Content strategy guides the planning, development, and management of content. It is a recognized field in user experience design, and it also draws from adjacent disciplines such as information architecture, content management, business analysis, digital marketing, and technical communication. == Definitions == Content strategy has been described as planning for "the creation, publication, and governance of useful, usable content." It has also been called "a repeatable system that defines the entire editorial content development process for a website development project." In a 2007 article titled "Content Strategy: The Philosophy of Data," Rachel Lovinger describes the goal of content strategy as using "words and data to create unambiguous content that supports meaningful, interactive experiences." Here, she also provided the analogy that "content strategy is to copywriting as information architecture is to design." She encourages content strategists and collaborators to engage in early discussions about content meaning, models, and tools, to make sure strategy is integrated from the start rather than as an afterthought. The Content Strategy Alliance combines Kevin Nichols' definition with Kristina Halvorson's and defines content strategy as "getting the right content to the right user at the right time through strategic planning of content creation, delivery, and governance." == Practitioners == Content strategists are often familiar with a wide range of approaches, techniques, and tools. The perspectives that content strategists bring also depend heavily on their professional training and education. For instance, some specialize in "front-end strategy," which includes developing personas, journey mapping the user experience, aligning business strategy and user needs, developing a brand strategy, exploring different channels, and creating style guidelines and search engine optimization (SEO) guidelines. Others specialize in "back-end strategy," which includes creating content models, planning taxonomies and metadata, structuring content management systems, and building systems to support content reuse. Both roles involve addressing workflow and governance issues. Many organizations and individuals tend to confuse content strategists with editors. However, content strategy is "about more than just the written word," according to Washington State University associate professor Brett Atwood. For example, Atwood indicates that a practitioner needs to also "consider how content might be re-distributed and/or re-purposed in other channels of delivery." It has also been proposed that the content strategist performs the role of a curator. Just as a museum curator sifts through a collection of content and identifies key pieces that can be juxtaposed against each other to create meaning and spur excitement, a content strategist "must approach a business’s content as a medium that needs to be strategically selected and placed to engage the audience, convey a message, and inspire action."
Cloud Security Alliance
Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) is a not-for-profit organization with the mission to "promote the use of best practices for providing security assurance within cloud computing, artificial intelligence and to provide education on the uses of cloud computing to help secure all other forms of computing." The CSA has over 80,000 individual members worldwide. The CSA gained significant reputability in 2011 when the American Presidential Administration selected the CSA Summit as the venue for announcing the federal government’s cloud computing strategy. == History == The CSA was formed in December 2008 as a coalition by individuals who saw the need to provide objective enterprise user guidance on the adoption and use of cloud computing. Its initial work product, Security Guidance for Critical Areas of Focus in Cloud Computing, was put together in a Wiki-style by dozens of volunteers. In 2014, the Chairman of the Board of the CSA was Dave Cullinane, VP of Global Security and Privacy for Catalina Marketing, St. Petersburg, Florida, and former CISO for eBay. Cullinane has said, "If you have an application exposed to the Internet that will allow people to make money, it will be probed." == Profile == In 2009, the Cloud Security Alliance incorporated in Nevada as a Corporation and achieved US Federal 501(c)6 non-profit status. It is registered as a Foreign Non-Profit Corporation in Washington. == Policy maker support == The CSA works to support a number of global policy makers in their focus on cloud security initiatives including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), European Commission, Singapore Government, and other data protection authorities. In March 2012, the CSA was selected to partner with three of Europe’s largest research centers (CERN, EMBL and ESA) to launch Helix Nebula – The Science Cloud. == Size == The Cloud Security Alliance employs roughly sixty full-time and contract staff worldwide. It has several thousand active volunteers participating in research, working groups and chapters at any time. == Membership == According to CSA, they are a member-driven organization, chartered with promoting the use of best practices for providing security assurance within Cloud Computing, and providing education on the uses of Cloud Computing to help secure all other forms of computing. === Individuals === Individuals who are interested in cloud computing and have experience to assist in making it more secure receive a complimentary individual membership based on a minimum level of participation. === Chapters === The Cloud Security Alliance has a network of chapters worldwide. Chapters are separate legal entities from the Cloud Security Alliance, but operate within guidelines set down by the Cloud Security Alliance In the United States, Chapters may elect to benefit from the non-profit tax shield that the Cloud Security Alliance has. Chapters are encouraged to hold local meetings and participate in areas of research. Chapter activities are coordinated by the Cloud Security Alliance worldwide. === International scope === There are separate legal entities in Europe and Asia Pacific, called Cloud Security Alliance (Europe), a Scottish company in the United Kingdom, and Cloud Security Alliance Asia Pacific Ltd, in Singapore. Each legal entity is responsible for overseeing all Cloud Security Alliance-related activities in their respective regions. These legal entities operate under an agreement with Cloud Security Alliance that give it oversight power and have separate Boards of Directors. Both are companies Limited By Guarantee. The Managing Directors of each are members of the Executive Team of Cloud Security Alliance. == Areas of research == The Cloud Security Alliance has 25+ active working groups. Key areas of research include cloud standards, certification, education and training, guidance and tools, global reach, and driving innovation. Security Guidance for Critical Areas of Focus in Cloud Computing. Foundational best practices for securing cloud computing. Top Threats to Cloud Computing. Helps organizations make educated risk management decisions regarding their cloud adoption strategies. GRC (Governance, Risk and Compliance) Stack. A toolkit for key stakeholders to instrument and assess clouds against industry established best practices, standards and critical compliance requirements. Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM). Security controls framework for cloud provider and cloud consumers. CloudTrust Protocol. The mechanism by which cloud service consumers ask for and receive information about the elements of transparency as applied to cloud service providers. Consensus Assessments Initiative Research. Tools and processes to perform consistent measurements of cloud providers. Software Defined Perimeter. A proposed security framework that can be deployed to protect application infrastructure from network-based attacks. It will incorporate standards from organizations such as OASIS and NIST and security concepts from organizations like the U.S. DoD into an integrated framework. == Working groups and initiatives == Mobile Working Group Big Data Working Group Security as a Service Working Group Trusted Cloud Initiative CloudAudit CloudCERT CloudSIRT Cloud Metrics Security, Trust and Assurance Registry (STAR) Cloud Data Governance Turbot (business) Blockchain/Distributed Ledger
Trustworthy AI
Trustworthy AI refers to artificial intelligence systems that are designed to have transparent reasoning, are explainable (XAI), accountable, robust, fair and honest, respectful of data privacy, and steerable or alignable with human goals. == Terminology == Recent work in AI ethics distinguishes trustworthiness and trustability as two different conditions relevant to trustworthy AI. Trustworthiness is concerned with whether an AI system or the institutions deploying it merit trust by being reliable, fair, and accountable. Trustability, on the other hand, is the prior question of whether a given entity is even the kind of thing to which interpersonal trust can coherently apply as opposed to mere instrumental reliance. Some philosophers argue that current AI systems are best understood as tools that are not genuine targets of interpersonal trust. They argue that trust should be directed toward the human and institutional arrangements that govern the systems' design, deployment, and oversight. This stance supports interpreting "trustworthy AI" as trustworthy governance and use of AI rather than trust in the artifacts themselves. Transparency in AI involves making the processes and decisions of such systems understandable to users and stakeholders. Accountability ensures that there are protocols for addressing adverse outcomes or biases that may arise, with designated responsibilities for oversight and remediation. Robustness and security aim to ensure that AI systems perform reliably under various conditions and are safeguarded against malicious attacks. Harmlessness can be achieved by refusal training: training the models to avoid problematic requests, and by adding filters to detect and prevent discussion on biased, unethical, or dangerous outputs. There is research on how to train AI so that it aligns with human goals. == Techniques and ITU standardization == Trustworthy AI creation is a goal of AI governance and policymaking. To achieve transparency and data privacy, several privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) can be used. These include: Homomorphic encryption for computing with encrypted data without ever decrypting it. Federated learning and secure multi-party computation (MPC) for distributing the model training without sharing information between the learning centers and computing servers. Differential privacy for exposing statistical data while guaranteeing that no private information is exposed. Zero-knowledge proof - providing proven validity for statements without disclosing any extra information. A work programme for achieving Trustworthy AI was set up by the International Telecommunication Union, an agency of the United Nations, initiated under its AI for Good programme. Its origin lies with the ITU-WHO Focus Group on Artificial Intelligence for Health, where a strong need for both privacy and analytics created demand for a standard in these technologies. In 2020, AI for Good moved online, and the TrustworthyAI seminar series was established to initiate discussions on these topics. This eventually led to standardization activities. === Multi-party computation === Secure multi-party computation (MPC) is being standardized under "Question 5" (the incubator) of ITU-T Study Group 17. === Homomorphic encryption === Homomorphic encryption allows for computing on encrypted data, where the outcomes or result is still encrypted and unknown to those performing the computation, but can be deciphered by the original encryptor. It is often developed with the goal of enabling use in jurisdictions different from the data creation (under, for instance, GDPR). ITU has been collaborating since the early stage of the HomomorphicEncryption.org standardization meetings, which has developed a standard on homomorphic encryption. The fifth homomorphic encryption meeting was hosted at ITU HQ in Geneva. === Federated learning === Zero-sum masks as used by federated learning for privacy preservation are used extensively in the multimedia standards of ITU-T Study Group 16 (VCEG) such as JPEG, MP3, H.264, and H.265 (commonly known as MPEG). === Zero-knowledge proof === Previous pre-standardization work on the topic of zero-knowledge proof has been conducted in the ITU-T Focus Group on Digital Ledger Technologies. === Differential privacy === The application of differential privacy in the preservation of privacy was examined at several of the "Day 0" machine learning workshops at AI for Good Global Summits. == Mozilla "Rebel Alliance" == In January 2026, the Mozilla Foundation and its subsidiaries announced a strategic shift to deploy their entire $1.4 billion reserve into building what foundation president Mark Surman termed a "rebel alliance" for trustworthy AI. Framed by Surman as a mission-driven alternative to the market dominance of OpenAI and Anthropic, the initiative seeks to establish an open-source AI stack by 2028. The alliance includes several startups funded via Mozilla Ventures, specifically focusing on decentralized governance and transparency: Trail: A firm developing AI compliance frameworks for regulated industries. Transformer Lab: A developer of open-source tools for AI model management. Oumi: A platform for training and deploying open-source models. The "rebel alliance" terminology is a historical reference to Mozilla's efforts in 1998 to challenge Microsoft's browser monopoly. While the $1.4 billion in funding is significant, it has been contrasted with the tens of billions in capital raised by proprietary competitors like OpenAI.
Seeing AI
Seeing AI is an artificial intelligence application developed by Microsoft for iOS. Seeing AI uses the device camera to identify people and objects, and then the app audibly describes those objects for visually impaired people. == Capabilities == Seeing AI is primarily used to describe short text, documents, products, people, currency scenery, colors, handwriting and light. The app can scan a barcode to describe a product and uses sounds to assist the user in focusing on the barcode. When the app describes people, it attempts to estimate the person's age, gender, and emotional status. Additionally, in a test run by German journalists in December 2019, Seeing AI apparently used some sort of facial recognition system to identify people on photographs by name. Some functions are performed on the device, however more complex functions such as describing a scene or recognizing handwriting require an Internet connection. In December 2017, Seeing AI introduced the ability for currency recognition for US and Canadian dollar, British pounds and Euros. In December 2019, Seeing AI added support for five more languages, Dutch, French, German, Japanese, Spanish. Seeing AI is available in 70 countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Egypt, Albania, Bhutan, etc. Supported on iPhone 5C, 5S and later best performance with iPhone 6S, SE and later models
Lisp machine
Lisp machines are general-purpose computers designed to efficiently run Lisp as their main software and programming language, usually via hardware support. They are an example of a high-level language computer architecture. In a sense, they were the first commercial single-user workstations. Despite being modest in number (perhaps 7,000 units total as of 1988) Lisp machines commercially pioneered some now-commonplace technologies, including networking innovations such as Chaosnet, and effective garbage collection. Several firms built and sold Lisp machines in the 1980s: Symbolics (3600, 3640, XL1200, MacIvory, and other models), Lisp Machines Incorporated (LMI Lambda), Texas Instruments (Explorer, MicroExplorer), and Xerox (Interlisp-D workstations). The operating systems were written in Lisp Machine Lisp, Interlisp (Xerox), and later partly in Common Lisp. == History == === Historical context === Artificial intelligence (AI) computer programs of the 1960s and 1970s intrinsically required what was then considered a huge amount of computer power, as measured in processor time and memory space. The power requirements of AI research were exacerbated by the Lisp symbolic programming language, when commercial hardware was designed and optimized for assembly- and Fortran-like programming languages. At first, the cost of such computer hardware meant that it had to be shared among many users. As integrated circuit technology shrank the size and cost of computers in the 1960s and early 1970s, and the memory needs of AI programs began to exceed the address space of the most common research computer, the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-10, researchers considered a new approach: a computer designed specifically to develop and run large artificial intelligence programs, and tailored to the semantics of the Lisp language. To provide consistent performance for interactive programs, these machines would often not be shared, but would be dedicated to a single user at a time. === Initial development === In 1973, Richard Greenblatt and Thomas Knight, programmers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (AI Lab), began what would become the MIT Lisp Machine Project when they first began building a computer hardwired to run certain basic Lisp operations, rather than run them in software, in a 24-bit tagged architecture. The machine also did incremental (or Arena) garbage collection. More specifically, since Lisp variables are typed at runtime rather than compile time, a simple addition of two variables could take five times as long on conventional hardware, due to test and branch instructions. Lisp Machines ran the tests in parallel with the more conventional single instruction additions. If the simultaneous tests failed, then the result was discarded and recomputed; this meant in many cases a speed increase by several factors. This simultaneous checking approach was used as well in testing the bounds of arrays when referenced, and other memory management necessities (not merely garbage collection or arrays). Type checking was further improved and automated when the conventional byte word of 32 bits was lengthened to 36 bits for Symbolics 3600-model Lisp machines and eventually to 40 bits or more (usually, the excess bits not accounted for by the following were used for error-correcting codes). The first group of extra bits were used to hold type data, making the machine a tagged architecture, and the remaining bits were used to implement compressed data representation (CDR) coding (wherein the usual linked list elements are compressed to occupy roughly half the space), aiding garbage collection by reportedly an order of magnitude. A further improvement was two microcode instructions which specifically supported Lisp functions, reducing the cost of calling a function to as little as 20 clock cycles, in some Symbolics implementations. The first machine was called the CONS machine (named after the list construction operator cons in Lisp). Often it was affectionately referred to as the Knight machine, perhaps since Knight wrote his master's thesis on the subject; it was extremely well received. It was subsequently improved into a version called CADR (a pun; in Lisp, the cadr function, which returns the second item of a list, is pronounced /ˈkeɪ.dəɹ/ or /ˈkɑ.dəɹ/, as some pronounce the word "cadre") which was based on essentially the same architecture. About 25 of what were essentially prototype CADRs were sold within and without MIT for ~$50,000; it quickly became the favorite machine for hacking – many of the most favored software tools were quickly ported to it (e.g. Emacs was ported from ITS in 1975). It was so well received at an AI conference held at MIT in 1978 that Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began funding its development. === Commercializing MIT Lisp machine technology === In 1979, Russell Noftsker, being convinced that Lisp machines had a bright commercial future due to the strength of the Lisp language and the enabling factor of hardware acceleration, proposed to Greenblatt that they commercialize the technology. In a counter-intuitive move for an AI Lab hacker, Greenblatt acquiesced, hoping perhaps that he could recreate the informal and productive atmosphere of the Lab in a real business. These ideas and goals were considerably different from those of Noftsker. The two negotiated at length, but neither would compromise. As the proposed firm could succeed only with the full and undivided assistance of the AI Lab hackers as a group, Noftsker and Greenblatt decided that the fate of the enterprise was up to them, and so the choice should be left to the hackers. The ensuing discussions of the choice divided the lab into two factions. In February 1979, matters came to a head. The hackers sided with Noftsker, believing that a commercial venture-fund-backed firm had a better chance of surviving and commercializing Lisp machines than Greenblatt's proposed self-sustaining start-up. Greenblatt lost the battle. It was at this juncture that Symbolics, Noftsker's enterprise, slowly came together. While Noftsker was paying his staff a salary, he had no building or any equipment for the hackers to work on. He bargained with Patrick Winston that, in exchange for allowing Symbolics' staff to keep working out of MIT, Symbolics would let MIT use internally and freely all the software Symbolics developed. A consultant from CDC, who was trying to put together a natural language computer application with a group of West-coast programmers, came to Greenblatt, seeking a Lisp machine for his group to work with, about eight months after the disastrous conference with Noftsker. Greenblatt had decided to start his own rival Lisp machine firm, but he had done nothing. The consultant, Alexander Jacobson, decided that the only way Greenblatt was going to start the firm and build the Lisp machines that Jacobson desperately needed was if Jacobson pushed and otherwise helped Greenblatt launch the firm. Jacobson pulled together business plans, a board, a partner for Greenblatt (one F. Stephen Wyle). The newfound firm was named LISP Machine, Inc. (LMI), and was funded by CDC orders, via Jacobson. Around this time Symbolics (Noftsker's firm) began operating. It had been hindered by Noftsker's promise to give Greenblatt a year's head start, and by severe delays in procuring venture capital. Symbolics still had the major advantage that while 3 or 4 of the AI Lab hackers had gone to work for Greenblatt, 14 other hackers had signed onto Symbolics. Two AI Lab people were not hired by either: Richard Stallman and Marvin Minsky. Stallman, however, blamed Symbolics for the decline of the hacker community that had centered around the AI lab. For two years, from 1982 to the end of 1983, Stallman worked by himself to clone the output of the Symbolics programmers, with the aim of preventing them from gaining a monopoly on the lab's computers. Regardless, after a series of internal battles, Symbolics did get off the ground in 1980/1981, selling the CADR as the LM-2, while Lisp Machines, Inc. sold it as the LMI-CADR. Symbolics did not intend to produce many LM-2s, since the 3600 family of Lisp machines was supposed to ship quickly, but the 3600s were repeatedly delayed, and Symbolics ended up producing ~100 LM-2s, each of which sold for $70,000. Both firms developed second-generation products based on the CADR: the Symbolics 3600 and the LMI-LAMBDA (of which LMI managed to sell ~200). The 3600, which shipped a year late, expanded on the CADR by widening the machine word to 36-bits, expanding the address space to 28-bits, and adding hardware to accelerate certain common functions that were implemented in microcode on the CADR. The LMI-LAMBDA, which came out a year after the 3600, in 1983, was compatible with the CADR (it could run CADR microcode), but hardware differences existed. Texas Instruments (TI) joined the fray whe
Quack.com
Quack.com was an early voice portal company. The domain name later was used for Quack, an iPad search application from AOL. == History == It was founded in 1998 by Steven Woods, Jeromy Carriere and Alex Quilici as a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, based voice portal infrastructure company named Quackware. Quack was the first company to try to create a voice portal: a consumer-based destination "site" in which consumers could not only access information by voice alone, but also complete transactions. Quackware launched a beta phone service in 1999 that allowed consumers to purchase books from sites such as Amazon and CDs from sites such as CDNow by answering a short set of questions. Quack followed with a set of information services from movie listings (inspired by, but expanding upon, Moviefone) to news, weather and stock quotes. This concept introduced a series of lookalike startups including Tellme Networks which raised more money than any Internet startup in history on a similar concept. Quack received its first venture funding from HDL Capital in 1999 and moved operations to Mountain View in Silicon Valley, California in 1999. A deal with Lycos was announced in May 2000. In September 2000 Quack was acquired for $200 million by America Online (AOL) and moved onto the Netscape campus with what was left of the Netscape team. Quack was attacked in the Canadian press for being representative of the Canadian "brain drain" to the US during the Internet bubble, focusing its recruiting efforts on the University of Waterloo, hiring more than 50 engineers from Waterloo in less than 10 months. Quack competitor Tellme Networks raised enormous funds in what became a highly competitive market in 2000, with the emergence of more than a dozen additional competitors in a 12-month period. Following its acquisition by America Online in an effort led by Ted Leonsis to bring Quack into AOL Interactive, the Quack voice service became AOLbyPhone as one of AOL's "web properties" along with MapQuest, Moviefone and others. Quack secured several patents that underlie the technical challenges of delivering interactive voice services. Constructing a voice portal required integrations and innovations not only in speech recognition and speech generation, but also in databases, application specification, constraint-based reasoning and artificial intelligence and computational linguistics. "Quack"'s name derived from the company goal of providing not only voice-based services, but more broadly "Quick Ubiquitous Access to Consumer Knowledge". The patents assigned to Quack.com include: System and method for voice access to Internet-based information, System and method for advertising with an Internet Voice Portal and recognizing the axiom that in interactive voice systems one must "know the set of possible answers to a question before asking it". System and method for determining if one web site has the same information as another web site. Quack.com was spoofed in The Simpsons in March 2002 in the episode "Blame It on Lisa" in which a "ComQuaak" sign is replaced by another equally crazy telecom company name. == 2010 onwards == In July 2010, quack.com became the focus of a new AOL iPad application, that was a web search experience. The product delivers web results and blends in picture, video and Twitter results. It enables you to preview the web results before you go to the site, search within each result, and flip through the results pages, making full use of the iPad's touch screen features. The iPad app was free via iTunes, but support discontinued in 2012.
National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence
The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) was an independent commission of the United States of America from 2018 to 2021. Its mission was to make recommendations to the President and Congress to "advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States". The commission's 15 members were nominated by the United States Congress. The NSCAI was dissolved on 1 October 2021. == History and reporting == The NSCAI began working in March 2019 and by November 2019 it had received more than 200 classified and unclassified briefings to help with the creation of its final report due in 2021.On 4 November 2019, the NSCAI shared its interim report with Congress, where it explained the 27 initial judgements to base its ongoing work. In the interim report the commission also agreed on seven principles: Global leadership in AI technology is a national security priority AI adoption is an urgent imperative for national security A shared sense of responsibility for the American peoples security must be created from government officials and private sector leaders. It needs to find local AI talent and use it to attract the world’s best minds Actions used for the protection of America’s AI leadership against foreign threats needs to follow the principles of free enterprise, free inquiry and free flow of ideas. The technical limitations of AI are universally known, however, a strong desire remains for powerful, dependable, and secure AI systems. United States used AI must follow American values including the rule of law Fundamental areas of effort for the preservation of U.S. advantages were also agreed upon in the interim report of 2019. The NSCAI released its first report of recommendations in March 2020, most of which were included in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. In July 2020, the commission published the second report to Congress. It identified 35 actions for both Executive and Legislative branches, which were focused on six fundamental areas. This report was available to the public. In January 2021, a draft of the final report was presented at a panel led by Schmidt. The report recommended the US to use AI technology for military use and development. It issued its final report in March 2021, saying that the U.S. is not sufficiently prepared to defend or compete against China in the AI era. It was broken up into two parts, the first titled “Defending America in the AI Era”, and the second “Winning the Technology Competition”. The report spoke about China’s efforts and investments into integration and that it could very well take the lead in AI in the next few years. Additional suggestions were made to concentrate on AI in everything we do and to implement it into US national security on multiple levels, as well as focus on bringing in new talent to develop AI and to introduce it to the working force on both civilian and military levels. Another recommendation of the NSCAI report was to develop and provide China and Russia with alternative models that are based on norms and democratic values. The final report also included a proposed $40 billion budget for government spending. On 14 April 2021, NSCAI executive director Ylli Bajraktari and director of Research and Analysis Justin Lynch participated in an event held by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) to discuss the final report findings. In October 2021, NSCAI chair Eric Schmidt founded the bipartisan, non-profit Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) through his family led non-profit Eric & Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation in order to carry on the NSCAI’s efforts and expand beyond national security. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies held an event in June 2023, called “Thinking Forward After the NSCAI and CSC: A Discussion on AI and Cyber Policy”, with former members of NSCAI on the moderation panel, including Eric Schmidt and Ylli Bajraktari. == Members == Members of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence: Eric Schmidt (chair), former CEO of Google Robert Work (Vice Chair), former Deputy Secretary of Defense Mignon Clyburn, former Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission Chris Darby, CEO of In-Q-Tel Kenneth M. Ford, CEO of the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Jose-Marie Griffiths, President of Dakota State University Eric Horvitz, Technical Fellow at Microsoft Katrina G. McFarland, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Jason Matheny, Director of the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University Gilman Louie, partner at Alsop Louie Partners William Mark, vice president at SRI International Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services (AWS) Safra Catz, CEO of Oracle Steve Chien, Technical Fellow at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Andrew Moore, Google/Alphabet == Recommendations == The report's recommendations include: Dramatically increasing non-defense federal spending on AI research and development, doubling every year from $2 billion in 2022, to $32 billion in 2026. That would bring it up to a level similar to spending on biomedical research A dramatic increase in undergraduate scholarship and graduate studies fellowships in AI Creation of a Digital Corps to bring skilled tech workers into government Founding of a Digital Service Academy: an accredited university providing subsidized education in exchange for a commitment to work for a time in government Include civil rights and civil liberty reports for new AI systems or major updates to existing systems Expanding allocations of employment-based green cards, and giving them to every AI PhD graduate from an accredited U.S. university Reforming the acquisition management system Department of Defense to make it faster and easier to introduce new technologies == Transparency == In December 2019, a ruling was made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that the NSCAI must also provide historical documents upon request. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed the lawsuit against the NSCAI in September 2019 after being refused information about the upcoming meetings and prepared records of the commission under FOIA and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in June 2020 that the NSCAI must comply with FACA and therefore hold open meetings and provide records to the public. The lawsuit was also filed by EPIC.