Many have heralded artificial intelligence as a force-multiplier for defence and intelligence capabilities. Do you want armed autonomous vehicles to comply with legal and ethical obligations as set out in the Royal Australian Navy's robotics, autonomous systems and AI strategy? Do you want to more effectively analyse intelligence to predict what an adversary will do next? And AI's proponents are right--it could, and likely will, do all of those things, but not yet. Its ability to spot patterns, compute figures and calculate optimum solutions on an'if X happens then do Y' basis is now unmatched by any human being.

Congress wants to pour hundreds of billions (yes with a B) of dollars into the federal government to increase the nation's competitiveness in emerging technology and, in particular, to accelerate the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies that are vital to protecting our national security. The bipartisan support shown for the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) – the bill that provides these funds – is a noteworthy and important step in ensuring the United States is resilient and competitive in the 21st century. And that kind of money is nothing to sneeze at. But can the federal government manage to spend it? Thanks to China's aggressive, whole-of-nation approach to emerging technology and the ubiquity of AI technologies that adversaries big and small are now poised to exploit, there is a sudden urgency around AI and national security.

Speaking on the record to an invited audience at RUSI on 21 January 2019, GCHQ Deputy Director for Strategic Policy Paul Killworth described how Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) have the potential to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of various intelligence functions. However, these capabilities bring with them complex legal and ethical considerations, and there is a strong public expectation that the UK's intelligence agencies will act in a way that protects citizens' rights and freedoms. The national security community has expressed a desire to engage in a more open dialogue on these issues, with Killworth stressing that'it is absolutely essential that we have the debates around AI and machine learning in the national security space that will deliver the answers and approaches that will give us public consent'. However, it may prove difficult to provide sufficient reassurances to the public concerning national security uses of AI, due to understandably high levels of sensitivity. Public acceptance of intelligence agencies' use of technology is driven by two conflicting sentiments. On the one hand, there is a high expectation that the national security community will protect citizens from threats to their safety, and adopt new methods that may allow them to do this more effectively.