John Savage

Farewell to the U.S. as the World’s Top Science Nation

June 21, 2025 by Llewellyn King Leave a Comment

When I asked John Savage, the retired co-founder of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University, what the essential ingredient in research is, he responded with one word: “Passion.”

It is passion that keeps scientists going, dead end after dead end, until there is a breakthrough.

It is passion that keeps them at the bench or staring into a microscope or redesigning an experiment with slight modifications until that “eureka moment.”

I have been writing about science for half a century. I can tell you that passion is the bridge between daunting difficulty and triumphant discovery.

Next comes money: steady, reliable funding, not start-and-stop dribbles.

It is painful to watch the defunding of the nation’s research arm by roughly a third to a half; the wanton destruction of what, since the end of World War II, has kept the United States the premier inventor-nation, the unequaled leader in discovery.

It is dangerous to believe the status quo ante will return when another administration is voted in, maybe in 2028.

You don’t pick up the pieces of projects that are, as they were, ripped from the womb and put them back together again, even if the researchers are still available — if they haven’t gone to the willing arms of research hubs overseas or other careers.

The work isn’t made whole again just because the money is back. The passion is gone.

There are crude, massive reductions in funding for research and development across the government — with the most axing in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). But the philistines with their metaphorical chainsaws have slashed wildly and deeply into every corner of science, every place where talented men and women probe, analyze and seek to know.

This brutal, mindless slashing isn’t just upending careers, causing projects to be abandoned in midstream, destroying the precious passion that is the driver of discovery, but it is also a blow against the future. It is a turn from light to dark.

The whiz kids of DOGE aren’t cost-cutting. They are amputating the nation’s future.

The cutting of funds to NIH — until now the world’s premier medical research center, a citadel of hope for the sick and the guarantor that the future will have less suffering than the past — may be the most egregious act of many.

It is a terrible blow to those suffering from cancer to Parkinson’s and the myriad diseases in between who hope that NIH will come up with a cure or a therapy before they die prematurely. It is a heartless betrayal.

The full horror of the dismantling of what they call the nation’s “scientific pillar” has been laid out by two of America’s most eminent scientists in an essay in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

They are John Holdren, who served as President Barack Obama’s science adviser and as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Neal Lane, who was President Bill Clinton’s science adviser and is a former NSF director. In their alarming and telling essay, they appeal to Congress to step in and save America’s global leadership in science.

They write, “What is happening now exceeds our worst fears. Consider, first, the National Science Foundation, one of the brightest jewels in the crown of U.S. science and the public interest. …. It’s the nation’s largest single funder of university basic research in fields other than medicine. Basic research, of course, is the seed corn from which future advances in applied science and technology flow.”

The NSF co-stars in the federal research ecosystem with NIH and DOE, the authors write. The NSF has funded research underpinning the internet, the Google search engine, magnetic resonance imaging, laser eye surgery, 3-D printing, CRISPR gene editing technology and much more.

The NIH is the world’s leading biomedical research facility. The writers say it spends 83 percent of its $48 billion annual budget on competitive grants, supporting over 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 institutions in all 50 states. Another 11 percent of the agency’s budget supports the 6,000 researchers in its own laboratories.

Holdren and Lane write, “Of the energy department’s $50 billion budget in fiscal 2024, about $15 billion went to non- defense research and development.”

Some $8 billion of this went to the DOE Office of Science Research, the largest funder in basic research in the physical sciences, supporting 300 institutions around the country including the department’s own 17 laboratories.

In all of the seminal moves made by the Trump administration, what The Economist calls the president’s “War on Science” may be the most damaging.

The Backdoor Challenge of AI Machine-Learning

December 6, 2024 by Llewellyn King Leave a Comment

The great race is on. It isn’t the one on television, but it is one that has put the world’s wealthiest companies in fierce competition to secure market share in artificial intelligence.

The handful of big-tech companies and their satellites may have spent as much as $1 trillion on machine-learning and data center infrastructure to stuff their AI systems with billions of bits of information hoovered up from public and private sources on the internet.

These companies — Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI among them — are rich and have made their creators rich beyond compare because of information technology. Their challenge is to hold onto what they have now and to secure their futures in the next great opportunity: AI.

An unfortunate result of the wild dash to secure the franchise is that the big-tech companies — and I have confirmed this with some senior employees — have rushed new products to market before they are ready.

The racers figure that the embarrassment of so-called hallucinations (errors) is better than letting a competitor get out in front.

The challenge is that if one of the companies — and Google is often mentioned — isn’t on the leaderboard, it could fail. It could happen: Remember “MySpace”?

The downside of this speedy race is that safety systems aren’t in place or effective — a danger that could spell operational catastrophe, particularly regarding so-called backdoors.

According to two savants in the AI world, Derek Reveron and John Savage, there is a clear-and-present danger presented by this urgency for market speed over dangerous consequences.

Savage is the An Wang professor emeritus of computer science at Brown, and Reveron is chair of the National Security Affairs Department at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

Reveron and Savage have been sounding the alarm on backdoors, first in their book, “Security in the Cyber Age: An Introduction to Policy and Technology,” published by Cambridge University Press early this year, and later in an article in Binding Hook, a British website with a focus on cybersecurity and AI.

“AI systems are trained neural networks, not computer programs. A neural net has many artificial neurons with parameters on neuron inputs that are adjusted (trained) to achieve a close match between the actual and the desired outputs. The inputs (stimuli) and desired output responses constitute a training set, and the process of training a neural net is called machine-learning,” the co-authors write.

Backdoors were initially developed by telephone companies to assist the government in criminal or national security cases. That was before AI.

Savage told me that backdoors pose a grave threat because, through them, bad actors can insert malign information — commands or instructions — into computers in general and backdoors in machine-learning-based AI systems in particular. Some backdoors can be undetectable and capable of inflicting great damage.

Savage said he is especially worried about the military using AI prematurely and making the nation more vulnerable rather than safer.

He said an example would be a weapon fired from a drone fighter jet flying under AI guidance alongside a piloted fighter jet where the weapon fired by a drone could be directed to do a U-turn and come right back and destroy the piloted plane. Extrapolate that to the battlefield or to an aerial bombardment.

Savage says that researchers have recently shown that undetectable backdoors can be inserted into AI systems during the training process, which is a new, extremely serious, and largely unappreciated cybersecurity hazard.

The risk is exacerbated because feeding billions of words into big-tech companies’ machine-learning systems is now done in low-wage countries. This was highlighted in a recent “60 Minutes” episode about workers in Kenya earning $2 an hour, feeding data to machine-learning systems for American tech companies.

The bad actors can attack American AI by inserting dangerous misinformation in Kenya or in any other low-wage country. Of course, they can launch backdoor attacks here, too, where AI is used to write code, and then control for that code is lost.

In their Binding Hook article, Reveron and Savage make a critical point about AI. It isn’t just another more advanced computer system. It is fundamentally different and less manageable by its human masters. It lacks an underlying theory to explain its anomalous behavior, which is why the AI specialists who train machine-learning systems cannot explain this behavior.

Deploying technology with serious deficits is always risky until a way to compensate for them has been discovered. Trouble in is trouble out.

Cyberattack on the Infrastructure Alarms Petraeus, Coats

September 9, 2018 by Llewellyn King Leave a Comment

War always goes for the infrastructure: take out the bridges, cut off the electricity and water supplies. All that used to be done with artillery, tanks and bombs.

Going forward, it will be done by computers: Cyberwar.

Every day the early skirmishes — the tryout phase, if you will – are taking place. There are tens of thousands of probes of U.S. infrastructure by potential enemies, known and unknown, state and non-state. A few get through the defenses.

Jeremy Samide, chief executive officer of Stealthcare, a company which seeks to improve cyberdefenses for a diverse set of U.S. companies, sees the cyber battlefield starkly. He says the threat is very real; and he puts the threat of serious attack at 83 percent.

Jeremy Samide is chief executive officer of Stealthcare.

As Samide looks out across the United States from his base in Cleveland, he sees probes, the term of art for incoming cyberattacks, like an endless rain of arrows. Some, he says, will get through and the infrastructure is always at risk.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued a warning in July that the alarms for our digital infrastructure are “blinking.” He compared the situation to that in the country before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The situation, he told the Hudson Institute in a speech, is “critical.” Coats singled out Russia as the most active of the probers of U.S. infrastructure.

Samide says probing can come from anywhere and Russia may be the most active of the cyber adventurers.

A common scenario, he says, is that the electric grid is target one. But considerable devastation could come from attacking banking, communications, transportation or water supply.

Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, a former director of the CIA and current chairman of KKR Global Institute, in an article coauthored with Kiran Sridhar and published in Politico on Sept. 5, urges the creation of a new government agency devoted to cybersecurity.

Samide and others endorse this and worry that the government has much vital material spread across many agencies and not coordinated. Behind Petraeus’s thinking is one of the lessons of 9/11: Government departments aren’t good at sharing information.

Conventional wisdom has it that the electric grid is super-vulnerable. But Politico’s cybersecurity reporter David Perera, who consulted experts on the feasibility of taking down the grid, somewhat demurs. In a Politico article, he concluded that the kind of national blackout often theorized isn’t possible because of the complexity of the engineering in the grid and its diversity.

The difficulty, according to Perera, is for the intruder to drill down into the computer-managed engineering systems of the grid and attack the programable controllers, also known as industrial control systems — the devices which run things, like moving load, closing down a power plant or shutting off the fuel supply. They are automation’s brain.

Perera’s article has been read by some as getting the utilities off the hook. But it doesn’t do that: Perera’s piece is not only well-researched and argued but also warns against complacency and ignoring the threat.

John Savage, emeritus professor of computer science at Brown University, says, “I perceive that the risk to all business is not changing very much. But to utilities, it is rising because it appears to be a new front in [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s campaign to threaten Western interests. While I doubt that he would seek a direct conflict with us, he certainly is interested in making us uncomfortable. If he miscalculates, the consequences could be very serious.”

Samide warns against believing that all probes are equal in intent and purpose. He says there are various levels of probing from surveillance (checking on your operation) to reconnaissance (modeling your operation before a possible attack). Actual attacks, ranging from the political to the purely criminal, include ransomware attacks or the increasing cryptojacking in which a hacker hijacks a target’s processing power in order to mine cryptocurrency on the hacker’s behalf.

The threats are global and increasingly the attribution — the source of the attack — concealed. Other tactics, according to Samide, include misdirection: a classic espionage technique for diverting attention from the real aim of the attack.

The existential question is if cyberwar goes from low-grade to high-intensity, can we cope? And how effective are our countermeasures?

Today’s skirmishes are harbingers of the warfighting of the future. — For InsideSources