4 ms·

Russia ‘Weaponizing’ AI: Pentagon Intelligence Report

27 points by andreyk 5y ago

Rd6n6 5y ago
How would you use ai for cyber attacks in 5-10 years? Custom gpt3 optimized for phishing? Deepfakes for fake video calls? Deepfakes audio for fake phone calls? Captcha crushers by learning to fake fingerprints and fool trackers? Flood the internet with 10 million ai generated websites with fake content that cross references each other heavily to push fake news? In combination with identity theft as a step in a multi stage scheme? Mass swattings? Fabricating evidence of crimes? What would you do to be safe from this?
- ctack 5y ago
  I can see politicians pushing all high quality faked videos as the real thing (without caring about origin) to bash their opponents. Fake evidence of crimes etc. Some societies are going to have a really hard time with this. The phishing angle should it come to pass would be solved with new systems of trust though it might be devastating at first. The fake generated websites feels like the current state of the internet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - grp000 5y ago
    Authenticated videos maybe?
    - Leparamour 5y ago
      How would authenticating videos work practically? The politician that was covertly recorded receiving bribes or ordering a murder surely will not say: "Yep, that's me on the video.".
- brundolf 5y ago
  At some point maybe people will finally be forced to stop believing everything they read on the internet
- fractallyte 5y ago
  Defense would probably involve a concept of 'strong identity'. A cheap way of saying it: 'Blockchain your life!'
- 3637rudu 5y ago
  You don't but you should already assume the internet is unsafe. The press is clickbait, wikipedia is a clique, and everything else is social media in disguise which implies political bias. The internet is a communication platform not a truth platform.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    It isn’t enough to say that: Swatting and other fabricated crimes can still be targeted against someone who has no internet presence at all.
    - chevill 5y ago
      This is obviously technically true but so far every case I’ve ever heard about involved a dispute that began on the Internet.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
adminscoffee 5y ago
what country wouldn't? i would have assumed this a long time ago, defense departments usually get the latest and 'coolest' tech. i still waiting for documents to be released about shape shifting pills or something ridiculous
nix23 5y ago
Oh man those bad Russians: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/12/11/new-project-will-give-us-mq-9-reaper-drones-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/12/11/new-pr...
- torstenvl 5y ago
  The article clearly says the AI is for the Reaper's autonomous flight and sensor arrays, not employment of its weapons systems.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >When it comes to autonomous weapons, the Pentagon’s stated policy is always that a human operator will always make the firing decision, this policy has some flexibility: it simply demands “appropriate levels of human judgment,” whatever that means. >Nobody is suggesting that the AI-equipped Reapers will be carrying out autonomous strike missions if communication is impossible; but this might become a tempting possibility as the technology evolves. And, as Forbes has previously noted, the U.S. has changed it stance on Reaper exports, leading to a slew of recent deals including with the UAE and even Morocco.
binarray2000 5y ago
I was convinced by the USofA politicians that Russia is "a gas station masquerading as a country" (Sen. John McCain, on the Senate floor nonetheless [1]) and that "Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbours, not out of strength but out of weakness" (POTUS Barack Obama [2]). So, why is USofA obsessed with Russia, why is it even wasting its time on Russia? The US politicians must be right (and I really believe them; after after all, the US is the pinnacle in democracy and its representatives are all elected in free and democratic elections). [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/john-mccain-russia-gas-station-105061 https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/john-mccain-russia-ga... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/barack-obama-russia-regional-power-ukraine-weakness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/barack-obama-r...
- ben_w 5y ago
  Even if rhetoric like “a gas station masquerading as a country” was literally true, plenty of non-state actors can be a significant threat to a nation. And a regional power attacking others out of weakness, likewise, though without a dismissal of their existence as a nation.
- JohnClark1337 5y ago
  At the time the main enemy was terrorists in the middle east. Now that's winding down so we need a new enemy.

27 points by andreyk 5y ago

How would you use ai for cyber attacks in 5-10 years? Custom gpt3 optimized for phishing? Deepfakes for fake video calls? Deepfakes audio for fake phone calls? Captcha crushers by learning to fake fingerprints and fool trackers? Flood the internet with 10 million ai generated websites with fake content that cross references each other heavily to push fake news? In combination with identity theft as a step in a multi stage scheme? Mass swattings? Fabricating evidence of crimes? What would you do to be safe from this?

ctack 5y ago
I can see politicians pushing all high quality faked videos as the real thing (without caring about origin) to bash their opponents. Fake evidence of crimes etc. Some societies are going to have a really hard time with this. The phishing angle should it come to pass would be solved with new systems of trust though it might be devastating at first. The fake generated websites feels like the current state of the internet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- grp000 5y ago
  Authenticated videos maybe?
  - Leparamour 5y ago
    How would authenticating videos work practically? The politician that was covertly recorded receiving bribes or ordering a murder surely will not say: "Yep, that's me on the video.".
brundolf 5y ago
At some point maybe people will finally be forced to stop believing everything they read on the internet
fractallyte 5y ago
Defense would probably involve a concept of 'strong identity'. A cheap way of saying it: 'Blockchain your life!'
3637rudu 5y ago
You don't but you should already assume the internet is unsafe. The press is clickbait, wikipedia is a clique, and everything else is social media in disguise which implies political bias. The internet is a communication platform not a truth platform.
- ben_w 5y ago
  It isn’t enough to say that: Swatting and other fabricated crimes can still be targeted against someone who has no internet presence at all.
  - chevill 5y ago
    This is obviously technically true but so far every case I’ve ever heard about involved a dispute that began on the Internet.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

adminscoffee 5y ago

what country wouldn't? i would have assumed this a long time ago, defense departments usually get the latest and 'coolest' tech. i still waiting for documents to be released about shape shifting pills or something ridiculous

nix23 5y ago

Oh man those bad Russians: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/12/11/new-project-will-give-us-mq-9-reaper-drones-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/12/11/new-pr...

torstenvl 5y ago
The article clearly says the AI is for the Reaper's autonomous flight and sensor arrays, not employment of its weapons systems.
- nix23 5y ago
  >When it comes to autonomous weapons, the Pentagon’s stated policy is always that a human operator will always make the firing decision, this policy has some flexibility: it simply demands “appropriate levels of human judgment,” whatever that means. >Nobody is suggesting that the AI-equipped Reapers will be carrying out autonomous strike missions if communication is impossible; but this might become a tempting possibility as the technology evolves. And, as Forbes has previously noted, the U.S. has changed it stance on Reaper exports, leading to a slew of recent deals including with the UAE and even Morocco.

binarray2000 5y ago

I was convinced by the USofA politicians that Russia is "a gas station masquerading as a country" (Sen. John McCain, on the Senate floor nonetheless [1]) and that "Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbours, not out of strength but out of weakness" (POTUS Barack Obama [2]). So, why is USofA obsessed with Russia, why is it even wasting its time on Russia? The US politicians must be right (and I really believe them; after after all, the US is the pinnacle in democracy and its representatives are all elected in free and democratic elections). [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/john-mccain-russia-gas-station-105061 https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/john-mccain-russia-ga... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/barack-obama-russia-regional-power-ukraine-weakness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/barack-obama-r...

ben_w 5y ago
Even if rhetoric like “a gas station masquerading as a country” was literally true, plenty of non-state actors can be a significant threat to a nation. And a regional power attacking others out of weakness, likewise, though without a dismissal of their existence as a nation.
JohnClark1337 5y ago
At the time the main enemy was terrorists in the middle east. Now that's winding down so we need a new enemy.