The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

Some have suggested that you create a new international organization

that has parallels to the international atomic energy agency

that would help conduct inspections, that would provide regulatory guidance, and so on.

And as I dug into those references to the nuclear analogy,

it struck me that there were really some quite important differences between nuclear weapons

and national security AI, including the fact that it is very hard to count the weapons right in the nuclear space.

It's a tangible, a nuclear weapon is a tangible thing, a warhead is a tangible thing.

Much harder to count something like the use of an AI tool.

Verification is really different.

I think it is quite difficult to verify whether a state is engaged in the development and use of AI tools.

And there's also no government monopoly on AI tools in the way that there is in the nuclear weapons space.

I'm Alan Rosenstein, and this is the LawFair podcast March 28, 2023.

States are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence systems to enhance their national security decision making.

The real risks that states will deploy on lawful or unreliable national security AI makes international regulation seem appealing.

But what's the right model?

Ashley Deeks is the class of 1948 professor of scholarly research and law at the University of Virginia.

...