Speaker of the Milli Majlis Sahiba Gafarova arrived on a business trip to Havana, Cuba, to participate in the G77 and China Group Summit on September 15, Report informs, citing the Press and Public Relations Department of the Milli Majlis (Azerbaijani Par
Day: September 15, 2023
Представители российских оккупационных сил незаконно задержали гражданина Грузии на оккупированной территории, недалеко от села Одзиси Душетского муниципалитета. По данным Службы государственной безопасности Грузии, после получения информации об инциденте Служба государственной безопасности активировала горячую линию Миссии наблюдателей Евросоюза, а международные партнеры и сопредседатели Женевских международных дискуссий были немедленно проинформированы об инциденте. «Задействованы все имеющиеся механизмы для […]
Hərbi institutda “Bilik günü” qeyd edilib
Sentyabrın 15-də Milli Müdafiə Universitetinin Heydər Əliyev adına Hərbi İnstitutunda yeni tədris ilinin başlanması münasibətilə mərasim keçirilib.
Mərasimdə Milli Müdafiə Universitetinin rəhbərliyi, Müdafiə Nazirliyinin nümayəndələri, hərbi institutun şəxsi heyəti, müəllimlər, eləcə də digər qonaqlar iştirak ediblər.
Əvvəlcə Ulu Öndər Heydər Əliyevin və Vətənimizin müstəqilliyi uğrunda şəhidlik zirvəsinə ucalan soydaşlarımızım xatirəsi bir dəqiqəlik sükutla yad olunub. Azərbaycan Respublikasının Dövlət Himni səsləndirilib.
Milli Müdafiə Universitetinin rektoru professor, general-leytenant Heydər Piriyev çıxış edərək mərasim iştirakçılarını salamlayıb, yeni tədris ilinin başlanması ilə əlaqədar şəxsi heyəti Müdafiə Nazirliyinin rəhbərliyi adından təbrik edib.
General-leytenant H.Piriyev Azərbaycan Respublikasının Prezidenti, Silahlı Qüvvələrin Ali Baş Komandanı cənab İlham Əliyevin təhsil sisteminin inkişafına göstərdiyi qayğıdan, Azərbaycan Ordusunda hərbi təhsil sahəsində aparılan islahatların müsbət nəticələrindən, eləcə də Ordumuzun Türkiyə modelinə uyğunlaşdırılması istiqamətində görülən işlərdən danışıb.
Mərasimdə kursantların hazırlıq səviyyəsinin artırılması, nizam-intizamın və mənəvi-psixoloji hazırlığın yüksəldilməsi istiqamətində müdafiə naziri general-polkovnik Zakir Həsənovun müvafiq tapşırıqları çatdırılıb.
Digər çıxış edənlər yaradılan hərtərəfli şəraitə görə minnətdarlıqlarını bildiriblər.
Sonra 2022-2023-cü təhsil ilində təlim və tədrisdə fərqlənən bir qrup kursant mükafatlandırılıb.
Sonda Milli Müdafiə Universitetinin rəhbərliyi pedoqoji kollektivlə görüşüb, dərslərin daha keyfiyyətli keçirilməsi ilə bağlı tövsiyələrini çatdırıb.
Hərbi institutda “Bilik günü” qeyd edilib
By Luke Coffey
Since Russia invaded Ukraine for the second time in eight years, Russian troops have ravaged Ukraine’s cities, raped its women, and stolen its children. Russian missiles and Iranian drones strike Ukrainian cities daily, often hitting civilian targets. Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine is the victim.
For Americans who believe in respect for national borders, the primacy of national sovereignty, and the right to self-defense, support for Ukraine is natural. Ukrainians are not asking for, nor do they want, US troops to help them fight Russia. All they ask for are the material resources that give them a fighting chance. Meanwhile, Russia is America’s top geopolitical adversary.
As Congress debates additional support for Ukraine, the anti-Ukraine echo chamber will peddle myths and half-truths, including these four:
Myth: Washington is writing Kyiv “blank checks” that Americans cannot afford.
Reality: Every dollar spent in support of Ukraine is authorized by Congress and used for a specific purpose. There has never been a “blank check” to Ukraine. As of September 2023, the US has provided Ukraine with $101 billion, or about 0.43 percent of America’s GDP. Since February 2022, this averages out to 68 cents per day for each American adult. The vast majority of this money never leaves the US and instead supports American jobs. For this modest amount, the US helps Ukraine dismantle Russia’s military without a single American firing a shot or being shot at. The US can easily afford to support Ukraine, but it cannot afford not to.
Myth: There is not enough oversight of US aid to Ukraine.
Reality: There has likely never been more accountability in place for US foreign assistance than what is available for Ukraine aid. Soon after Russia’s invasion, the US government established the Ukraine Oversight Interagency Working Group. More than 160 officials across 20 federal oversight agencies monitor US aid to Ukraine. To date, Congress has allocated $50 million for the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, and USAID to increase oversight through the working group. Dozens of reports have been completed with dozens more in the works. According to the working group, “Investigations related to the Ukraine response have not yet substantiated significant waste, fraud, or abuse.”
Myth: America is exponentially the largest donor to Ukraine.
Reality: According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy’s Ukraine aid tracker, total European commitments are now more than double those of the US. After totaling all aid (military, economic, humanitarian, and refugee), 20 European countries have given more to Ukraine than the US as a percentage of GDP. Europe can do more, but that is no reason for the US to stop supporting Ukraine.
Myth: Russia is a distraction. The US must focus on China.
Reality: Russia is China’s junior partner. A defeated Russia means a weaker China. Beijing is watching Western support for Kyiv, so a victorious Ukraine would strengthen Taiwan and deter China. It’s no coincidence that Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida visited Ukraine while Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Russia. During this visit, Xi told Vladimir Putin, “Now there are changes that haven’t happened in 100 years. When we are together, we drive these changes.” The choice between security in Europe and security in the Indo-Pacific is a false dichotomy. In terms of US national interests, these two regions are intimately linked. In the words of Kishida, “The security of the Indo-Pacific region cannot be separated from European security.”
About the author: Luke Coffey is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute
Source: This article was published by the Hudson Institute
By Prachi Mishra
Quantum Computing has advanced rapidly in recent times. With Big Tech firms and research labs paving the way for fault-tolerant Quantum computers, their impact on other emerging technologies, like Artificial Intelligence (AI), is inevitable. Quantum computers promise lightning-fast solutions to complex problems, replacing years of computation with speed. They’ll optimise machine learning and exponentially boost computing power, yielding superior generalisation results.
At the intersection of these two ground-breaking technologies, a novel field has started to emerge known as Quantum Artificial Intelligence (QAI). AI coupled with Quantum computing can suggest best navigation routes, drastically improve autonomous systems, accentuate drug discovery, significantly improve medical diagnosis, optimise complex supply chain decisions, amongst other uses. Every industry is set to be impacted by QAI.
However, in recent years, AI has posed severe challenges apropos of its regulation and ethical usage. With the advent of generative AI, its coupling with Quantum systems will only exacerbate existing issues of fair and transparent use of the technology, sometimes aggravating the existential and catastrophic risks that come with AI. As tech giants like Google, IBM, and academia make strides in QAI, governments must be proactive in understanding the implications of the emergent technology and ascertain measures to ensure that these two powerful emerging technologies do not go the way of the atom bomb.
What is Quantum Artificial Intelligence?
As Quantum computers become more and more feasible, a new field of their application has emerged, viz., Quantum AI. It sits at the intersection of these two disruptive technologies—Quantum Computing and Artificial Intelligence. As scientific studies suggest, machine learning models try to address combinatorics challenges. Often, these have several variables and involve complex calculations. Using AI on classical computers, these problems would take a significant amount of time to solve and might still need to be able to yield the most optimal solution. On the contrary, using AI models with Quantum computers (based on the principles of Quantum mechanics) can solve such problems in seconds. Quantum computers can also find patterns in large datasets, which classical computers cannot, and research suggests that these machines would be better equipped to deal with incomplete data or corrupt data.
In short, QAI is using Quantum Computing to augment the capabilities of existing AI systems.
A few applications of Quantum AI
The fusion of Quantum computing and AI will impact nearly every industry significantly. Several tech companies and research labs have established a forum for training engineers, scientists, and Quantum computing specialists on QAI. Tests and pilots are being carried out worldwide for different industrial use cases. Despite the theoretical promise, practical adoption depends on technological progress, regulations, and the industry’s willingness to invest.
Finance and banking: Quantum AI’s potential impact on finance is significant but emerging. It could optimise tasks like risk assessment and fraud detection, enhance portfolio management and option pricing, and advance machine learning algorithms. Quantum computing’s speed might disrupt high-frequency trading. Quantum neural network models for predicting stock market behaviours accurately have been developed.
Healthcare: Quantum computing could accelerate drug discovery by simulating molecular interactions, revolutionise medical imaging through improved accuracy and speed, and optimise complex genetic analysis. Quantum AI could enhance machine learning algorithms for disease prediction and personalised treatment.
Logistics and supply chain: Quantum AI stands to transform logistics and supply chains. Quantum computing could optimise route planning, warehouse management, and inventory optimisation, leading to faster, cost-efficient deliveries. Enhanced simulations might predict disruptions and streamline operations. Quantum AI’s data processing could improve demand forecasting and real-time tracking accuracy.
Navigation: Quantum computing’s immense computational power could enhance GPS accuracy, enabling precise positioning in challenging environments like urban canyons and remote areas. Quantum AI algorithms could optimise real-time route calculations, improving traffic flow and reducing congestion. It could also bolster autonomous vehicle navigation, making more efficient decisions based on complex sensor data.
Environment: Quantum AI holds promise for addressing the complex environmental challenges of the present day. Quantum computing’s computational capabilities could model complex climate scenarios and predict ecological impacts more accurately. Simulations might lead to the discovery of novel materials for efficient energy production and storage. Quantum AI’s optimisation algorithms could enhance resource management, waste reduction, and supply chain sustainability.
Implications of Quantum AI
QAI will have repercussions on almost all aspects of society and nation-states. Researchers, technologists, the scientific fraternity, and civil society have raised concerns about the multi-fold implications of QAI. A few of them have been discussed here.
Quantum will exacerbate the catastrophic risks of AI: Quantum computing could amplify catastrophic AI risks due to enhanced computational capabilities. Accelerating the development of advanced AI systems could lead to unintended consequences or uncontrollable behaviours. The increased speed might hasten the propagation of harmful AI-generated content, misinformation, and cyberattacks. Quantum-enabled optimisation could also create superintelligent systems with unintended outcomes. Addressing these risks requires aligning quantum and AI safety research, robust governance, and ethical considerations.
Existing governance issues can be amplified: Quantum computing could significantly impact existing AI governance challenges. Quantum AI might accelerate the training and optimisation of AI models, potentially leading to biased or unsafe outcomes at a faster pace. Encryption breaches facilitated by quantum computing could threaten data privacy and security. There needs to be more than existing regulations and ethical guidelines to address the unique risks posed by Quantum AI. Consequently, AI governance frameworks must be updated to encompass Quantum-specific considerations, including data protection, bias mitigation, transparency, and accountability.
Geopolitical implications could be heightened: Quantum AI could reshape existing geopolitical dynamics. Quantum computing’s superior cryptography-breaking abilities could disrupt global cybersecurity and intelligence operations, prompting shifts in defence strategies. Its ability to accelerate technological advancement could shape military capabilities and strategies, potentially creating regional disparities. Nations at the forefront of Quantum development might gain competitive advantages in information warfare, PSYOPs, disinformation, etc., leading to shifts in the global power scenario.
Countries that achieve Quantum supremacy might gain competitive advantages in the socio-political fabric, widening the gap between the haves and have nots. Quantum AI’s potential to accelerate technology development could lead to economic asymmetries among nations. Geopolitical tensions could arise from the race to attain quantum dominance as countries strive to control this transformative technology.
Data privacy and cybersecurity threats could increase manifold: It could have profound implications for data privacy and cybersecurity. While Quantum encryption could enhance data security, quantum computers might also break current encryption methods, jeopardising sensitive information. The advent of Quantum computing necessitates the development of Quantum-safe encryption (or Quantum-secure algorithms) to protect against potential breaches. On the one hand, Quantum AI’s enhanced processing power could aid in identifying and mitigating cyber threats; on the other hand, it could also empower malicious actors with more potent attack capabilities.
The way ahead
The growing prominence of Quantum AI calls for thoughtful regulation to harness its potential while safeguarding against risks. Collaborative efforts involving scientists, technologists, policymakers, and stakeholders are imperative for effective regulation. Their diverse perspectives can address complex technical, ethical, and societal implications. Incorporating scientists and technologists into policy-making processes is essential. Their expertise can help craft technically sound regulations, improve adaptability to rapid advancements, and ensure the responsible development and deployment of Quantum AI technologies.
Ethical considerations are central to Quantum AI regulation. Establishing clear ethical frameworks and accords can guide the use of the technology in ways that prioritise transparency, fairness, privacy, and accountability. This is particularly crucial as QAI’s capabilities could lead to bias, discrimination, or unintended consequences if not carefully managed. Legislation and regulation must be implemented to prevent an extreme concentration of geopolitical influence. As nations strive to achieve Quantum supremacy, imbalances in technological capabilities could lead to power disparities. Implementing measures promoting equitable access to QAI resources and knowledge can mitigate this risk and foster a collaborative global quantum ecosystem.
International cooperation is paramount. Multilateral agreements and collaborative initiatives can help align regulatory approaches across borders, prevent regulatory arbitrage, and ensure a level playing field for all stakeholders. Sharing best practices, data, and expertise can collectively address global challenges associated with QAI.
Conclusion
In conclusion, regulating Quantum AI requires a comprehensive approach that engages diverse experts and stakeholders. Ethical guidelines, robust legislation, and international collaboration are essential components for navigating the complex landscape of QAI technology. By fostering responsible development, QAI can realise its potential to drive innovation while minimising risks and ensuring equitable benefits for society at large.
About the author: Prachi Mishra is a Young Leaders in Tech Policy Fellow at the University of Chicago, presently working at ORF’s Centre for Security Strategy and Technology for their quantum meta-ethics project.
Source: This article was published by the Observer Research Foundation
By Robert L. Bradley Jr.
The Great Climate Alarm is in its 36th year, dating from a page-one feature in the New York Times in June 1988, “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate.” Given that “climate change” now defines environmental and energy policy, with unceasing government intervention at home and abroad, this beginning and the classical liberal response are worth revisiting.
The Times headline introduced a news piece where a limited set of facts flowed seamlessly into projected dangers, and then into activist government policy. Fire-ready-aim.
“War is the health of the state,” Randolph Bourne wrote during World War I. Robert Higgs’s 1987 book Crisis and Leviathan generalized the principle: Crises are typically exploited by statist ideologues to justify Leviathan. That is the perspective from which classical liberals have viewed climate alarmism and forced energy transformation from the start. Warm-mongering had joined war-mongering.
Interestingly, the hard facts behind the Times story were actually presented in its first paragraph. (Old-fashioned journalism still had a toehold in those days.) But imagine if the headline read “Recent Hot Weather Alarms a Scientist,” with the piece buried deep inside the so-called newspaper of record.
The headline writer knew what his environmentalist audience wanted to hear. Human interference is changing Nature, courting disaster. Massive government intervention is required to arrest the threat. This repeated the 1-2-3 in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1961), a book associated with the beginning of the modern environmentalist movement.
Philip Shabecoff, the paper’s environmental correspondent since 1977, delivered the 1-2-3. He recounted the previous day’s Senate testimony of NASA scientist James Hansen: “It was 99 percent certain that the warming trend” that year was caused by “the greenhouse effect.” That is, human interference via fossil-fuel combustion was increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. (Notice “it” was 99 percent certain, not “Hansen,” as if Science itself were speaking.)
Step Two: Now that human interference was confirmed, disaster looms. “If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues,” Shabecoff wrote, “the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050.” This warming will be “greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees.” Worse still, “The rise in global temperature is predicted to … melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.” Which is now the current century.
For Step Three, Shabecoff had to turn to another witness, George Woodwell, director of the Woods Hole Research Center. Given the dire consequences that such a projection implies, “Dr. Woodwell, and other members of the panel, said that planning must begin now for a sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide.”
Today, with command-and-control the rage at home and abroad, how does the 1988 prediction fare? With the start date of 2025 imminent, Shabecoff’s midpoints of 6 degrees and two-and-a-half feet compare to a recorded one degree and four inches. But the alarmists say, just wait. The worst is ahead to make the dire come true. Meanwhile, “climate change” is tied to every extreme weather event by activist climate scientists and an obedient press.
Problematic climate models, combined with a deep-ecology view of optimal Nature, drive the alarm today, resulting in such headlines as “Climate Change Is Speeding Toward Catastrophe. The Next Decade Is Crucial, U.N. Panel Says.” The failed headlines and predictions of prior decades are forgotten; humility in the face of the unknown is absent.
Classical liberals have engaged the climate debate at all levels: physical science, economics, political economy, political science, history, psychology, and public policy. Time-honored insights come into play regarding the scientific method, costs versus benefits, politics without romance, regulation as a process, and the efficacy of free-market institutions to anticipate and benefit from change.
Peculiarly, the climate debate centers around the emissions of a colorless, odorless trace gas that was never considered a pollutant before politics took over. In fact, science had established ambient CO2 levels as correlated positively with plant life and global greening, a positive externality in the jargon of economics. This gave classical liberals the high ground against the sudden war on CO2 and, by implication, fossil-fueled modern living.
By the early 1990s, Patrick Michaels et al. laid the scientific groundwork that continues to frame the issues. William A. Niskanen presented a list of questions regarding greenhouse gas emissions and the policies meant to control them, which the Warm-Mongers have yet to answer in order to justify government intervention. Austrian-School economist Steven Horwitz did the same in his essay, “Global Warming is About Social Science Too.”
Classical liberalism can stand proud on the climate issue—and offers the first-best policy of do no harm. The charge of “mother of all [negative] externalities” against free market energy is, on close inspection, a problem of statism and climate policy activism.
Thirty-five years in, climate mitigation policies are a road to serfdom. Roads to freedom—to capitalize on the good and ameliorate the bad—remain the best climate policy. Is a mid-course correction ahead? Or will the climate industrial complex numbly disregard the commoners in a futile quest for “climate stability”?
About the author: Robert L. Bradley Jr., AIER Senior Fellow, is the founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research. He is author of eight books on energy history and public policy and blogs at MasterResource.
Source: This article was published by AIER