For anybody intrigued, here are those Reith Lectures:
This would have been influential to me when I was a teenager and nihilistic about accelerating technology in the hands of distinctly-not-developing humankind (reading all about the Manhattan-project forebears to AI), but after devoting a decade to science and being fascinated yet boycotting of AI research and it's implications, I think it has ended up a bit too late for a change of heart and direction to have as much positive impact.
For those fortunate enough to be in a position of even trivial influence over the cutting-edge, and whose moral sophistication can therefore matter more than the next person, I hope you don't take the implications of whatever agency you may have lightly!
I wouldn't be surprised if AI conferences have a minimum of 10 spooks from every major western intelligence agency in attendence.
In general, it is thought that physics knowledge transfers better to ML than math because it's less abstract and physicists are more likely to be used to dealing with large datasets and software.
If you're already in the field you'd likely have to take a pay cut, but the federal government is always interested in research physical scientists and will snatch up anyone who knows the physics and also knows ML.