Cloud Hosting

In March, thousands of tech leadersElon Musk among themsigned an open letter asking artificial intelligence (AI) labs to stop developing next-generation training systems for at least six months. There is precedent for such temporary pauses in other fields of research: In 2019, for example, scientists successfully called for a moratorium on any human gene editing that would pass along heritable DNA to genetically modified children.

While a pause in the field of AI is unlikely to happen, at least it means the United States is finally starting to realize the importance of regulating AI systems.

The reasons that a pause in AI wont happen are multifoldand are about more than just the research itself. Critics of the proposed pause argue that regulating or restricting AI would help China pull ahead in AI development, causing the United States to lose its military and economic edge. To be sure, the United States must keep its citizens secure. But failing to regulate AI or to coordinate with China in cases where that is in the United States interest would endanger US citizens.

History shows us that this worry is more than just theoretical. As a presidential candidate, John F. Kennedy invented the missile gap narrative to make President Dwight D. Eisenhower seem weak on defense, claiming that the Soviet Union was overtaking the United States in nuclear missile deployment. Kennedys rhetoric may have helped him politically but also hindered cooperation with the Soviet leadership. Historically, arms races are often driven more by domestic economics and politics than by rational responses to external threats.

China, which is actually regulating AI much more tightly than the United States or even the European Union and is likely to be hamstrung by US semiconductor export controls in the coming years, is far behind the United States in AI development. Much like the Cold War nuclear arms race, todays US-China AI competition is heavily influenced by domestic forces such as private interest groups, bureaucratic infighting, electoral politics, and public opinion. By better understanding these domestic forces, policy makers in the United States can minimize the risks faced by the United States, China, and the world.

Private interests. In the US-China AI competition, companies developing AI systems and promoting their own interests might lobby against domestic or international AI regulation. There is historical precedent for this. In 2001, the United States rejected a Protocol to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, in part because of pressure from the US chemical and pharmaceutical industries, which wanted to limit inspections of their facilities.

US AI companies appear to be aware of the risks of using their products. OpenAIs stated mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. DeepMinds operating principles include commitment to act as responsible pioneers in the field of AI. DeepMinds founders have pledged not to work on lethal AI, and Googles AI Principles state that Google will not deploy or design AI for weapons intended to injure humans, or for surveillance that violates international norms.

However, there are already worrisome signs that commercial competition may undermine these commitments. Google, fearing that OpenAIs ChatGPT could replace its search engine, told employees it would recalibrate the amount of risk it is prepared to accept when deploying new AI systems. While not strictly relevant to international agreements, this move suggests that tech companies are willing to compromise on AI safety in response to commercial incentives.

Another potentially concerning development is the creation of links between AI startups and big tech companies. OpenAI partnered with Microsoft in January, and Google acquired DeepMind in 2014. Acquisition and partnership may limit the ability of AI startups to act in ways that lower risk. DeepMind and Google, for example, have clashed over the governance of DeepMind projects since their merger.

Lobbying may also raise risks. The big tech companies are experienced lobbyists: Amazon spent $21.4 million on lobbying in 2022, making it the 6th largest spender; Meta (the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) came in 10th with $19.2 million; and Alphabet (parent company of Google) was 19th with $13.2 million. Last year, big tech companies increased their donations to US foreign policy think tanks in an effort to promote the argument that stricter rules will harm their ability to compete with China.

In the future, suppliers of military AI systems might increase the chances of an AI arms race by lobbying for the development of more advanced weapons systems, or by opposing arms control agreements that would limit their future sales. This is probably a long way off. Analysis from the Brookings Institutiona nonprofit public policy organizationfound that 95 percent of federal contracts from the last five years with artificial intelligence in the description were for professional, scientific, and technical services (essentially external funding for research and development). The same analysis found that there were 307 different vendors and 474 total contracts.

Taken together, this analysis suggests an immature market, with many smaller vendors focused on developing AI systems rather than on larger contracts for supplying hardware or software, which are more typical for military procurement. In the future, though, larger contracts for military AI and a more concentrated supplier base would probably mean increased lobbying by military AI suppliersand increased chances of a military AI arms race.

Bureaucratic politics. There were many instances of bureaucratic politics exacerbating the Cold War nuclear arms race. As Slate columnist and author of several books on military strategy Fred Kaplan has described, the Air Force and the Navy repeatedly came up with new nuclear strategies and doctrines that would give them more of the nuclear weapons budget. For example, the Navys think tank came up with finite deterrence, which suggested that the United States could deter the Soviet Union by deploying a relatively small number of nuclear missiles on submarines, obviating the need for large numbers of nuclear bombers and missiles (which were operated by the Air Force).

Bureaucratic incentives often cause organizations to attempt to accumulate more resources and influence than is optimal from the perspective of the state. Although most cutting-edge AI development is currently carried out in the private sector, that could change. History suggests that as a technologys strategic importance and cost grow, the inclination and capacity for the state to exert control over its development and deployment will also grow.

There is another reason for concern about AI developed in or for the public sectorparticularly the defense sector, despite the current private-sector dominance. As former US Navy Secretary Richard Danzig has written, military development and use of technology tends to be particularly risky, for several reasons: secrecy makes oversight and regulation more difficult; the unpredictability of warfare environments; and the adversarial, unconstrained nature of military operations. The military already accounts for significant proportion of US government spending on AI.

Regardless of how the military uses AI, it is likely there will be resistance to any AI arms control initiatives. An arms control agreement almost always interferes with the interests of one or more groups within the defense establishment. Military support is particularly important for ratification, which is why President Kennedy had to abandon his push for a comprehensive test ban in the face of resistance from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Electoral politics and public opinion. The relationship between foreign policy and electoral politics is not straightforward. An influential paper published in 2005 found that US foreign policy is most heavily and consistently influenced by internationally oriented business leaders, followed by experts, with some small influence for organized labor groups, and very weak or no influence from public opinion. (It should be noted that not all researchers agree with this finding, however: Many case studies and experiments have found that public opinion does influence decision makers in certain circumstances.)

Studies suggest public opinion is more important for high-salience issuesthat is, issues that are seen as particularly noticeable or important. Public opinion does not come into play as much for issues that (rightly or wrongly) feel less relevant. For example, voters generally do not care much about trade policy: They do not know their political representatives trade policy positions, so trade policy does not affect their voting behavior. According to the Secret Congress theory, which contends that it is much easier to pass legislation on topics that are more under the radar and consequently not politically salient, if AI policy issues were politically salient and the parties were divided on them, it would be much more difficult to pass regulation and treaties that would reduce risks from AI.

At the moment, AI is too esoteric to be politically salient, although this is starting to change. The electoral politics of AI policy are overshadowed by broader concerns about strategic competition with China. In the United States, elite opinion, business opinion, and public opinion have shifted toward the view that engagement with China has failed and a more confrontational approach is now required. Current US policy toward Chinaincluding accelerating US AI development and restricting Chinese AI progresscommands bipartisan support.

However, if one party becomes more hawkish on China-related policy issues, public opinion on AI might split accordingly, with supporters of the more hawkish party viewing cooperation on AI policy less favorably. This may have happened in the past with nuclear weapons. There is some evidence to suggest that Obamas 2009 Prague speech, in which he announced Americas commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, led to disarmament being associated with Obama personally. This polarized the issue of arms control and disarmament along partisan lines, making future policy making more difficult.

If AI policy issues do become politically salient, the history and political science literature suggest that electoral politics might impede arms control in a number of ways. For example, if arms control policy gets caught up in partisan politics, it becomes much harder to develop and implement, particularly given that treaty ratification requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

In the past, political groups have held dovish positions on some nuclear issues while holding hawkish positions on others. For example, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which worked with the states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle and secure the legacies of the Cold War, had strong bipartisan support, even as arms control agreements faced resistance from many Republicans. Certain nuclear issues are idiosyncratic. For example, Iran issues are politicized in a different way than other nuclear issues, because of the link to Israels security: Many otherwise liberal Democrats who are Jewish or represent heavily Jewish districts are hawkish on Iran. AI may turn out to be similar, with political cooperation on some aspects of AI policy and partisan gridlock on others.

Finally, it is worth noting that the large number of potential uses for AI means that AI will touch peoples lives frequently and in significant ways. However, it is unlikely that these applications will cohere into a consistent pro- or anti-AI perspective. Public opinion on AI foreign policy will probably resemble other technology-related foreign policy issueswith the two major parties split according to their levels of hawkishness.

The United States has a tricky balance to strike. On the one hand, promoting AI development could create economic and social benefits, and the government has a duty to keep US citizens safe by maintaining technological superiority. On the other hand, if AI is not sufficiently well-regulated, and the United States and China cant cooperate where necessary, the whole world could be at risk.

Striking this balance is like walking a tightrope. Domestic forces threaten to knock the United States off balance.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent, nonprofit media organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important. In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

See the article here:
How politics and business are driving the AI arms race with China - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

RSA Conference Attracts More Than 40,000 Attendees in Another Successful Run

RSA Conference,the worlds leading cybersecurity conferences and expositions, held at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, attracted more than 40,000 attendees, including more than 650 speakers, more than 500 exhibitors and hundreds of media outlets. Throughout the week, attendees networked on the expo floor and participated in keynote presentations, track sessions, tutorials, seminars and special networking events.

Several of the most pressing topics discussed during this years Conference included issues surrounding intelligence and threat modeling, the changing face of ransomware and malware, challenges and opportunities presented by generative AI and the wide-reaching impact of open source.

The RSA conference gathers the worlds most efficient and innovative cybersecurity problem solvers to tackle current and future threats remains critical, said Linda Gray Martin, senior vice president, RSA Conference. Our commitment to providing a year-round platform for the community to engage, learn and access content remains stronger than ever. Whether its online through RSAC 365 or at in-person events, we look forward to continuing the important conversations weve had this week throughout the rest of the year.

RSA Conference 2023 highlights include

33 keynote presentations on two stages.West Stage keynotes featured sponsor keynotes, panels and esteemed guest speakerswhile South Stage brought highly coveted, in-depth sessions from industry experts on a range of topics.

Key session and seminar presentations included:

RSA Conference 2024 will take place May 6-9, 2024, in San Francisco at the Moscone Center.

See the rest here:
RSA Conference Attracts More Than 40000 Attendees in Another ... - Security Today

Everyone at the Oregon Capitol knew how an April committee vote on legislative Democrats sweeping measure to expand access to abortion and gender-affirming care would go.

Democrats who hold the majority in the Legislature believe voters gave them a mandate to pass House Bill 2002, which would protect medical providers from prosecution for providing reproductive health care or gender-affirming care. Republicans adamantly opposed it, focusing most of their ire on provisions in the bill allowing minors of any age to obtain abortions, contraception and other reproductive care without their parents knowledge and teens 15 or older to access gender-affirming care without their parents knowing.

But what followed that vote was a surprise: One Republican, who has voted with the party on many bills, changed his mind on HB 2002 after doing more research.

Charlie Conrad, a freshman representative and former police officer from the small unincorporated community of Dexter in rural Lane County, joined fellow Republicans in voting against it in the House Behavioral Health and Health Care Committee. He worried that young people would succumb to social pressure or poor decision-making skills and go down a path of medical transition that theyd come to regret.

We need to do better for them, and we need to protect them, he said before voting against the bill.

But then, as Conrad later explained in an interview with the Capital Chronicle, he realized that he wasnt comfortable with what he knew about gender-affirming care.

I havent had personal experience with that, he said. I dont have any friends or family that have gone through that, or friends that have had kids that have gone through that. Thats a realm that I dont have a lot of personal and relevant experience with.

So he decided to learn what he could. He reached out to health care providers, who helped him connect with parents of trans kids and learn more about what kind of care is provided for minors. And nearly a month later, when Conrad got his next chance to vote on House Bill 2002 on the House floor, he joined every Democrat in voting for it while every other Republican voted no.

Conrad didnt speak about the bill on the floor while fellow Republicans spent hours trying to derail it by sending it back to committees or postponing the vote indefinitely or for months. He voted for those attempts explaining later that he supported efforts to have more public input and discussion about the bill.

Other Republicans knew ahead of time that he would vote for the measure, but that vote came as a surprise to Capitol observers. Conrad explained it in a three-page letter the next day.

He described what he learned after the committee hearing that doctors follow established standards of care, and that gender-affirming treatment for minors generally doesnt include surgeries or other irreversible changes. He concluded that doctors and other health care providers should be free to provide services without government interference or harassment.

My concerns are lessened knowing medical providers have adopted and are adhering to these standards, Conrad wrote. I trust that highly trained medical professionals and the respective licensing boards will address any lax practitioners that prove too eager to provide irreversible medical treatment to minors.

Conrad said he thinks about the difference between possibilities and probabilities when considering policies. Some opponents of HB 2002 have focused on the most extreme possibilities things like 10-year-old girls receiving abortions or troubled teens obtaining genital surgeries behind their parents backs but Conrad wanted to know whats likely to happen.

How often, really, is a doctor going to start certain surgical procedures that are irreversible on a 13-year-old? The possibility of that happening technically, its there, but the probability is so small, he said.

He read standards of care established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which sets guidelines for gender-affirming care. It doesnt recommend any medical intervention for children pre-puberty, but instead that parents and other adults provide social support, such as allowing a child to use a different name or change their hair or clothing to feel more comfortable.

Those standards also call for avoiding gender-affirming surgery until adulthood, while allowing some adolescents to take medication delaying or halting hormonal changes that come with puberty. Blocking testosterone or estrogen slows development of secondary sex characteristics, such as deep voices and facial hair in male people and breast growth and menstruation in female people.

Conrad also learned that doctors strive to involve parents whenever they can, both when children explore their gender identity and when a young person is seeking reproductive health care, including abortions. But in some cases, parents dont support their kids.

He met one mother of a transgender teenager who described how her childs friend, also transgender, was kicked out of their house by unaccepting parents. That tracked with Conrads 14 years working as a Springfield police officer, where he encountered many children with irresponsible parents.

There are parents that have no business being a parent, he said. They abandon their children, they leave their children to fend for themselves. And now you have children, juveniles that need assistance, are looking for something and this will allow other adults to be able to come in and help that child out and help guide them through that process.

Conrad said he tries to take the same approach of learning as much as possible about the issues covered in every bill. He serves on House committees that handle criminal justice, health care, behavioral health, veterans and emergency management, and he spends a lot of time talking to law enforcement, health care providers, attorneys and others in Lane County.

Rep. Dacia Grayber, D-Tigard and the chair of the House Committee on Emergency Management, General Government, and Veterans, said Conrad should win an award for asking the best questions if such an award existed.

Conrad didnt speak directly with representatives from Basic Rights Oregon, the LGBTQ advocacy group thats championing HB 2002. But Blair Stenvick, the organizations communications director, said Conrads experience learning more about gender-affirming care and concluding that its a decision best left to doctors and patients tracks with polling theyve seen.

Once folks learn more about what gender-affirming care is, how it works, the steps that a person and their doctor goes through to start that care, it seems like people often come around, Stenvick said.

Conrad describes himself as a pro-choice Republican, an increasingly endangered group in Oregon politics although recent surveys demonstrate that 72% of all Oregon voters and 42% of Republican voters believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

Oregon voters most recently weighed in on abortion in 2018, soundly defeating a ballot measure that would have barred public funding for abortion. That attempt to limit abortion failed in several rural and exurban counties won by Donald Trump in 2020 and Republican gubernatorial candidates Knute Buehler and Christine Drazan in 2018 and 2022.

Buehler and 2016 Republican gubernatorial nominee Bud Pierce supported abortion rights, as did Buehlers Republican successor in the state House, Cheri Helt. After Buehler lost his 2020 primary for the 2nd Congressional District now represented by anti-abortion U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz and Helt lost her 2020 general election, Oregon Right to Life trumpeted the era of pro-choice Republicans in Oregon is over.

Conrad said he didnt lead with supporting abortion rights when he ran, but he didnt hide from it either. His campaign website describes how people are inherently different, and the state should enable them to follow their own beliefs. His district, which extends west into rural Lane County from the south hills of Eugene, is almost an even three-way split of Republicans, Democrats and non-affiliated voters.

He said he heard from constituents who agreed and disagreed with him after the vote. Inside the Capitol, Conrad said he only encountered respect from fellow Republicans who disagreed with his vote but respected that he voted his conscience.

That includes Rep. Ed Diehl, R-Stayton, who has been the most outspoken opponent of HB 2002. Diehl, also a freshman legislator, said Republican leaders have never told him or any other caucus members how to vote on bills, and theyre free to disagree and debate bills publicly without fear of repercussions.

I have a ton of respect for Charlie, and hes got his reasons, Diehl said. Ill just leave it at that. But I do have a ton of respect for him.

Conrad said he thinks about how hes representing the 70,000 people in his district, and how he represents the other Oregon Republicans who support abortion rights. If that means he faces a primary challenge in 2024, so be it.

Once session is over, and Im going around and Im talking to folks, undoubtedly, its going to come up, he said. This is who I am. Im working hard to represent you, and if Im not the right person for you, then please go to the ballot and choose somebody that does represent you. But this is who I am.

Read more:
How Oregon Rep. Charlie Conrad changed his mind to vote for ... - Oregon Capital Chronicle

On World Hypertension Day 2023, Indian yoga guru Dr Hansaji Yogendra suggests the most effective breathing exercises for hypertension. healthshots

Take a deep breath! We often underestimate the importance of breathing exercises for health. Various studies have highlighted how slow and deep breathing is a fruitful alternative therapy for people fighting lifestyle conditions. One such health condition is hypertension or high blood pressure. According to Indian yoga guru Dr Hansaji Yogendra, practising certain breathing exercises for hypertension can have potential benefits in controlling high blood pressure.

Dr Hansaji Yogendra, Director, The Yoga Institute and President of the Indian Yoga Association, says Pranayama can help to control high blood pressure.

In todays fast-paced lifestyle, hypertension, commonly known as high blood pressure, is on the rise. Our state of mind, clouded by emotions such as anger, frustration, irritation, restlessness, and stress, contribute to the risk of hypertension. Moreover, the constant hustle often leaves us forgetting to relax, a significant factor underlying this condition. Faulty food habits and a lack of exercise also play a role. In light of these concerns, it becomes crucial to explore techniques that can effectively reduce high blood pressure. One such approach is through the practice of Pranayama, ancient yogic breathing exercises. Let us explore the best breathing exercises for hypertension and their therapeutic benefits.

Yogendra Pranayama No.4 is a specialised breathing technique that emphasises deep abdominal breathing to induce relaxation and alleviate stress-related factors contributing to hypertension. Yogendra Pranayama No.4 promotes diaphragmatic breathing, triggers the relaxation response, and assists in reducing blood pressure. Heres how to practice this technique:

* Assume a comfortable seated position and place your hands on your lower abdomen, just above the navel* Inhale deeply, allowing the abdomen to expand outward as the lower lungs fill with air* Exhale slowly and completely, allowing the abdomen to contract inward and gently release the air* Repeat this rhythmic deep abdominal breathing for 5 to 10 minutes daily.

Rechaka, derived from the Sanskrit word for exhalation, is a Pranayama technique that focuses on controlled and prolonged exhalation. It aids in releasing tension, reducing anxiety and fostering a calm state of mind and body. Heres how to practice Rechaka:

* Sit in a cross-legged position such as sukhasana* Close your eyes, and inhale deeply through the nose, filling your lungs with air* Exhale slowly through the nose, extending the exhalation to a duration longer than the inhalation* Aim for a 1:2 ratio, exhaling for twice as long as you inhale.

This extended exhalation induces deep relaxation and activates the bodys parasympathetic nervous system, resulting in a potential decrease in blood pressure levels. Engage in Rechaka for 5 to 7 minutes daily to experience its potential benefits.

Anuloma Viloma Pranayama, commonly referred to as alternate nostril breathing, is a widely recognized pranayama technique known for promoting harmony and balance within the body and mind. Heres how to practise Anuloma Viloma.

* Find a comfortable seated position, allowing your body to relax* Raise your right hand to your face with your eyes closed. Gently close your right nostril with your right thumb* Inhale slowly and deeply through your left nostril, filling your lungs with air* Once you have completed a full inhalation, release the closure on your right nostril and use your ring finger to close your left nostril* Exhale slowly and fully through your right nostril* Inhale through the right nostril, close it with your thumb, and exhale through the left nostril* Continue this rhythmic pattern of alternate nostril breathing for several rounds.

Anuloma Viloma Pranayama, without breath retention, is particularly beneficial for individuals with hypertension. That is because it facilitates relaxation, stress reduction, and has the potential to regulate blood pressure levels.

By incorporating this pranayama into your daily routine alongside Yogendra Pranayama No. 4 and Rechaka, you can further amplify the advantages of your breathing practice in effectively managing hypertension.

Even dedicating just 10-15 minutes a day to practice pranayamas can have a profound positive impact on your body and mind. Pranayamas such as Yogendra Pranayama No.4, Anuloma Viloma and Rechaka, provide techniques to relax your breath, which in turn relaxes your entire being instantly. It is high time we prioritize ourselves and carve out moments in our day for self-care. Embrace the potential benefits of these Pranayamas, allowing yourself to regain control of your hypertension and experience the transformative power of breath in promoting overall health and well-being.

The rest is here:
Breathing techniques to control hypertension: How Pranayama can help - Health shots