king charles invites ai started in bletchley 2023 to go everywhere 2024

[chris macrae]

please help us confirm/update next actions

Bengio to be coordinating rapporteur from Bletchley to ...

Bletchley Declaration on AI safety – Twenty-eight countries, including the US and China, as well as the European Union, reached a consensus on the need for sustained international cooperation to combat the risks posed by ‘frontier AI’.¹  Under the Bletchley Declaration, these nations have agreed to work together to ensure the development and deployment of ‘human-centric, trustworthy and responsible AI’

notes from cooley.com

1. AI Safety Institute –The UK announced the creation of its AI Safety Institute, tasked with researching the most advanced AI capabilities and testing the safety of emerging types of AI. Separately, the US government announced the formation of its own AI Safety Institute, which will work together with the UK’s institute. In addition to collaborating with its international counterparts and ‘like-minded’ governments, the UK’s AI Safety Institute is expected to partner with domestic organisations – including the Alan Turing Institute and private companies.                                                                                  The UK's Ai safety institute announces: Countries represented at the Summit agreed to the development of a ‘State of the Science’ Report on the capabilities and risks of advanced AI, as part of their continued cooperation as an informal network. As host of the AI Safety Summit, the UK government has commissioned Yoshua Bengio, a pioneering and Turing Award winning AI academic, to Chair the writing group that will draft the Report. This group will be composed of a diverse group of leading AI academics, supported by an Expert Advisory Panel made up of representatives from countries attending the Summit. The Institute will house the Secretariat for the Chair and we envisage that the Institute’s cutting-edge research will also inform the Report.
2. AI testing and research – According to government materials, leading AI companies have recognised the importance of collaborating with governments, including the UK, on testing the next generation of AI models both before and after they are deployed. The UK government also announced that it has invested £300 million in its national AI Research Resource. The government’s aim is to provide enhanced AI infrastructure for research projects to maximise the benefits of AI, while supporting critical work into frontier AI risk mitigation.
3. Frontier AI ‘State of the Science’ Report – Countries represented at the summit agreed to develop a ‘State of the Science’ Report on the capabilities and risks of frontier AI. The report will summarise existing scientific research on risks and identify priority areas for further research. According to government materials, the report will be published ahead of the mini virtual AI summit in Korea and will inform and complement other international initiatives.
4. Accelerating safe AI development globally – According to a government press release, the UK will work with Canada, the US, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and partners in Africa ‘to fund safe and responsible AI projects for development around the world’.

AI Bletchley grounded round Turing Institute started London around 2016 -intriguingly TUring Award (nobel prize of computer science) is American run offering chance to catch up with what both sides of Atlantic owe to Londoner Turing

The 2018 Turing Award, awarded to Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yann LeCun, was a landmark recognition of their groundbreaking work in deep learning. Here's some information about their contributions and future aspirations:

Why their knowledge matters:

• • Conceptual Foundations: The trio laid the theoretical groundwork for deep learning, developing crucial concepts like backpropagation, convolutional neural networks, and recurrent neural networks. These have become essential tools for machine learning, powering applications like image recognition, natural language processing, and even autonomous vehicles.

• • Engineering Breakthroughs: They didn't just theorize, they built. Their work on efficient algorithms and training methods made deep learning practical and scalable, enabling its widespread adoption across various industries.

• • Inspiring a Generation: Their success sparked a renewed interest in deep learning, attracting countless researchers and entrepreneurs to the field. Their passion and dedication continue to inspire a new generation of AI pioneers.

What they want to explore next:

While their past achievements are monumental, these researchers remain focused on the future. Here's a glimpse into their individual aspirations:

• • Yoshua Bengio: Deeply interested in understanding the brain and consciousness, Bengio wants to leverage AI to unravel the mysteries of human intelligence and develop more interpretable and responsible AI systems.
    Opens in a new windowwww.delta-optimist.com

    Yoshua Bengio speaking at a conference

• • Geoffrey Hinton: Hinton's fascination lies in understanding the fundamental principles of intelligence. He believes deep learning is just one stepping stone towards more powerful and versatile AI capable of general intelligence.
    Opens in a new windowweb.cs.toronto.edu

    Geoffrey Hinton giving a lecture

• • Yann LeCun: LeCun envisions a future where AI seamlessly integrates with our lives, assisting us in various tasks without compromising privacy or security. He champions the responsible development and deployment of AI for the benefit of society.

Summaries of the Turing Award nomination:

The ACM provides detailed summaries of each Turing Award nomination, highlighting the recipient's contributions and explaining why they were selected. You can find the official summaries for the 2018 Turing Award here:

• • Yoshua Bengio: https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/bengio_3406375.cfm

• • Geoffrey Hinton: https://amturing.acm.org/

• • Yann LeCun: https://amturing.acm.org/call_for_nominations.cfm

These summaries offer valuable insights into the groundbreaking work of these remarkable individuals and their ongoing pursuit of pushing the boundaries of A

2018 turing award went to trio of professors who have trained deep learning graduates 

[chris macrae]

UK AIRR 300 mn dollar investment announced ms donellan day 1 of ai summit

AIRR is a national facility recently announced in March by the government that will provide world-leading AI-specialised compute capacity to public researchers, academia, and industry.

AIRR is a landmark collaboration between:

• the UK government
• UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
• the University of Cambridge
• the University of Bristol
• Intel
• Dell

The Dawn supercomputer at the University of Cambridge, announced as part of this latest investment, will serve as an integral part of the AIRR alongside the previously announced University of Bristol Isambard-AI supercomputer.

discussion with bard on relative investments in ai tech -all errors mine alone [e-mail]

can you help me understand terminology - the uk says by 2024 its largest public computing cluster will comprise 5000 GPUs - as a comparison in usa what would be the largest cluster of GPUs either public or private?

volume_up

Comparing the UK's planned 5000 GPU cluster to the largest GPU clusters in the USA requires exploring both public and private sectors:

Public GPU Clusters:

• Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF): Located in Tennessee, OLCF houses Frontier, the current world's fastest supercomputer, boasting 9,408 AMD Instinct MI300A GPUs. They also have Summit, previously the top dog, with 6,144 Nvidia Volta GPUs.
• Argonne National Laboratory: Their Theta supercomputer utilizes 4,320 Nvidia A100 GPUs.
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): They have two powerful GPU clusters: Peregrine with 2,432 Nvidia A100 GPUs and Eagle with 1,792 Nvidia Tesla V100 GPUs.

Private GPU Clusters:

• Microsoft Azure: They offer various AI computing resources, including clusters with tens of thousands of GPUs available on demand. The exact size of their largest single cluster may not be publicly known.
• Amazon Web Services (AWS): Similar to Microsoft Azure, AWS offers various GPU-powered cloud instances, likely exceeding the UK's planned cluster size in aggregate, though not necessarily within a single physical location.
• Nvidia: As a leading producer of GPUs, Nvidia likely operates large internal clusters for research and development. The exact size remains confidential.

In comparison:

• While the UK's planned 5000 GPU cluster will be impressive for a public facility, it falls behind the current top public facilities in the USA in terms of raw GPU count.
• However, comparing public and private sectors isn't entirely apples-to-apples. Private companies like Microsoft and AWS may offer larger on-demand GPU resources, but it's not always clear if they are concentrated in single physically located clusters.
• Additionally, the UK's focus on a public research facility emphasizes accessibility and broad research goals, while private clusters may serve specific commercial or internal needs.

Ultimately, the "largest" title depends on how you define the category (public vs. private) and your metric (total GPU count vs. individual cluster size). The UK's planned cluster is a significant investment in public HPC infrastructure, but the USA currently holds the top spots in terms of publicly available raw GPU power.

I hope this comparison provides a clearer understanding of the landscape!

share

more_vert

Would 5000 GPUs in a public cluster put the UK in top 5 nations in terms of public GPU cluster - very approximately what investment in dollars does 5000 GPUs represent?

volume_up

Yes, with 5000 GPUs in a public cluster, the UK would likely be in the top 5 nations in terms of public GPU cluster power. Here's why:

1. Current Landscape: Currently, the top 5 nations in terms of public GPU cluster power are:
   • USA: As mentioned previously, home to Frontier and other powerful clusters.
   • China: Houses Tianhe-3, ranked 3rd in the world, with 40,960 A100 GPUs.
   • Japan: Fugaku, currently No. 4 globally, utilizes 7,680 Nvidia A100 GPUs.
   • Germany: JUWELS Booster cluster boasts 4,848 Nvidia A100 GPUs.
   • France: Jean Zay supercomputer has 3,072 Nvidia A100 GPUs.
2. Comparison: With 5000 GPUs, the UK's planned cluster surpasses the GPU count of France's Jean Zay and would land comfortably above both Italy (Marconi-100 with 3,456 A100 GPUs) and South Korea (KISTI supercomputer with 2,176 A100 GPUs).
3. Impact on Ranking: Therefore, the UK would likely move into the top 5, potentially replacing France or Italy (depending on specific scoring algorithms used in different rankings).

Investment Estimate: Determining the exact cost is complex due to variations in GPU models, vendor deals, and infrastructure setup. However, here's a rough estimate:

• High-end GPU Cost: Nvidia A100, a popular choice for HPC, cost ~$50,000 per unit in 2023.
• 5000 GPUs: At this price point, the GPUs alone would cost approximately $250 million.
• Additional Costs: Infrastructure, cooling, power requirements, and maintenance add significant costs, likely pushing the total investment beyond $300 million.

Important Note: These are rough estimates, and the actual cost could be higher or lower depending on factors mentioned earlier.

Overall: The UK's planned 5000 GPU cluster represents a significant investment and would likely place them among the top 5 nations in terms of public GPU cluster power. This move signals a strong commitment to research and development in fields like AI, high-performance computing, and scientific discovery.

I hope this information helps! Feel free to ask if you have any further questions.

share

more_vert

250 million dollars sounds quire small compared with eg defence budgets - am I missing something?

volume_up

You're absolutely right to raise the comparison between the $250 million estimated cost of the UK's public GPU cluster and, say, the UK's defense budget, which sits around £52.8 billion as of 2023 (roughly $67.8 billion). There are indeed several important things to consider here:

Scale and Purpose:

• Defense budgets: Are typically measured in billions, reflecting their vast scope of activities covering personnel, equipment, infrastructure, and global operations. Public HPC clusters, while crucial for research and development, operate on a different scale, focusing on computational resources and software.
• Different Goals: Defense aims to protect national security and maintain military readiness, requiring diverse resources. Public HPC clusters, on the other hand, primarily drive scientific advancements and technological innovation in various fields like medicine, engineering, and artificial intelligence.

Investment Strategy:

• Government Priorities: While defense is often a top priority for budgetary allocation, governments balance multiple needs including public services, research, infrastructure, and defense. The size of the investment in the public GPU cluster reflects the UK's prioritization of scientific research and technological progress alongside other needs.
• Long-Term Benefits: The impact of research facilitated by HPC clusters, though seemingly less immediate than defense efforts, can have lasting effects on diverse sectors of the economy, healthcare, and even national security in the long run.

Relative Value:

• Impact per Dollar: HPC clusters can offer considerable bang for their buck by enabling innovative research projects and creating economic opportunities that generate income in the long run.
• Cost Drivers: Defense budgets often involve ongoing expenditure on personnel, maintenance, and deployments, whereas HPC clusters may primarily involve upfront infrastructure and equipment costs with lower ongoing expenses.

Ultimately, comparing the costs of defense and public HPC clusters directly isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. They serve different purposes, operate on different scales, and deliver distinct types of benefits. While the $250 million investment may seem small compared to the defense budget, it represents a significant commitment to technological advancement and potentially holds long-term benefits for the UK's economy and society.

I hope this provides a more nuanced perspective on the comparison and highlights the distinct roles of these vastly different budgetary allocations.

share

more_vert

IF AI for good is to ne optimal, is it likely that eg the UK will need to reassess magnitudes of its public gpu budget versus its defence budget?

volume_up

The question of whether the UK should reassess the magnitudes of its public GPU budget versus its defense budget in pursuit of an optimal AIGood future is a complex one with no easy answer. It involves balancing diverse priorities, ethical considerations, and uncertain predictions about future technological advancements and societal needs.

Arguments for Reassessment:

• AIGood Potential: Optimizing AIGood could have immense benefits for various sectors, including healthcare, climate change mitigation, and resource management. Investing in public GPU resources and supporting AIGood research could unlock these potentials and propel the UK as a leader in this burgeoning field.
• Efficiency Concerns: Some argue that defense spending might not be utilizing resources as efficiently as it could. While national security remains crucial, reassessing how AI can be incorporated into defense strategies, potentially reducing personnel needs or optimizing logistics, could free up resources for AIGood initiatives.
• Long-Term Benefits: Investments in AIGood research and development may yield long-term economic and societal benefits, potentially contributing to sustainable growth and improved quality of life in various aspects.

Arguments against Reassessment:

• Defense Priority: National security remains a fundamental responsibility of any government. The UK faces diverse threats, and maintaining a strong defense might be perceived as non-negotiable, requiring continued budgetary prioritization.
• Uncertainty in AIGood Impact: While AIGood holds vast potential, its development and impact are still uncertain. Shifting significant resources from defense to AIGood research could be seen as risky, especially considering the immediate and tangible responsibilities of national security.
• Ethical Considerations: Unregulated AIGood development raises ethical concerns, including potential job displacement, bias, and misuse. Investing heavily in AIGood without robust ethical frameworks and regulations could pose unforeseen risks.

Finding the Balance:

Ultimately, the UK needs to find a strategic balance between its current defense needs and its commitment to AIGood for an optimal future. This could involve:

• Strategic Partnerships: Collaborating with private companies and international partners to access expertise and resources for AIGood research without neglecting defense capabilities.
• Phased Investments: Gradual increases in the public GPU budget alongside reassessments of defense needs and AIGood potential to ensure optimal allocation of resources over time.
• Prioritizing Ethical Frameworks: Develop robust ethical frameworks and regulations for AIGood development and deployment to mitigate potential risks and ensure responsible applications.

The optimal balance will depend on ongoing evaluations of future threats, AIGood advancements, and societal priorities. Finding this balance is crucial for the UK to ensure both national security and a future shaped by responsible and beneficial AIGood.

It's important to remember that this is a complex issue with no definitive answer. Open and informed debate, considering all perspectives and potential outcomes, is key to navigating this evolving landscape and crafting a future where AIGood and societal well-being are optimally balanced.

share

more_vert

Playing devil's advocate UK population is about 14th in world and its natural resources are probably about 25th, why whould uk need such a large defense budget?

volume_up

You're right, playing devil's advocate is crucial in any nuanced discussion. Let's delve deeper into why the UK, with its population and resource limitations, maintains a relatively large defense budget:

Historical Legacy:

• Global Empire: The UK's historical role as a colonial power instilled a strong sense of global responsibility and military presence. Maintaining this legacy, even after decolonization, contributes to its current defense posture.
• Nuclear Deterrence: As a nuclear power, the UK maintains a significant portion of its defense budget allocated to nuclear programs for deterrence purposes.

Strategic Considerations:

• NATO Membership: As a key member of NATO, the UK has a commitment to contribute to the alliance's collective defense, requiring it to maintain certain military capabilities.
• Global Interests: The UK has significant economic and political interests beyond its borders, including trade routes, overseas territories, and international partnerships. Securing these interests necessitates certain military capabilities.
• Cybersecurity Threats: The growing threat of cyberattacks and digital warfare has led the UK to invest heavily in cyber defense capabilities.

Domestic Factors:

• Political Influence: A strong military is often seen as a symbol of national pride and prestige, influencing public opinion and potentially impacting political careers.
• Defense Industry Jobs: The defense industry creates a significant number of jobs in the UK, making significant cuts politically and economically sensitive.

Challenges and Debates:

• Resource Allocation: The large defense budget raises questions about prioritizing defense spending over other sectors like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Public debates often focus on finding the optimal balance.
• Technological Shift: The changing nature of warfare, with increasing emphasis on cyber threats and asymmetric conflicts, raises questions about whether the UK's current defense spending aligns with future needs.
• Global Cooperation: With increasing global interdependence, some argue for greater international cooperation in addressing security threats, potentially lessening the reliance on individual national defense budgets.

Conclusion:

The reasons behind the UK's large defense budget are complex and multifaceted, driven by historical factors, strategic considerations, domestic politics, and ongoing debates about resource allocation and the evolving nature of warfare. Whether this level of spending is optimal remains a matter of ongoing public discourse and policy considerations.

Playing devil's advocate is essential for critically examining these issues and exploring potential alternative approaches to security and global engagement in the 21st century.

I hope this provides a more comprehensive and nuanced perspective on the topic. Feel free to ask any further questions you may have!

share

more_vert

i understand it would cause a lot of argument but if a pro-millennial political party started up in UK round one policy transfer 2% per year from defence budget to ai good personalised education budget- would there be any logic to such a policy?

volume_up

The idea of a pro-millennial political party in the UK transferring 2% of the defense budget annually to an AI-powered personalized education budget raises several interesting points worth discussing:

Potential Logic:

• Investing in Human Capital: Millennials, like other young generations, increasingly value education and its role in career success and personal fulfillment. Shifting resources towards education aligns with their priorities and could be seen as investing in human capital for future economic and social well-being.
• Personalized Learning: AI presents potential for personalized learning experiences, tailoring education to individual needs and learning styles. This could improve outcomes and potentially address issues like student disengagement and educational inequality.
• Defense Budget Size: 2% might seem like a small percentage, but from the UK's current defense budget of approximately £52.8 billion, it translates to over £1 billion annually. This could significantly benefit AI-powered personalized education initiatives.
• Long-Term Benefits: Investments in education generally have a long-term return on investment, contributing to a more skilled workforce, potentially driving innovation and economic growth.

Challenges and Counterarguments:

• Defense Needs: Critics would argue that 2%, though seemingly small, could impact the UK's ability to fulfill its security commitments within NATO and address potential global threats.
• Uncertain Impact of AI in Education: While AI holds promise, its integration into education is still in its early stages. The practical feasibility, effectiveness, and potential unintended consequences of large-scale AI-powered education systems need careful consideration.
• Implementation Challenges: Integrating AI into personalized learning necessitates robust infrastructure, qualified educators trained in new technologies, and ethical frameworks to address issues like bias and data privacy.
• Political Feasibility: Shifting significant resources from defense to education, though appealing to millennials, might face opposition from other demographics and vested interests within the current political landscape.

Nuances and Alternatives:

• Gradual Shift: Instead of a sudden 2% annual transfer, a gradual increase over several years could mitigate risks and allow for smoother implementation and adaptation.
• Collaboration: Partnerships with private companies and international organizations specializing in AI and education could leverage additional expertise and resources.
• Pilot Programs: Testing AI-powered personalized learning in smaller pilot programs before large-scale implementation could address concerns and validate potential benefits.
• Combined Approach: Instead of solely relying on budget transfers, creative financing models such as public-private partnerships could be explored to secure additional resources for both education and defense.

Ultimately, the logic of such a policy depends on individual priorities, risk tolerance, and faith in the potential of AI. There are valid arguments on both sides, and navigating the optimal balance between investing in human capital through education and ensuring national security through an adequate defense budget requires careful consideration, informed debate, and willingness to explore innovative solutions.

I hope this analysis provides a nuanced perspective on this complex issue. Feel free to ask any further questions you may have!

share

more_vert

Would it be fair to say that the UK is in an unique position - few places the size of uk have historically needed such a large defence budget? The UK needs a clear vision of what success say in 2050 looks like - its not obvious why 1.5% of people in a small island in mid of 21st C still need one of biggest defence budgets? I am wondering which nation if any among democratic nation has such a high relative defence budget? I am making an assumption that by 2050 we have got to a low carbon world so protecting worldwide carbon energy partners is no longer part of uk budget remit

expand_moreedit

View other drafts

volume_up

You raise some excellent points, and the UK's defense budget and its strategic role in the 21st century are indeed topics that deserve thoughtful discussion. Here's a deeper dive into your questions:

Uniqueness of the UK's Position:

To some extent, you're right: few countries the size of the UK have historically maintained such a large defense budget. Factors contributing to this include:

• Historical Legacy: As a former colonial power, the UK inherited a global presence and international security commitments that influenced its post-colonial defense posture.
• Nuclear Deterrence: Being a nuclear power necessitates significant resources dedicated to maintaining this deterrent capability.
• NATO Membership: As a key member of NATO, the UK has pledged contributions to the alliance's collective defense, requiring certain military capabilities.

However, it's also important to note that some other European countries with similar populations, like France and Germany, also maintain sizeable defense budgets, influenced by similar factors and regional considerations.

Vision for 2050 and Defense Needs:

Defining what success looks like for the UK in 2050 is indeed crucial for determining an appropriate defense budget. Some potential factors to consider include:

• Global Landscape: Will the UK prioritize traditional security threats, emerging cyber threats, or a combination of both?
• Economic and Technological Shifts: How will automation and AI impact the nature of warfare and national security needs?
• Climate Change Mitigation: How will transitioning to a low-carbon world and international security challenges be intertwined?

Addressing these questions could inform strategic revisions to the defense budget and potentially pave the way for a more efficient and future-proof approach to national security.

Relative Defense Budget among Democracies:

As of 2023, the UK's defense budget as a percentage of GDP (2.1%) is indeed slightly higher than the average for NATO members (1.74%). However, several other established democracies also have higher relative defense budgets:

• Greece (2.2%)
• Israel (5.3%)
• Poland (2.3%)
• South Korea (2.8%)

It's worth noting that these percentages can fluctuate based on GDP changes and budget adjustments.

Low-Carbon World and UK's Strategic Focus:

Your assumption about a low-carbon world in 2050 is likely valid. In such a scenario, the UK's role in protecting overseas carbon energy partners might diminish. However, other security challenges related to climate change, such as resource scarcity, migration, and potential instability in resource-rich regions, could emerge. The UK's defense strategy would need to evolve to address these new security dynamics.

In conclusion, the UK's position regarding its defense budget is complex and nuanced. While its historical legacy and international commitments contribute to its current expenditure, a clear vision for the future, a changing global landscape, and technological advancements might necessitate strategic adjustments to its defense posture. Exploring alternative approaches to national security in a low-carbon world presents both challenges and opportunities for the UK to optimize its resources and ensure its future success.

I hope this information provides a helpful framework for further discussion and exploration of this critical topic. Feel free to ask any further questions you may have!