The celebrated return to China of its overseas scientists, as evidenced in the recent case of physicist Gao Huajian, is typically cited as a loss to the United States. This report argues a contrarian view that the benefits equation is far more complicated. PRC programs that channel diaspora achievements “back” to China and the inclination of many scientists to work in familiar venues blur the distinction between returning to China and staying in place.

China’s brain-computer interface research has two dimensions. Besides its usual applications in neuropathology, China is extending the benefits of BCI to the general population, aiming at enhanced cognition and a “merger” of natural and artificial intelligence. This report, authored in collaboration with researchers from the Department of War Studies at King’s College London uses bibliometric analysis and expert assessment of technical documents to evaluate China’s BCI, and conclude that the research is on track to achieve its targets.

How can policymakers credibly reveal and assess intentions in the field of artificial intelligence? Policymakers can send credible signals of their intent by making pledges or committing to undertaking certain actions for which they will pay a price—political, reputational, or monetary—if they back down or fail to make good on their initial promise or threat. Talk is cheap, but inadvertent escalation is costly to all sides.

Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States emphasize principles of accountability, explainability, fairness, privacy, security, and transparency in their high-level AI policy documents. But while the words are the same, these countries define each of these principles in slightly different ways that could have large impacts on interoperability and the formulation of international norms. This creates, what we call the “Inigo Montoya problem” in trustworthy AI, inspired by "The Princess Bride" movie quote: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

This data brief examines South Korea’s progress in its development of artificial intelligence. The authors find that the country excels in semiconductor manufacturing, is a global leader in the production of AI patents, and is an important contributor to AI research. At the same time, the AI investment ecosystem remains nascent and despite having a highly developed AI workforce, the demand for AI talent may soon outpace supply.

Israel has by far the largest AI ecosystem in the Middle East as measured in AI companies and financial investments, and foreign investors play a critical role in Israel’s AI market growth. This issue brief finds that AI investments in Israel have mostly originated from the United States. To date, Chinese investors have played a limited role in funding Israel’s dynamic AI companies. But understanding the risk of Chinese investments into the Israeli AI ecosystem will be important for the national security of both the United States and Israel.

China’s government has pushed the country’s technology and financial firms to expand abroad, and Southeast Asia’s growing economies — and AI companies — offer promising opportunities. This report examines the scope and nature of Chinese investment in the region. It finds that China currently plays a limited role in Southeast Asia’s emerging AI markets outside of Singapore and that Chinese investment activity still trails behind that of the United States. Nevertheless, Chinese tech companies, with support from the Chinese government, have established a broad range of other AI-related linkages with public and commercial actors across Southeast Asia.

Through the Quad forum, the United States, Australia, Japan and India have committed to pursuing an open, accessible and secure technology ecosystem and offering a democratic alternative to China’s techno-authoritarian model. This report assesses artificial intelligence collaboration across the Quad and finds that while Australia, Japan and India each have close AI-related research and investment ties to both the United States and China, they collaborate far less with one another.

Allies of the United States have begun to develop their own policy approaches to responsible military use of artificial intelligence. This issue brief looks at key allies with articulated, emerging, and nascent views on how to manage ethical risk in adopting military AI. The report compares their convergences and divergences, offering pathways for the United States, its allies, and multilateral institutions to develop common approaches to responsible AI implementation.

The Department of Defense can already begin applying its existing international science and technology agreements, global scientific networks, and role in multilateral institutions to stimulate digital defense cooperation. This issue brief frames this collection of options as a military AI cooperation toolbox, finding that the available tools offer valuable pathways to align policies, advance research, development, and testing, and to connect personnel–albeit in more structured ways in the Euro-Atlantic than in the Indo-Pacific.