirements
where necessary and beneficial, including best practices for when AI deployers should
disclose that their products use AI, building on the ongoing federal effort in this space. Ifdeveloped, the AI Working Group encourages the relevant committees to ensure theserequirements align with any potential risk regime and do not inhibit innovation.

 Evaluate whether there is a need for best practices for the level of automation that is
appropriate for a given type of task, considering the need to have a human in the loop at
certain stages for some high impact tasks.

 Review to what degree federal agencies are required to provide transparency to theiremployees about the development and deployment of new technology like AI in theworkplace.

 Consider federal policy issues related to the data sets used by AI developers to train theirmodels, including data sets that might contain sensitive personal data or are protected bycopyright, and evaluate whether there is a need for transparency requirements.

 Review forthcoming reports from the executive branch related to establishing provenance ofdigital content, for both synthetic and non-synthetic content.

 Consider developing legislation that incentivizes providers of software products using
generative AI and hardware products such as cameras and microphones to provide content
provenance information and to consider the need for legislation that requires or incentivizes
online platforms to maintain access to that content provenance information. The AI Working
Group also encourages online platforms to voluntarily display content provenanceinformation, when available, and to determine how to best display this provenanceinformation by default to end users.

 Consider whether there is a need for legislation that protects against the unauthorized use of
one’s name, image, likeness, and voice, consistent with First Amendment principles, as it
relates to AI. Legislation in this area should consider the impacts of novel synthetic content

Page 15 of 31

on professional content creators of digital media, victims of non-consensual distribution of
intimate images, victims of fraud, and other individuals or entities that are negatively
affected by the widespread availability of synthetic content.

 Review the results of existing and forthcoming reports from the U.S. Copyright Office andthe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on how AI impacts copyright and intellectual property
law, and take action as deemed appropriate to ensure the U.S. continues to lead the worldon this front.

 Consider legislation aimed at establishing a public awareness and education campaign toprovide information regarding the benefits of, risks relating to, and prevalence of AI in thedaily lives of individuals in the United States. The campaign, similar to digital literacy
campaigns, should include guidance on how Americans can learn to use and recognize AI.

Safeguarding Against AI Risks
In light of the insights provided by experts at the forums on a variety of risks that different AI
systems may present, the AI Working Group encourages companies to perform detailed testingand evaluation to understand the landscape of potential harms and not to release AI systems thatcannot meet industry standards. Multiple potential risk regimes were proposed – from focusing
on technical specifications such as the amount of computation or number of model parameters toclassification by use case – and the AI Working Group encourages the relevant committees toconsider a resilient risk regime that focuses on the capabilities of AI systems, protects proprietary
information, and allows for continued AI innovation in the U.S. The risk regime should tie
governance efforts to the latest available research on AI capabilities and allow for regular updates
in response to changes in the AI landscape.

The AI Working Group also encourages the relevant
committees to: Support efforts related to the development of a capabilities-focused risk-based approach,particularly the development and standardization of risk testing and evaluation
methodologies and mechanisms, including red-teaming, sandboxes and testbeds,
commercial AI auditing standards, bug bounty programs, as well as physical and cybersecurity standards. The AI Working Group encourages committees to consider ways tosupport these types of efforts, including through the federal procurement system.

 Investigate the policy implications of different product release choices for AI systems,
particularly to understand the differences between closed versus fully open-source models

Page 16 of 31

(including the full spectrum of product release choices between those two ends of thespectrum).

 Develop an analytical framework that specifies what circumstances would warrant arequirement of pre-deployment evaluation of AI models.

 Explore whether there is a need for an AI-focused Information Sharing and Analysis Center(ISAC) to serve as an interface between commercial AI entities and the federal government
to support monitoring of AI risks.

 Consider a capabilities-based AI risk regime that takes into consideration short-,
medium-, and long-term risks, with the recognition that model capabilities and testing andevaluation capabilities will change and grow over time. As our understanding of AI risks
further develops, we may discover better risk-management regimes or mechanisms. Where
testing and evaluation are insufficient to directly measure capabilities, the AI Working Groupencourages the relevant committees to explore proxy metrics that may be used in theinterim.

 Develop legislation aimed at advancing R&D efforts that address the risks posed by various
AI system capabilities, including by equipping AI developers, deployers, and users with theknowledge and tools necessary to identify, assess, and effectively manage those risks.

Page 17 of 31

National Security
The AI Working Group will collaborate with committees and relevant executive branch agencies
to stay informed about the research areas and capabilities of U.S. adversaries.
The AI Working Group encourages the relevant committees to develop legislation bolstering theuse of AI in U.S. cyber capabilities.
Managing talent in the realm of advanced technologies presents significant challenges for the
DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC). In collaboration with the relevant committees, the AI
Working Group: Encourages the DOD and IC to further develop career pathways and training programs for
digital engineering, specifically in AI, as outlined in Section 230 of the FY2020 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

 Supports the allocation of suitable resources and oversight to maintain a strong digital
workforce within the armed services.

 Urges the relevant committees to maintain their efforts in overseeing the executive branch’s
efficient handling of security clearance applications, particularly emphasizing swift
processing for AI talent, to prevent any backlogs or procedural delays.

 Encourages the relevant committees to develop legislation to improve lateral and seniorplacement opportunities and other mechanisms to improve and expand the AI talent
pathway into the military.
The AI Working Group recognizes the DOD’s transparency regarding its policy on fullyautonomous lethal weapon systems. The AI Working Group encourages relevant committees toassess whether aspects of the DOD’s policy should be codified or if other measures, such as
notifications concerning the development and deployment of such weapon systems, arenecessary.
The AI Working Group encourages the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, DOD, andDOE to work with commercial AI developers to prevent large language models, and other frontier
AI models, from inadvertently leaking or reconstructing sensitive or classified information.
The AI Working Group acknowledges the ongoing work of the IC to monitor emerging technology
and AI developed by adversaries, including artificial general intelligence (AGI), and encourages
the relevant committees to consider legislation to bolster this effort and make sure this long-termmonitoring continues.

Page 18 of 31

The AI Working Group: Recognizes the significant level of uncertainty and unknowns associated with general
purpose AI systems achieving AGI. At the same time, the AI Working Group recognizes that
there is not widespread agreement on the definition of AGI or threshold by which it will
officially be achieved. Therefore, we encourage the relevant committees to better define
AGI in consultation with experts, characterize both the likelihood of AGI development andthe magnitude of the risks that AGI development would pose, and develop an appropriate
policy framework based on that analysis.

 Encourages the relevant committees to explore potential opportunities for leveraging
advanced AI models to improve the management and risk mitigation of spacedebris. Acknowledging the substantial efforts by NASA and other interagency partners inaddressing space debris, the AI Working Group recognizes the increasing threat space debris
poses to space systems. Consequently, the AI Working Group encourages the committees towork with agencies involved in space affairs to discover new capabilities that can enhancethese critical mitigation efforts.

 Encourages the relevant committees, in collaboration with the private sector, to continue toaddress, and mitigate where possible, the rising energy demand of AI systems to ensure theU.S. can remain competitive with the CCP and keep energy costs down.
The AI Working Group recognizes the importance of advancements in AI to other fields ofscientific discovery such as biotechnology. AI has the potential to increase the risk posed bybioweapons and is directly relevant to federal efforts to defend against CBRN threats. Therefore,
the AI Working Group encourages the relevant committees to consider the recommendations of
the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology and the NSCAI in this domain,
including as they relate to preventing adversaries from procuring necessary capabilities infurtherance of an AI-enhanced bioweapon program.
The Secretary of Commerce, through BIS, holds broad and exclusive authority over export
controls for critical technologies such as semiconductors, biotechnology, quantum computing,and more, covering both hardware and software. The AI Working Group encourages the relevant
committees to ensure BIS proactively manages these technologies and to investigate whether
there is a need for new authorities to address the unique and quickly burgeoning capabilities of AI,
including the feasibility of options to implement on-chip security mechanisms for high-end AI
chips.

Page 19 of 31

Additionally, the AI Working Group encourages the relevant
committees to: Develop a framework for determining when, or if, export controls should be placed on
powerful AI systems.

 Develop a framework for determining when an AI system, if acquired by an adversary, would
be powerful enough that it would pose such a grave risk to national security that it should beconsidered classified, using approaches such as how DOE treats Restricted Data.

Furthermore, AI Working Group encourages the relevant
committees to: Ensure the relevant federal agencies have the appropriate authorities to work with our allies
and international partners to advance bilateral and multilateral agreements on AI.

 Develop legislation to set up or participate in international AI research institutes or otherpartnerships with like-minded international allies and partners, giving due consideration to
the potential threats to research security and intellectual property.

 Develop legislation to expand the use of modern data analytics and supply chain platforms
by the Department of Justice, DHS, and other relevant law enforcement agencies to combat
the flow of illicit drugs, including fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.

 Work with the executive branch to support the free flow of information across borders,protect against the forced transfer of American technology, and promote open markets for
digital goods exported by American creators and businesses through agreements that also
allow countries to address concerns regarding security, privacy, surveillance, andcompetition. As Russia and China push their cyber agenda of censorship, repression, andsurveillance, the AI Working Group encourages the executive branch to avoid creating a
policy vacuum that China and Russia will fill, to ensure the digital economy remains open,
fair, and competitive for all, including for the three million American workers whose jobs
depend on digital trade.

Page 20 of 31

Page 21 of 31

Appendix
Insight Forum Participants

September 13, 2023
I N A U G UR A L F O R U M
1. Alex Karp – Co-Founder & CEO, Palantir
2. Arvind Krishna – CEO, IBM
3. Aza Raskin – Co-Founder, Center for Humane Technology
4. Bill Gates – Former CEO, Microsoft
5. Brad Smith – President, Microsoft
6. Charles Rivkin – Chairman & CEO, Motion Picture Association
7. Clément Delangue – CEO & Co-Founder, Hugging Face
8. Deborah Raji – Researcher, U.C. Berkeley, and Fellow, Mozilla
9. Elizabeth Shuler – President, AFL-CIO
10. Elon Musk – CEO, X, Tesla
11. Eric Fanning – President & CEO, Aerospace Industries Association
12. Eric Schmidt – Chair, Special Competitive Studies Project
13. Jack Clark – Co-Founder, Anthropic AI
14. Janet Murguía – President & CEO, UnidosUS
15. Jensen Huang – CEO and Founder, NVIDIA
16. Karyn Temple – Senior Executive Vice President, Motion Picture Association
17. Kent Walker – President of Global Affairs, Alphabet Inc., Google
18. Laura MacCleery – Senior Director of Public Policy, UnidosUS
19. Mark Zuckerberg – Co-Founder & CEO, Meta
20. Maya Wiley – President & CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil & Human Rights
21. Meredith Stiehm – President, Writers Guild
22. Nick Clegg – Vice President of Global Affairs, Meta
23. Patrik Gayer – Global AI Policy Advisor, Tesla
24. Randi Weingarten – President, American Federation of Teachers
25. Rumman Chowdhury – CEO, Humane Intelligence
26. Sam Altman – CEO, OpenAI
27. Satya Nadella – CEO & Chairman, Microsoft
28. Shyam Sankar – Executive Vice President & CTO, Palantir
29. Sundar Pichai – CEO, Alphabet Inc., Google
30. Tristan Harris – Co-Founder & Executive Director, Center for Humane Technology
31. Ylli Bajraktari – CEO, Special Competitive Studies Project

Page 22 of 31

October 24, 2023
S U P P O R T I N G U . S . I N N O V A T I O N I N AI
1. Aidan Gomez – CEO, Cohere
2. Alexandra Reeve Givens – President & CEO, Center for Democracy and Technology
3. Alondra Nelson – Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study and Center for American Progress
4. Amanda Ballantyne – Director, AFL-CIO Technology Institute
5. Austin Carson – Founder & President, SeedAI
6. Derrick Johnson – President & CEO, NAACP
7. Evan Smith – Co-Founder & CEO, Altana Technologies
8. Jodi Forlizzi – Herbert A. Simon Professor in Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
9. John Doerr – Engineer & Venture Capitalist, Kleiner Perkins
10. Kofi Nyarko – Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Morgan State
University
11. Manish Bhatia – Executive Vice President of Global Operations, Micron
12. Marc Andreessen – Co-Founder & General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
13. Max Tegmark – President, Future of Life Institute
14. Patrick Collison – Co-Founder & CEO, Stripe
15. Rafael Reif – Former President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
16. Sean McClain – Founder & Former CEO, AbSci
17. Stella Biderman –Executive Director, EleutherAI
18. Steve Case – Chairman & CEO, Revolution
19. Suresh Venkatasubramanian – Professor of Computer Science and Data Science, Brown University
20. Tyler Cowen – Holbert L. Harris Chair of Economics, George Mason University
21. Ylli Bajraktari – CEO, Special Competitive Studies Project

Page 23 of 31

November 1, 2023
A I A N D T HE W O R K F O R C E
1.
2.
3.
4.

Allyson Knox – Director of Education Policy and Programs, Microsoft
Anton Korinek – Professor of Economics, University of Virginia
Arnab Chakraborty – Senior Managing Director, Accenture
Austin Keyser – International President for Government Affairs, International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers
5. Bonnie Castillo – Executive Director, National Nurses United
6. Chris Hyams – CEO, Indeed
7. Claude Cummings – President, Communications Workers of America
8. Daron Acemoglu – Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
9. José-Marie Griffiths – President, Dakota State University
10. Michael Fraccaro – CPO, Mastercard
11. Michael R. Strain – Director of Economic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
12. Patrick Gaspard – President and CEO, Center for American Progress
13. Paul Schwalb – Executive Secretary-Treasurer, UNITE HERE
14. Rachel Lyons – Legislative Director, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
15. Robert D. Atkinson – President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

H I G H I M P A C T U S E S O F AI
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Alvin Velazquez – Associate General Counsel, Service Employees International Union
Arvind Narayanan – Associate Professor of Computer Science, Princeton University
Cathy O’Neil – CEO, ORCAA
Dave Girouard – Founder & CEO, Upstart
Dominique Harrison – Senior Fellow, Center for Technology Innovation, Brookings Institution
Hoan Ton-That – Co-Founder & CEO, Clearview AI
Jason Oxman – President & CEO, Information Technology Industry Council
Julia Stoyanovich – Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, NewYork University
9. Lisa Rice – President & CEO, National Fair Housing Alliance
10. Margaret Mitchell – Chief Ethics Scientist, Hugging Face
11. Prem Natarajan – Chief Scientist, Capital One
12. Reggie Townsend – Vice President of Data Ethics, SAS
13. Seth Hain – Vice President of R&D, Epic
14. Surya Mattu – Co-Founder & Lead, Digital Witness Lab at Princeton University
15. Tulsee Doshi – Head of Product, Responsible AI, Google
16. Yvette Badu-Nimako – Vice President of Policy, Urban League

Page 24 of 31

November 8, 2023
E L E C T I O N S A N D D E M O CR A C Y
1. Alex Stamos – Former Director, Stanford Internet Observatory
2. Amy Cohen – Executive Director, National Association of State Election Directors
3. Andy Parsons – Senior Director of the Content Authenticity Initiative, Adobe Inc.
4. Ari Cohn – Free Speech Counsel, TechFreedom
5. Ben Ginsberg – Volker Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution
6. Damon Hewitt – President and Executive Director, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
7. Dave Vorhaus – Director for Global Election Integrity, Google
8. Deidre Henderson – Lieutenant Governor, State of Utah
9. Jennifer Huddleston – Technology Policy Research Fellow, Cato Institute
10. Jessica Brandt – Former Policy Director for AI and Emerging Technology, Brookings Institution
11. Jocelyn Benson – Secretary of State, State of Michigan
12. Kara Frederick – Director of Tech Policy Center, The Heritage Foundation
13. Lawrence Norden – Senior Director of Elections & Government, Brennan Center for Justice at New
York University
14. Matt Masterson – Director of Information Integrity, Microsoft
15. Melanie Campbell – President and CEO, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
16. Michael Chertoff – Co-Founder and Executive Chairman, Chertoff Group
17. Neil Potts – Public Policy Director, Facebook
18. Yael Eisenstat – Former Vice-President, Anti-Defamation League

P R I V A C Y A N D LI A B I L I TY
1. Arthur Evans Jr. – CEO and Executive Vice President, American Psychological Association
2. Bernard Kim – CEO, Match Group
3. Chris Lewis – President and CEO, Public Knowledge
4. Daniel Castro – Director and Vice President, Center for Data Innovation
5. Ganesh Sitaraman – Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt Law School
6. Gary Shapiro – CEO, Consumer Technology Association
7. Mackenzie Arnold – Head of Strategy, Legal Priorities Project
8. Mark Surman – Executive Director, Mozilla
9. Mutale Nkonde – CEO, AI For the People
10. Rashad Robinson – President, Color of Change
11. Samir Jain – Vice President of Policy, Center for Democracy and Technology
12. Sean Domnick – President, American Association for Justice
13. Stuart Appelbaum – President, Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union
14. Stuart Ingis – Chairman, Venable
15. Tracy Pizzo Frey – President, Common Sense Media
16. Zachary Lipton – Chief Scientific Officer, Abridge

Page 25 of 31

November 29, 2023
T R A N S P AR E N CY , E X P L A I N A B I L I T Y , I N T E L L E C T U A L
P R O P ER T Y , A N D CO P Y R I G H T
1. Ali Farhadi – CEO, Allen Institute for AI
2. Andrew Trask – Leader, OpenMined
3. Ben Brooks – Head of Public Policy, Stability AI
4. Ben Sheffner – Senior Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Motion Picture Association
5. Curtis LeGeyt – President & CEO, National Association of Broadcasters
6. Cynthia Rudin – Earl D. McLean, Jr. Professor of Computer Science, Duke University
7. Danielle Coffey – President & CEO, News Media Alliance
8. Dennis Kooker – President of Global Digital Business & US Sales, Sony Music Entertainment
9. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland – National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, SAG-AFTRA
10. Jon Schleuss – President, NewsGuild
11. Mike Capps – Founder & Board Chair, Howso
12. Mounir Ibrahim – Vice President of Public Affairs and Impact, Truepic
13. Navrina Singh – Founder & CEO, Credo AI
14. Nicol Turner Lee – Senior Fellow for Governance Studies & Director of the Center for Technology
Innovation, Brookings
15. Rick Beato – Producer & Owner, Black Dog Sound Studios
16. Riley McCormack – President, CEO & Director, DigiMarc
17. Vanessa Holtgrewe – Assistant Department Director of Motion Picture and Television Production,
IATSE
18. Zach Graves – Executive Director, Foundation for American Innovation
19. Ziad Sultan – Vice President of Personalization, Spotify

December 6, 2023
S A F E G U A R D I N G A GA I N S T A I R I SK S
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Aleksander Madry – Head of Preparedness, OpenAI
Alexander Titus – Principal Scientist, USC Information Science InstituteAmanda Ballantyne – Director, AFL-CIO Technology Institute
Andrew Ng – Managing General Partner, AI Fund
Hodan Omaar – Senior Policy Analyst, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Huey-Meei Chang – Senior China Science & Technology Specialist, Georgetown’s Center for Security
and Emerging Technology
7. Janet Haven – Executive Director, Data & Society
8. Jared Kaplan – Co-Founder, Anthropic
9. Malo Bourgon – CEO, Machine Intelligence Research Institute
10. Martin Casado – General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
11. Okezue Bell – President, Fidutam
12. Renée Cummings – Assistant Professor of the Practice in Data Science, University of Virginia
Page 26 of 31

13. Robert Playter – CEO, Boston Dynamics
14. Rocco Casagrande – Executive Chairman, Gryphon Scientific
15. Stuart Russell – Professor, U.C. Berkeley
16. Vijay Balasubramaniyan – CEO & Co-Founder, Pindrop
17. Yoshua Bengio – Professor, University of Montreal

N A T I O N A L S E C UR I T Y
1. Alex Karp – CEO, Palantir
2. Alex Wang – CEO & Founder, Scale AI
3. Anna Puglisi – Senior Fellow, Georgetown University Center for Security and Emerging Technology
4. Bill Chappell – Vice President and CTO, Strategic Missions and Technologies, Microsoft
5. Brandon Tseng – President & Co-Founder, Shield AI
6. Brian Schimpf – CEO, Anduril
7. Charlie McMillan – Former Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
8. Devaki Raj – Co-Founder, CrowdAI
9. Eric Fanning – President & CEO, Aerospace Industries Association
10. Eric Schmidt – Chair, Special Competitive Studies Project
11. Faiza Patel – Senior Director of the Liberty and National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice
12. Greg Allen – Director of Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies, Center for Strategic andInternational Studies
13. Horacio Rozanski – CEO, Booz Allen Hamilton
14. Jack Shanahan – Lieutenant General (USAF, Ret.), CNAS Technology & National Security Program
15. John Antal – Author, Colonel (ret.)
16. Matthew Biggs – President, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers
17. Michele Flournoy – CEO & Co-Founder, Center for a New American Security
18. Patrick Toomey – Deputy Director of the National Security Project, American Civil Liberties Union
19. Rob Portman – Former Senator & Co-Founder of AI Caucus
20. Scott Philips – CTO, Vannevar Labs
21. Teresa Carlson – President and CCO, Flexport

Page 27 of 31

Summaries of the AI Insight Forums
Inaugural Forum (1st Forum)
The first forum gathered leading voices across multiple sectors, including AI industry executives,
researchers, and civil rights and labor leaders, to discuss the significant implications of AI on the
United States and the world. We discussed the many ways AI will impact critical areas such as theworkforce, national security, elections, and healthcare, setting the stage for the detailed
conversations that followed in the subsequent forums. All of the attendees agreed that there was animportant role for government to play in fostering AI innovation while establishing appropriate
guardrails.

Supporting U.S. Innovation in AI (2nd Forum)
The second forum focused on the need to strengthen AI innovation. Participants noted the need forrobust, sustained federal investment in AI research and development funding. All of the attendees
agreed that the federal government should invest in AI research and development at least at thelevels recommended by the National Security Commission on AI ($8 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024,$16 billion in FY 2025, and $32 billion in FY 2026 and subsequent fiscal years). In addition to federal
investment, participants highlighted the need to ensure the benefits of AI innovation reachunderserved communities and communities not traditionally associated with the tech industry.
Suggestions included boosting digital infrastructure; encouraging immigration of high-skilled science,technology, engineering, and math (STEM) talent; engaging workers in the research, development,
and design processes; continuing to collect additional data; and avoiding regulatory roadblocks that
could inadvertently compromise market competition.

AI and the Workforce (3rd Forum)
The third forum considered both the applications of, and risks from, AI to the workforce. Participants
recognized that while AI has the potential to affect every sector of the workforce – including both blue
collar and white-collar jobs – there is uncertainty in predicting the speed and scale of adoption of AI
across different industries and the extent of AI’s impact on the workforce. Despite that uncertainty,
many participants emphasized the need for employers to start training their employees to use thistechnology. Some participants noted that, to maximize the benefits of AI in the workforce, workers
should be consulted when deploying this technology in the workplace. Some participants noted that
AI can help workers become more efficient, requiring industries to prepare and train employees withskills to use the technology.

Page 28 of 31

High Impact Uses of AI (4th Forum)
The fourth forum examined specific high impact areas where AI might be used, including financial
services, health care, housing, immigration, education, and criminal justice, among others. A numberof participants testified that the effects of AI in these areas are not hypothetical, but are happening
now, emphasizing the need to ensure AI developers and deployers are following existing laws and to
consider where there might be gaps. Some participants noted that training AI systems on biased input
data could lead to harmful biased outputs and suggested that high impact AI systems should betested before they are deployed to detect potential civil rights and public safety impacts of thosesystems. Participants agreed that the use of AI in high impact areas presents both opportunities andchallenges and that policymakers should protect and support U.S. innovation. They also emphasizedthat transparency and engagement from diverse stakeholders must be prioritized when deploying AI
in these high impact areas.

Elections and Democracy (5th Forum)
The fifth forum analyzed the impact of AI on elections and democracy. Participants agreed that AI
could have a significant impact on our democratic institutions. Participants shared examples
demonstrating how AI can be used to influence the electorate, including through deepfakes andchatbots, by amplifying disinformation and eroding trust. Participants also noted how AI could
improve trust in government if used to improve government services, responsiveness, andaccessibility. Participants proposed a number of solutions that could be employed to mitigate harms
and maximize benefits, including watermarking AI-generated or AI-augmented content, voter
education about content provenance, and the use of other AI applications to bolster the election
administration process. Some participants indicated state and local elections with less media
attention might be the biggest potential targets of AI disinformation campaigns, as well as thebiggest benefactors from proper safeguards.

Privacy and Liability (6th Forum)
The sixth forum explored how to maximize the benefits of AI while protecting Americans’ privacy andthe issue of liability as it related to the deployment and use of AI systems. Participants shared
examples of how AI and data are inextricably linked, from relying on vast amounts of data to train AI
algorithms to the use of AI in social media and advertising. Some participants noted that a national
standard for data privacy protections would provide legal certainty for AI developers and protection
for consumers. Participants observed that the “black box” nature of some AI algorithms, and thelayered developer-deployer structure of many AI products, along with the lack of legal clarity, mightmake it difficult to assign liability for any harms. There was also agreement that the intersection of AI,
privacy, and our social world is an area that deserves more study.

Page 29 of 31

Transparency, Explainability, Intellectual Property, andCopyright (7th Forum)
The seventh forum focused on four critical components in the development and deployment of AI:
transparency, explainability, intellectual property (IP), and copyright. Many participants noted thattransparency during the development, training, and deployment, and regulation of AI systems would
enable effective oversight and helps to mitigate potential harms. The use of watermarking andcontent provenance technologies to distinguish content with and without AI manipulation werediscussed at length. Participants also discussed the importance of explainability in AI systems andtheir view that users should be able to understand the outputs of why AI systems and how those
outputs are reached in order to use those outputs reliably. Some participants noted that there is a role
for the federal government to play in protecting American companies’ and individuals’ IP while
supporting innovation. Participants shared stories about creators struggling to maintain theiridentities and brands in the age of AI as unauthorized digital replicas become more prevalent.
Participants agreed that the United States will play a key role in charting an appropriate course on theapplication of copyright law to AI.

Safeguarding Against AI Risks (8th Forum)
The eighth forum examined the potential long-term risks of AI and how best to encourage
development of AI systems that align with democratic values and prevent doomsday scenarios.
Participants varied substantially in their level of concern about catastrophic and existential risks of AI
systems, with some participants very optimistic about the future of AI and other participants quite
concerned about the possibilities for AI systems to cause severe harm. Participants also agreed there
is a need for additional research, including standard baselines for risk assessment, to better
contextualize the potential risks of highly capable AI systems. Several participants raised the need tocontinue focusing on the existing and short-term harms of AI and highlighted how focusing on shortterm issues will provide better standing and infrastructure to address long-term issues. Overall, theparticipants mostly agreed that more research and collaboration are necessary to manage risk andmaximize opportunities.

National Security (9th Forum)
The ninth forum focused on the crucial area of national security. Participants agreed that it is critical
for the U.S. to remain ahead of adversaries when it comes to AI. To maintain a competitive edge,
participants agreed that it would require robust investments from the U.S. in AI research,development, and deployment. From gaining intelligence insights to supercharging cyber capabilities
and maximizing the efficiency of drones and fighter jets, participants highlighted how the U.S. canfoster innovation in AI within our defense industrial base. Participants raised awareness aboutcountries like China that are heavily investing in commercial AI and aggressively pursuing advances in
AI capacity and resources. In order to ensure that our adversaries don’t write the rules of the road for
AI, participants reinforced the need to ensure the DOD has sufficient access to AI capabilities andtakes full advantage of its potential.

Page 30 of 31

Page 31 of 31