5 questions for the Business Software Alliance's Victoria Espinel
Presented by Spectrum for the Future
Hello, and welcome to this week's installment of the Future in Five Questions. We caught up with Victoria Espinel, the CEO of the enterprise software trade group the Business Software Alliance and a former AI and trade adviser to President Joe Biden. Espinel discusses why she thinks quantum computing remains underrated, the importance of building out tech infrastructure and educating workers in high-tech skills and the seemingly bottomless hunger for policymakers to learn about AI. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows:
What's one underrated big idea?
We're going to hear more about quantum computing. Quantum computing has immense potential to boost economic growth due to its ability to solve complex problems beyond the reach of classical computers. It's often discussed in the context of breaking encryption and post-quantum cryptography algorithms, and there has been some good work done on this in the private sector and at NIST. But quantum computing can revolutionize many industries by supercharging materials discovery, financial and environmental modeling, and supply chain management.
To tap quantum technology's full potential, we need to continue to invest in AI and cybersecurity. Investment in AI and cyber solutions means the development of more secure code, the ability to quickly detect and respond to threats, to protect against malware and more. AI should be seen as a key cyberdefense tool that can deliver the best cybersecurity outcomes by generating threat intelligence and other innovative tools. No technology is a silo; AI, cyber and quantum can reinforce one another to combat malicious actors.
What's a technology that you think is overhyped?
Some experts predict AI will replace human decision-making. But human judgment remains essential as AI advances, particularly for complex decisions requiring emotional intelligence and cultural understanding that AI systems cannot fully replicate. While AI excels at data processing and pattern recognition, human insight is needed to navigate ambiguous situations, provide context and make nuanced decisions. Rather than being replaced, human judgment will be indispensable for strategic guidance and ethical oversight of AI systems.
What book most shaped your conception of the future?
'A Wrinkle in Time' by Madeleine L'Engle. As a child, it got me thinking about the use and consequences of power. Science illuminates human mysteries; technology expands human capabilities. It is essential that we use science and technology in ways that respect the faith and love that unite us as humans.
What could the government be doing regarding technology that it isn't?
We made several suggestions in a letter to the Trump administration this week. One is the need for technology to broadly benefit the public. Government can start by increasing access to training in essential, high-tech skills that are in demand today by employers across industries. It can also spread innovation by investing in technology infrastructure to ensure businesses and communities across the country share in the benefits of technological progress.
What has surprised you the most this year?
The amount of time policymakers around the world have been willing to spend learning about AI. Our briefings have been standing room only. There's a broad and genuine hunger to understand the technology better in order to make policy. This isn't always the case, so it's very welcome. I'm looking forward to continuing this conversation with other stakeholders in France next week at the Paris AI Action Summit.
ai act loopholes
Critics of the European Union's AI Act are saying it doesn't go far enough to prevent police abuses.
POLITICO's Pieter Haeck reported for Pro subscribers on alleged loopholes for bans on law enforcement using the technology to profile if someone will commit a crime, known as predictive policing, or to scrape the internet for images to build facial recognition databases or to use biometrics to determine emotions. There are carveouts in the law allowing European authorities to use real-time facial recognition technology in public places.
'You can even question whether you can really speak of a prohibition if there [are] so many exceptions,' Nathalie Smuha, an assistant professor and researcher in AI ethics at KU Leuven, told Pieter.
The ban on emotion detection only extends to schools and offices, meaning law enforcement and migration officials retain access to it. Kim Van Sparrentak, a Dutch Greens lawmaker involved in the AI Act negotiations, said that retaining that access was a red line for EU governments in the final hours of negotiations.
deepseek booted from the house
The House of Representatives is warning staffers not to use DeepSeek technology.
POLITICO's Ben Leonard and Meredith Lee Hill reported Thursday evening for Pro subscribers on a notice from the House's Chief Administrative Officer saying the chamber is currently reviewing the Chinese-developed technology, and it's not authorized for official use on 'House-issued devices, including phones, computers and tablets' during that process.
'Threat actors are already exploiting DeepSeek to deliver malicious software and infect devices,' the notice says. Anonymous House staffers told Ben and Meredith such a move is rare, having last been made in 2024 to restrict TikTok use in the House.
post OF THE DAY
The Future in 5 links
Stay in touch with the whole team: Derek Robertson (drobertson@politico.com); Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@politico.com); Steve Heuser (sheuser@politico.com); Nate Robson (nrobson@politico.com); Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@politico.com); and Christine Mui (cmui@politico.com).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is TikTok getting banned? Trump says he'll 'probably' extend deadline again
President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he will "probably" extend the TikTok ban deadline yet again before its expiration on Thursday, June 19. "We probably have to get China approval. I think we'll get it," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday, June 17. "I think (Chinese) President Xi will ultimately approve it." TikTok, a short-form video app, went dark for about 12 hours in January when China-based ByteDance failed to divest the app's U.S. assets, as required by federal law. Since coming into office on Jan. 20, Trump has issued two executive orders to extend the ban's deadline. But so far, a deal has yet to be struck, and the next deadline is Thursday, June 19. When asked by reporters if he has the legal basis to extend the deadline again, Trump said, "Yes, I do." If ByteDance does not divest TikTok by Thursday, June 19, the platform could be banned in the U.S. again. However, Trump has repeatedly signaled he would extend the deadline if the sale isn't finalized in time. Under federal legislation that put the TikTok ban in place, the president can implement a 90-day extension on the deadline to sell. But Trump didn't take this route in January or April. Instead, he signed executive orders delaying the ban by 75 days. If Trump wishes to sign another executive order ahead of the June 19 deadline, he can. Former President Joe Biden signed federal legislation in 2024 that gave ByteDance until Jan. 19, 2025 to divest TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. Some politicians see TikTok as a national security threat, expressing concern that ByteDance may be sharing U.S. user data with the Chinese government. ByteDance has denied these claims, which remain unsubstantiated. However, ByteDance did not divest in time. In January, TikTok went dark for a little more than 12 hours in the U.S. after the app was effectively banned. U.S. internet hosting services made TikTok unavailable to access, and app stores removed the app for download. During the short-lived shutdown, Trump promised internet hosting services and app stores that they could restore TikTok and not face legal penalties. Under the federal legislation, companies could be fined $5,000 per user they help access TikTok. For companies like Google and Apple, this could mean a $5,000 fine for each user who downloads or updates TikTok. It wasn't until Feb. 13 that TikTok became available again in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store. This story will be updated. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: TikTok ban: Trump says he'll 'probably' extend deadline again
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate releases major changes to Trump's tax bill as negotiations heat up
WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee released the long-awaited tax portion of its reconciliation bill on Monday, setting the stage for drawn-out negotiations with their House colleagues after changing several key provisions in the 549-page bill. The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match. That could be easier said than done as there are several provisions in the Senate version that have already angered House Republicans who spent weeks negotiating with GOP leaders to include their priorities. Here are some of the changes that could be the biggest sticking points for House Republicans: As expected, the Senate text aims to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars previously approved under former President Joe Biden and criticized by some conservatives as 'Green New Deal subsidies.' However, the Senate text appears to shift the timeline for when many of those clean energy tax credits could be phased out, giving business owners who benefit from the credits more time to adjust. 'The legislation also achieves significant savings by slashing Green New Deal spending and targeting waste, fraud and abuse in spending programs while preserving and protecting them for the most vulnerable,' Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in a statement. Under the House resolution, the credits are each given specific expiration dates whereas in the Senate version they are given a certain number of days after enactment. For example, the elimination of tax credits for residential clean energy could be eased under the Senate bill, softening the blow for the repeal of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, solar water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, and more. While the House bill would eliminate those credits by the end of 2025, the Senate version would expire the credit six months after the bill is signed — giving the credits a moving deadline and a slower phaseout. The Senate text also appears to change the timeline for several tax credits incentivizing the usage of clean vehicles, including credits for purchasing used clean energy vehicles; new clean vehicles; commercial vehicles; and more. Many of those provisions were set to expire by the end of the year under the House proposal, but now would also expire between 90-180 days after the bill is signed. The bill would ease the expiration of tax credits on fueling equipment for alternative vehicles such as electric cars. Similar to other language, the Senate text would implement a more flexible phaseout to eliminate the tax credit one year after the bill is signed rather than at the end of this year, which is the date currently proposed in the House version. Those eased timelines, along with others tucked in the bill, were likely included to win over Republicans in the Senate such as Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, who pushed for relaxed phaseouts. If the tax credits were eliminated immediately, Curtis and others argued, it could cause a surge in utility prices. However, it's not clear how that will go over with fiscal conservatives in the House, who have called for the immediate elimination of clean energy credits. The Senate Finance Committee summary does tout provisions to boost nuclear energy and support 'consistent energy sources' to reduce market distortions. It also includes language that 'stops penalizing fossil fuels in favor of intermittent green energy.' The Senate tax portion made a number of significant changes to the House language on Medicaid, including one controversial proposal to help pay for Republicans' proposed tax cuts. In the newly released text, Republicans are proposing to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That could raise concerns among some lawmakers who have already voiced concerns about reduced funding for Medicaid in some states. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. The bill would also implement stricter requirements for eligibility screening and verification as part of an effort to ensure undocumented immigrantss cannot be approved for benefits. For the most part, Senate Republicans left much of the language in the House surrounding Medicaid untouched. For example, the language maintains provisions establishing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, requiring at least 80 hours a month or some other activity, such as community service. The bill would also maintain restrictions introduced by the House to ban Medicaid funds going toward abortion procedures or gender transitions. One of the most politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. The Senate version includes language to extend the current deduction cap, which sits at $10,000 per household. That proposal has already set off a firestorm among blue-state Republicans in the House who have demanded a much higher limit — even going so far as to threaten voting against the full package if a higher deduction is not included. House Republican leaders offered to increase the current deduction cap to $40,000 for individuals who make $500,000 or less a year. The cap would then increase by 1% every year over the next decade and remain permanent after that period. That proposal was met with skepticism in the Senate, prompting many fiscal conservatives to push for a lower number to reduce costs. The $10,000 proposal is meant to be a starting point for negotiations, Senate aides say, but it has already been met with anger from SALT proponents in the House. 'That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less,' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said of the House-negotiated deal. 'If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Other New York Republicans called the deal 'insulting,' arguing it is a 'slap in the face' to the blue-state Republicans who handed the GOP a majority in the House. 'If we want to be the big tent party, we need to recognize that we have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country with constituents who benefit from refundable tax credits despite paying zero in taxes,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in a statement. House Republican leaders have warned for months not to make drastic changes to SALT policy, warning it could be tough to sell anything less than what was already negotiated — especially with only a three-vote margin in the House. 'I'm very concerned about what they might do on the SALT number and any number of other provisions in the bill,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told the Deseret News last week. 'I've been very consistent publicly and privately. They need to hopefully modify it as little as possible, but I also understand that, you know, it's a separate chamber, and they're going to do their thing.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Elon Musk's DOGE Wouldn't Have Worked Even If It Had Worked
WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 13: Elon Musk listens as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump addresses a ... More House Republicans Conference meeting at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill on November 13, 2024 in Washington, DC. As is tradition with incoming presidents, Trump is traveling to Washington, DC to meet with U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House as well as meet with Republican congressmen on Capitol Hill. (Photo by) It's easy to forget that individual saving in no way shrinks consumption. Short of placing money saved into a coffee can, to save is to shift consumptive ability to someone else. What's true about individual saving is true about government savings. No act of parsimony shrinks the size of government either. That's why Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) wouldn't have worked even if it had worked. Short of the savings being placed in a much bigger coffee can, government spending cuts born of efficiency, headcount reduction, mandate reduction, or all three would have just freed up money for Congress to spend in new ways. In government as with individual, what's not spent is shifted to other existing priorities, or much worse, all new ones. It's the new spending initiatives that are the most perilous. Most start out small, and this includes Medicare. It's so easy to forget that it began as a $3 billion program in the 1960s, but is expected to pass $1 trillion in the coming years. Which speaks to the danger of spending cuts. Talk about "regime uncertainty." Unfortunate and economy-sapping as much government spending is today, the good news is that it's a known. In other words, the myriad ways that Congress politicizes the allocation of precious resources is already priced or factored into our day-to-day existence. That's not so with new initiatives. Who knows what Congress will dream up, and who knows how what Congress will dream up will end up? To see the peril of this, ask yourself if Congress would have had the votes to pass Medicare if it was known that sixty years later it would yet again be a nearly $1 trillion annual program today. That's why without excusing most federal outlays for even a second, when it comes to government the devil you know is better than the unknown. Which is why it's better to let Congress fight over what's known and priced, as opposed to freeing it to design all new programs and initiatives from the proverbial studs. They could end up much bigger than they presently are. Logically so. To which some will reply that what's been written doesn't, or wouldn't have applied to DOGE since any savings wouldn't free up money as much as the savings would reduce government borrowing. More realistically, it would just free up Treasury to borrow $2 trillion more in the future. With our federal government, no act of not borrowing subtracts from borrowing. It's all worth keeping in mind as conservatives in particular lament the failure of the latest gallant, but surely quixotic attempt to shrink the size and cost of government. These initiatives never work simply because in government as with individuals, money saved is never money that's not spent.
