Technology
Paragraphs

In January, news broke that a notorious People’s Republic of China (PRC) cyber espionage campaign called Salt Typhoon compromised email systems used by House of Representatives staffers. The affected systems included the committees responsible for monitoring and countering China’s influence, including the China, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Armed Services committees.

Congress is more than just a victim, however. It also has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that cyber laws and budgets are adequate to support the nation’s cyber defenses, and to be transparent about its own cyber challenges. In line with the president’s anticipated cybersecurity strategy, there is an urgent need for stronger congressional leadership in cyber policy, especially when it comes to countering China’s persistent and aggressive intrusions into U.S. infrastructure.

Continue reading at federalnewsnetwork.com

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Subtitle

There is an urgent need for stronger congressional leadership in cyber policy, especially when it comes to countering China’s persistent, aggressive intrusions.

Authors
Andrew Grotto
Paragraphs

ABSTRACT

Discourses on nuclear weapons and military applications of artificial intelligence (AI) portray them either as apocalyptic super weapons, posing catastrophic risks, or as indispensable to states’ national survival and the international security architecture. At the same time, debates about and governance efforts to regulate these weapons have become contested, stalled, or even abandoned. We examine the intersection of both regulatory discourses by asking: How do contemporary apocalyptic discourses about military AI and nuclear weapons shape international security governance of these technologies? Through the concept of apocalyptic imaginaries, we analyze how future-oriented visions capture the simultaneous utopian and dystopian implications of destructive technologies. We identify two cross-cutting apocalyptic imaginaries—exceptionalism and control—that produce specific security governance practices. Our findings reveal how shared apocalyptic imaginaries shape regulatory approaches, increasingly prioritizing risk management and non-proliferation over systemic discussions of disarmament or preventive prohibitions.

Download the full article here.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Authors
Anna-Katharina Ferl
Paragraphs

In recent years, analysts and scholars have noted that corruption or dysfunction in the global information ecosystem could have the effect of increasing nuclear risk.[1] In these works, corruption and dysfunction are interpreted broadly to include mis- and dis- information but also other information-related phenomena such as provocative or intemperate content, true-but-misleading information, or attentional diversions.

Now, the recent explosion in the capabilities of artificial intelligence—specifically, large language models (LLMs)—has led to the automated generation of novel text in enormous volumes and, increasingly, images and videos. For those interested in the creation of content to corrupt the information environment, there may be no better tool than a large language model. LLMs put former approaches to generating such content to shame. Also, LLM tools require far less expertise to produce and use, making the capabilities they afford much more broadly accessible and therefore expanding the number of possible threat actors as promoters of information dysfunction.

Continue reading at thebulletin.org.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Authors
Herbert Lin
Authors
Noa Ronkin
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

How did Taiwan transform itself from an impoverished economy into a titan of computer and semiconductor chip manufacturing, home to industry giants such as Acer, Foxconn, and TSMC?

The history presented in Honghong Tinn's recent book, Island Tinkerers: Innovation and Transformation in the Making of Taiwan’s Computing Industry (MIT Press), demonstrates that Taiwan's successful computing enterprises and manufacturing sectors arose from Taiwanese technologists' engagement in a process of technology transfer involving overlapping acts of imitation, emulation, experimentation, and innovation.

Tinn, a historian of information technology based at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, discussed her book at a recent seminar hosted by APARC's Taiwan Program. Watch the session recording:

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive event invitations >


Challenging the stereotype of "The West innovates, and the East imitates," Tinn traces the development of Taiwan’s computer and semiconductor industry to efforts by Taiwanese hobbyists and enthusiasts who leveraged Cold War-era U.S. technical assistance while simultaneously adapting and modifying imported technology. Through such hands-on tinkering, they deepened their technical understanding, made computing accessible across the island, and built the foundation for domestic manufacturing.

In her seminar presentation, Tinn focused on Chapter 8 of her book, which describes the technological achievements of Acer's founder, Stan Shih, and his engineers, and critiques their portrayal as counterfeiters by U.S. stakeholders. She recounts how, in 1983, Shih's company, originally named Multitech, realized the dream of manufacturing computers domestically and shipped a thousand microcomputers to the United States, only to have them intercepted by U.S. Customs in San Francisco. The computers, called Micro-Professor II, were deemed Apple II counterfeits despite being independently designed with unique features. Although Apple did not file suit against Multitech in Taiwan, it worked intensely to prevent Multitech from exporting its products to the United States.

What followed, Tinn argues, revealed deep misunderstandings, sometimes deliberate, about Taiwan's technological capabilities. U.S. media and analysts failed to make sense of Shih’s success in the microcomputer market, and Congressional hearings in 1983 portrayed Taiwanese computer manufacturers as counterfeiters and invaders threatening American industry.

This misrepresentation, she says, reflected Orientalist assumptions that Taiwanese lacked the capacity to innovate. Tinn writes:

"The Orientalist representations of Taiwanese computer manufacturers can be selfcontradictory. On the one hand, when it comes to the manufacturing capacity of Taiwanese computer makers, participants in the congressional hearings exaggerated the numbers of counterfeit computers Taiwanese companies dumped in the United States. On the other hand, more and more US computer manufacturers gradually recognized the manufacturing capacity of Taiwanese companies and subcontracted them to make computers at lower cost for the expanding US and global personal computer market."

 

Island Tinkerers is available from MIT Press, including in an open-access edition. 

Read More

On an auditorium stage, panelists discuss the documentary 'A Chip Odyssey.'
News

‘A Chip Odyssey’ Illuminates the Human Stories Behind Taiwan’s Semiconductor Dominance

A screening and discussion of the documentary 'A Chip Odyssey' underscored how Taiwan's semiconductor ascent was shaped by a collective mission, collaboration, and shared purpose, and why this matters for a world increasingly reliant on chips.
‘A Chip Odyssey’ Illuminates the Human Stories Behind Taiwan’s Semiconductor Dominance
Wen-Chin Wu
News

Survey Reveals How Taiwanese Citizens View National Security

Using data from "American Portrait," a Taiwan-based survey that investigates the public's perception of the United States and China, political economist Wen Chin Wu of Academia Sinica unpacks how the Taiwanese public feels about security, self-defense, and reliance on external partners.
Survey Reveals How Taiwanese Citizens View National Security
Hsiao-Hui Lee presents at a lectern.
News

How Trade Credit Spreads Shocks Through Global Supply Chains: Lessons from Taiwan

Taiwan’s experience reveals that trade credit linkages are a substantial transmission channel for global trade shocks, according to research by National Chengchi University’s Hsiao-Hui Lee, an expert in supply chain management. Her work highlights the need to include financial network management in strategies for supply chain resilience.
How Trade Credit Spreads Shocks Through Global Supply Chains: Lessons from Taiwan
Hero Image
Illustration of a semiconductor chip layered over an abstract shape representing the geography of Taiwan using an arrangement of pentagons.
All News button
1
Subtitle

At a seminar hosted by APARC's Taiwan Program, University of Minnesota scholar Honghong Tinn, a historian of information technology, discussed her recent book, which explores how Taiwanese technologists turned tinkering into world-class computer manufacturing.

Date Label
Display Hero Image Wide (1320px)
No
Paragraphs

On December 23, 2025, Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan passed the AI Basic Act, and on January 14, the Act was officially promulgated and entered into force by President William Lai Ching-te. The law, consisting of only 20 clauses, is intended to lay the groundwork for building a ‘smart nation’ by fostering human-centric artificial intelligence research and industry development with an emphasis on constituting a safe application environment with fundamental rights protection, in order to balance the needs of the citizens’ quality of life and the nation’s sustainable development while safeguarding national cultural values and social ethics and promoting international competitiveness.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Tech Policy Press
Authors
Charles Mok
Paragraphs

In the AI era, sovereignty is exercised through infrastructure design, not territorial control, which is why establishing interoperable standards to govern how layers of the AI stack interact should be a priority for policymakers, writes Eileen Donahoe.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Tech Policy Press
Authors
Eileen Donahoe
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

In an unprecedented collaboration, Stanford's Deliberative Democracy Lab has spearheaded the first-ever Industry-Wide Forum, a cross-industry effort putting everyday people at the center of decisions about AI agents. This unique initiative involving industry leaders Cohere, Meta, Oracle, PayPal, DoorDash, and Microsoft marks a significant shift in how AI technologies could be developed.

AI agents, advanced artificial intelligence systems designed to reason, plan, and act on behalf of users, are poised to revolutionize how we interact with technology. This Industry-Wide Forum provided an opportunity for the public in the United States and India to deliberate and share their attitudes on how AI agents should be deployed and developed.

The Forum employed a method known as Deliberative Polling, an innovative approach that goes beyond traditional surveys and focus groups. In November 2025, 503 participants from the United States and India engaged in an in-depth process on the AI-assisted Stanford Online Deliberation Platform, developed by Stanford's Crowdsourced Democracy Team. This method involves providing balanced information to participants, facilitated expert Q&A sessions, and small-group discussions. The goal is to capture informed public opinion that can provide durable steers in this rapidly evolving space.

As part of the process, academics, civil society, and non-profit organizations, including the Collective Intelligence Project, Center for Democracy and Technology, and academics from Ashoka University and Institute of Technology-Jodhpur, vetted the briefing materials for balance and accuracy, and some served as expert panelists for live sessions with the nationally representative samples of the United States and India.  

"This groundbreaking Forum represents a pivotal moment in AI development," said James Fishkin, Director of Stanford's Deliberative Democracy Lab. "By actively involving the public in shaping AI agent behavior, we're not just building better technology — we're building trust and ensuring these powerful tools align with societal values."

"This groundbreaking Forum represents a pivotal moment in AI development. By actively involving the public in shaping AI agent behavior, we're not just building better technology — we're building trust and ensuring these powerful tools align with societal values.
James Fishkin
Director, Deliberative Democracy Lab

The deliberations yielded clear priorities for building trust through safeguards during this early phase of agentic development and adoption. Currently, participants favor AI agents for low-risk tasks, while expressing caution about high-stakes applications in medical or financial domains. In deliberation, participants indicated an openness to these higher-risk applications if provided safeguards around privacy or user control, such as requiring approval before finalizing an action.

The Forum also revealed support for culturally adaptive agents, with a preference for asking users about norms rather than making assumptions. Lastly, the discussions underscored the need for better public understanding of AI agents and their capabilities, pointing to the importance of transparency and education in fostering trust in these emerging technologies.

"The perspectives coming out of these initial deliberations underscore the importance of our key focus areas at Cohere: security, privacy, and safeguards,” said Joelle Pineau, Chief AI Officer at Cohere. “We look forward to continuing our work alongside other leaders to strengthen industry standards for this technology, particularly for enterprise agentic AI that works with sensitive data."

The perspectives coming out of these initial deliberations underscore the importance of our key focus areas at Cohere: security, privacy, and safeguards. We look forward to continuing our work alongside other leaders to strengthen industry standards for this technology.
Joelle Pineau
Chief AI Officer, Cohere

This pioneering forum sets a new standard for public participation in AI development. By seeking feedback directly from the public, combining expert knowledge, meaningful public dialogue, and cross-industry commitment, the Industry Wide Forum provides a key mechanism for ensuring that AI innovation is aligned with public values and expectations.

“Technology better serves people when it's grounded in their feedback and expectations,” said Rob Sherman, Meta’s Vice President, AI Policy & Deputy Chief Privacy Officer.  “This Forum reinforces how companies and researchers can collaborate to make sure AI agents are built to be responsive to the diverse needs of people who use them – not just at one company, but across the industry.”

Technology better serves people when it's grounded in their feedback and expectations. This Forum reinforces how companies and researchers can collaborate to make sure AI agents are built to be responsive to the diverse needs of people who use them.
Rob Sherman
Vice President, AI Policy & Deputy Chief Privacy Officer, Meta

Through Stanford’s established methodology and their facilitation of industry partners, the Industry-Wide Forum provides the public with the opportunity to engage deeply with complex technological issues and for AI companies to benefit from considered public perspectives in developing products that are responsive to public opinion. We hope this is the first step towards more collaboration among industry, academia, and the public to shape the future of AI in ways that benefit everyone.

“We have more industry partners joining our next forum later this year”, says Alice Siu, Associate Director of Stanford's Deliberative Democracy Lab. “The 2026 Industry-Wide Forum expands our discussion scope and further deepens our understanding of public attitudes towards AI agents. These deliberations will help ensure AI development remains aligned with societal values and expectations.”

The 2026 Industry-Wide Forum expands our discussion scope and further deepens our understanding of public attitudes towards AI agents. These deliberations will help ensure AI development remains aligned with societal values and expectations.
Alice Siu
Associate Director, Deliberative Democracy Lab

For a full briefing on the Industry-Wide Forum, please contact Alice Siu.

Read More

Close-up of a computer chip labeled ‘AI Artificial Intelligence,’ embedded in a circuit board with gold connectors and electronic components.
News

DoorDash and Microsoft join Industry-Wide Deliberative Forum on Future of AI Agents

The inclusion of these companies in the Industry-Wide Deliberative Forum, convened by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab, speaks to its importance and the need to engage the public on the future of AI agents.
DoorDash and Microsoft join Industry-Wide Deliberative Forum on Future of AI Agents
Futuristic 3D Render
News

Industry-Wide Deliberative Forum Invites Public to Weigh In on the Future of AI Agents

There is a significant gap between what technology, especially AI technology, is being developed and the public's understanding of such technologies. We must ask: what if the public were not just passive recipients of these technologies, but active participants in guiding their evolution?
Industry-Wide Deliberative Forum Invites Public to Weigh In on the Future of AI Agents
Hero Image
Human finger touching a screen with AI agent
tadamichi via iStock
All News button
1
Subtitle

In an unprecedented collaboration, Stanford's Deliberative Democracy Lab has spearheaded the first-ever Industry-Wide Forum, a cross-industry effort putting everyday people at the center of decisions about AI agents.

Date Label
Display Hero Image Wide (1320px)
No
Paragraphs

Summary

Nowhere in the text of the US Constitution is there an explicit reference to an affirmative right to vote. And yet, the Constitution and its amendments contain numerous provisions relating to the integrity of elections – what counts as a valid or legitimate electoral process. For the Framers of the Constitution, election integrity was fundamentally about ensuring that, if elections were held, only qualified persons could vote. The argument we advance in this contribution is that the twenty-first century challenge of safeguarding elections from cyber threats must be understood as part of this history, and not solely as a niche engineering or information security problem. In information security, a hacker is someone who uses their skills and knowledge of digital systems to solve problems or achieve desired outcomes, even if it means subverting those systems. Hackers may don a metaphorical white, black, or gray hat, depending on whether their actions and goals are rightful, wrongful, or somewhere in between. We port this concept over to election integrity and its preoccupation with hackers of a different kind: political hackers who use their skills and knowledge of law, psychology, and democratic procedures to subvert those procedures in pursuit of their political interests. History is riddled with legitimate and illegitimate efforts to “hack” elections, and cyber risks to election integrity, though real, cannot (perhaps yet) shine a candle to the myriad other ways that intrepid hackers have sought to subvert democracy. An all-hazards approach to election integrity is warranted.

Download the PDF at cambridge.org.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Book Chapters
Publication Date
Subtitle

Chapter 2 of Securing Democracies: Defending Against Cyber Attacks and Disinformation in the Digital Age

Authors
Andrew Grotto
-
Alexis Opferman, MBA'26

G101- Gunn Building, Stanford Graduate School of Business
655 Knight Way, Stanford

Nicole Perlroth
Lectures

Nicole Perlroth, former NYT journalist and cyber investor, explores how AI is amplifying threats and reshaping defense—implications for risk, resilience, and governance.

Date Label
Paragraphs

On January 22, South Korea introduced its AI Basic Act, which it claimed to be “the world’s first comprehensive body of laws to regulate artificial intelligence.” The government claims the legislation will help propel the country to be a leader in the global race for AI leadership by establishing a “foundation for trust” while also protecting the interests of citizens.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Commentary
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Tech Policy Press
Authors
Charles Mok
Subscribe to Technology