Search

Begin New Search Topic Artificial Intelligence

121. Peace of Mind: Cognitive Warfare and the Governance of Subversion in the 21st Century

Author:
Jean-Marc Rickli, Frederico Mantellassi, and Gwyn Glasser
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
The 21st century is marked by unprecedented and exponential technological advances. These advances are changing the ways in which states influence, coerce, subvert and wage war, and have democratised access to global means of influence for non-state actors – and even individuals. This has accelerated the prevalence of so-called hybrid forms of warfare. An “age of unpeace” appears to have established itself, with a pervasive sense of both non-peace and non-war. Influence campaigns utilising digitally spread disinformation and instrumentalising social media technologies have proliferated, enhancing ways to target the human mind. Current and future developments in artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive sciences, neurotechnologies, and other related fields will further increase the risks of mass manipulation and lead to the possibility of the militarisation of the mind as the battlefield of the future. The emergence of the cognitive domain as the sixth domain of warfare will lead to the increased conduct of cognitive warfare, which is likely to raise the profile and efficiency of non-kinetic means of subversion over kinetic means of coercion, while benefitting from a lack of international governance. If international governance remains static while these tools advance at great speeds, the international system will lack the frameworks, tools, and understanding needed to govern the means of 21st century subversion. This policy brief explores the emergence of cognitive warfare – which aims at controlling what and how an adversary thinks – and the rise on the international stage of non-kinetic means of subversion enabled by emerging technologies. It proposes the establishment of governance frameworks to regulate the use of emerging technologies for purposes of cognitive warfare with the ultimate aim of subversion. It promotes the concept of “subversion control” in order to prevent the militarisation of the mind. It further recommends the regulation of enabling emerging technologies, such as neurotechnologies and AI, while promoting the enhancement of “societal resilience”, especially in democracies, whose open and digitalised information environments make them structurally more vulnerable to the practices of cognitive warfare. Lastly, the brief seeks to promote more research into the concept of cognitive warfare itself, w
Topic:
Science and Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and Cognitive Warfare
Political Geography:
Global Focus

122. AI-Related Risk: The Merits of an ESG-Based Approach to Oversight

Author:
Mardi Witzel and Niraj Bhargava
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has been found to generate value for many firms; however, it also has unintended and undesirable consequences. The reality of AI-related risk has led to the development of AI governance frameworks and calls for greater oversight of the use of AI. The merits of an ESG (environmental, social, governance)-based approach to oversight of AI-related risk are considered in this paper, with a focus on the current trajectory of international sustainability standards development. Despite their differences, AI governance and ESG reporting both seek to address risk in the broadest sense, with proactive and transparent approaches to its management and mitigation. A preliminary set of recommendations for incorporating material AI-related risk into ESG reporting, covering both general or context-setting disclosures and industry-specific disclosures, is provided.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

123. Iron net: Digital repression in the Middle East and North Africa

Author:
James Lynch
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Abstract:
Governments across the world have powerful digital tools to control and repress their populations, ranging from spyware and social media manipulation to facial recognition technology and mass surveillance. Activists are working to protect themselves from such tools, but this is not a fair fight. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the leading exponents of digital authoritarianism in the Middle East. The two states have intensified their collaboration with China and Israel to gain greater access to advanced technologies. The EU has responded to concerns about the risks of new technologies with a raft of regulations on digital markets and services, artificial intelligence, and technology exports. The fact that European governments have been targeted, and implicated, in NSO Group’s Pegasus scandal should sound the alarm about the global threat of digital authoritarianism. The EU should treat the threat as an urgent security and political concern.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Authoritarianism, European Union, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Policy, and Hybrid Threats
Political Geography:
Middle East and North Africa

124. Russian Perceptions of Military AI, Automation, and Autonomy

Author:
Anna Nadibaidze
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI)
Abstract:
President Vladimir Putin declared 2021 to be the Year of Science and Technology in Russia, with November named as the month of artificial intelligence (AI), signaling Russian leadership’s strong interest in this umbrella term. The Russian defense sector is particularly captivated by the opportunities associated with AI-based technologies. In recent years, AI, robotics, as well as the further integration of automation and autonomy into weapons systems and military decision-making have all been highlighted as priorities for modernizing the Russian armed forces. In 2017, Putin famously said that “artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind … Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” Quoting these words, analysts often attribute Russia’s development, testing, and use of weaponized AI to the necessity of competing in the so-called global AI race or the global tech race with the current leading AI developers: the United States and China. While the perceived need to compete and catch up is part of Russia’s motivations, its interest in military AI should not only be attributed to a quest for relative power. Understanding the depth and complexity of the debates surrounding AI, autonomy, and automation in Russia requires an examination of discussions about its strategic implications for the Russian army, the perceived benefits and risks of autonomy, and, more broadly, the importance of technological modernization and innovation for Russia’s place in the world. This report aims to provide an overview of the different conceptions and motivations, both oriented towards domestic and international audiences, that have been and are guiding Russian political and military leaderships in their ambitions to pursue weaponized AI. First, it outlines the various factors, both external and internal, behind the quest for pursuing AI, autonomy, and automation in the Russian military. Second, it presents some of the Russian plans in this area, what is known about their capabilities, and the challenges to strengthening them. Third, it dives into Russian debates on autonomy, and especially autonomous weapons systems, as well as discussions on the ethics of developing so-called “killer robots,” or autonomous combat robots (боевые роботы, or военные роботы), a term often used in the Russian-language literature. The analysis is based on a survey of open-source materials, including media reports, press releases, official statements and speeches, peer-reviewed articles and think tank reports, as well as publications in Russian military journals. The author would like to present it as the first step in an ongoing doctoral research project, as well as a contribution to the emerging English-language literature on how weaponized AI is perceived in Russia.
Topic:
Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence, Autonomy, Automation, and Military
Political Geography:
Russia and Eurasia

125. Liberty’s Doom? Artificial Intelligence in Middle Eastern Security

Author:
Kristina Kausch
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
IEMed/EuroMeSCo
Abstract:
The surge of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled technologies has triggered global debates on the potential risks and opportunities of the use of these technologies to enhance societies’ prosperity, security and well-being while ensuring human control and safeguarding fundamental rights. In the area of security, AI has the potential of making key sectors, such as predictive policing, counter-terrorism or border management more efficient, just and humane. At the same time, the risks inherent to AI in the security sector have raised numerous concerns regarding surveillance and data protection, human rights and civil liberties, or the prospect of an arms race in autonomous weapons systems, which have overshadowed debates on opportunities. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region presents particular challenges in this equation. On the one hand, the region’s myriad security challenges could greatly benefit from a booster in security-related problem-solving efficiency. On the other, ethical and legal considerations gain particular weight in a region largely governed by authoritarian rulers and with a weak rule of law, as these conditions prevent thorough AI governance and the necessary checks and balances to avoid authoritarian abuse of the ample opportunities presented by AI. This collection attempts to approach the questions and dilemmas raised by AI in Middle Eastern security through a European policy lens. Zooming in on AI in border management, surveillance, defence and regulation, exploring both risks and opportunities of this set of technologies for the fragile security of the MENA region, each chapter draws conclusions for future European Union (EU) policy and cooperation with MENA partners on AI.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Innovation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Middle East

126. Can the U.S. Regain Battlefield Superiority against China? Applying New Metrics to Build an Adaptable and Resilient Military

Author:
Bryan Clark, Dan Patt, and Timothy A. Walton
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Organizational behavior is driven by metrics and measurements, which can compel change more effectively than a flurry of management directives from the C-suite. With Pentagon leaders calling for new ways of building and fighting the force, the time has come to re-examine some of the US military’s fundamental metrics and assess how they could better incentivize the characteristics needed for future combat.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, National Security, Armed Forces, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

127. Building public trust to successfully deploy AI in EU healthcare

Author:
Danielle Brady
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
COVID-19 has underscored the importance of digital health: the digitalisation of healthcare would improve health systems’ resilience and service delivery, empower citizens, and bolster research and innovation. However, despite the many benefits of introducing technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) into the European healthcare sector, it also raises questions on its impact on the healthcare workers, the potential for new inequalities, privacy issues and public trust. Not to mention, broader questions on the ethics and social implications of AI. The EU’s Proposal for a Regulation Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence and the European Health Data Space address many of these concerns, but cannot combat them all alone. Without public trust, acceptance and understanding, AI’s full potential in healthcare will not be realised. Attention must be given to the communication of the benefits of AI in healthcare to the public, Europeans’ digital literacy, the upskilling of the EU health workforce, and the investment in AI technologies. Clear and convincing explanations regarding AI use in healthcare are required so that citizens understand their benefit and trust that their personal data will be handled safely. If the EU and its member states fail to build trust in the deployment of AI in healthcare, Europe will miss a chance to reap all the benefits that AI offers to its citizens and their health.
Topic:
Health, European Union, Regulation, Artificial Intelligence, COVID-19, Digitization, and Trust
Political Geography:
Europe

128. Artificial Intelligence and Arms Control

Author:
Paul Scharre and Megan Lamberth
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) pose immense opportunity for militaries around the world. With this rising potential for AI-enabled military systems, some activists are sounding the alarm, calling for restrictions or outright bans on some AI-enabled weapon systems.1 Conversely, skeptics of AI arms control argue that as a general-purpose technology developed in the civilian context, AI will be exceptionally hard to control.2 AI is an enabling technology with countless nonmilitary applications; this factor differentiates it from many other military technologies, such as landmines or missiles.3 Because of its widespread availability, an absolute ban on all military applications of AI is likely infeasible. There is, however, a potential for prohibiting or regulating specific use cases. The international community has, at times, banned or regulated weapons with varying degrees of success. In some cases, such as the ban on permanently blinding lasers, arms control has worked remarkably well to date. In other cases, however, such as attempted limits on unrestricted submarine warfare or aerial bombardment of cities, states failed to achieve lasting restraint in war. States’ motivations for controlling or regulating weapons vary. States may seek to limit the diffusion of a weapon that is particularly disruptive to political or social stability, contributes to excessive civilian casualties, or causes inhumane injury to combatants. This paper examines the potential for arms control for military applications of AI by exploring historical cases of attempted arms control, analyzing both successes and failures. The first part of the paper explores existing academic literature related to why some arms control measures succeed while others fail. The paper then proposes several criteria that influence the success of arms control.4 Finally, it analyzes the potential for AI arms control and suggests next steps for policymakers. Detailed historical cases of attempted arms control—from ancient prohibitions to modern agreements—can be found in appendix A in the pdf available for download. For a summary table of historical attempts at arms control, see appendix B. History teaches us that policymakers, scholars, and members of civil society can take concrete steps today to improve the chances of successful AI arms control in the future. These include taking policy actions to shape the way the technology evolves and increasing dialogue at all levels to better understand how AI applications may be used in warfare. Any AI arms control will be challenging. There may be cases, however, where arms control is possible under the right conditions, and small steps today could help lay the groundwork for future successes.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Artificial Intelligence, and Military
Political Geography:
Global Focus

129. AI Startups and the Fight Against Mis/Disinformation Online: An Update

Author:
Anya Schiffrin, Hiba Beg, Pablo Eyzaguirre, Zachey Kliger, Tianyu Mao, Aditi Rukhaiyar, Kristen Saldarini, and Ojani Walthrust
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The events following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have shown again the power of online mis/disinformation. As it continues to grow and spread, there are new and continuing attempts to address this problem. These include supply-side and demand-side fixes (including media-literacy programs, fact-checking and, in Europe, new regulations) but few of these have scaled. This paper looks at one kind of supply-side attempt to tackle the prevalence of online mis/disinformation: the market for tech-based solutions that use some form of artificial intelligence (AI) machine/deep learning for content moderation, media integrity, and verification. This paper presents the findings of interviews of 20 niche firms that use AI to identify online mis/disinformation, many of which were previously surveyed for a 2019 paper on the role of AI startups in the fight against disinformation. These companies did not release their revenue figures but it seems that the market for their services is smaller than many entrepreneurs had originally hoped, and that Google and Facebook are not relying on such firms for help in identifying online mis/disinformation. The cost of the services provided by these startups and the desire to keep things in-house and protect their activities from outside scrutiny are part of why the tech giants do not rely on small startups for help with screening online mis/disinformation. This may be why funding for these startups does not seem to have grown significantly and so more than half of them are now focusing on the business-to-business market, selling mis/disinformation mitigation services to, for example, insurance companies, large public entities, and governments, among others. There also appears to be a limited market for business-to-consumer solutions for detecting mis/disinformation. However, continuing advances in AI as well as forthcoming regulation by the European Union and the United Kingdom will continue to spur innovation, which may stimulate demand. University initiatives, academics, journalism organizations, and cybersecurity experts are all also trying to come up with ways to identify and control the spread of mis/disinformation. Ultimately, despite its advances, technology alone will not solve the online mis/disinformation problem. Giant social media platforms have few financial incentives to crack down on this—quite the opposite, in fact. To push social media platforms to act against online mis/disinformation and illegal speech, regulation must deftly address the issue while preserving freedom of expression. There is a further problem in the form of the political polarization that has intensified in the United States and other parts of the world. Fixing this is likely to be well beyond the role of business and technologists.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Artificial Intelligence, Disinformation, Misinformation, and Startup
Political Geography:
Global Focus

130. AI Audit-Washing and Accountability

Author:
Ellen P. Goodman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
We are still some distance from a worldwide robot takeover, but artificial intelligence (AI)—the training of computer systems with large data sets to make decisions and solve problems—is revolutionizing the way governments and societies function. AI has enormous potential: accelerating innovation, unlocking new value from data, and increasing productivity by freeing us from mundane tasks. AI can draw new inferences from health data to foster breakthroughs in cancer screening or improve climate modeling and early-warning systems for extreme weather or emergency situations. As we seek solutions to today’s vexing problems—climate disruption, social inequality, health crises—AI will be central. Its centrality requires that stakeholders exercise greater governance over AI and hold AI systems accountable for their potential harms, including discriminatory impact, opacity, error, insecurity, privacy violations, and disempowerment. In this context, calls for audits to assess the impact of algorithmic decision-making systems and expose and mitigate related harms are proliferating1 , accompanied by the rise of an algorithmic auditing industry and legal codification. These are welcome developments. Audits can provide a flexible co-regulatory solution, allowing necessary innovation in AI while increasing transparency and accountability. AI is a crucial element of the growing tech competition between authoritarian and democratic states—and ensuring that AI is accountable and trusted is a key part of ensuring democratic advantage. Clear standards for trustworthy AI will help the United States remain a center of innovation and shape technology to democratic values. The “algorithmic audit” nevertheless remains ill-defined and inexact, whether concerning social media platforms or AI systems generally. The risk is significant that inadequate audits will obscure problems with algorithmic systems and create a permission structure around poorly designed or implemented AI. A poorly designed or executed audit is at best meaningless and at worst even excuses harms that the audits claim to mitigate. Inadequate audits or those without clear standards provide false assurance of compliance with norms and laws, “audit-washing” problematic or illegal practices. Like green-washing and ethics-washing before, the audited entity can claim credit without doing the work. To address these risks, this paper identifies the core questions that need answering to make algorithmic audits a reliable AI accountability mechanism. The “who” of audits includes the person or organization conducting the audit, with clearly defined qualifications, conditions for data access, and guardrails for internal audits. The “what” includes the type and scope of audit, including its position within a larger sociotechnical system. The “why” covers audit objectives, whether narrow legal standards or broader ethical goals, essential for audit comparison. Finally, the “how” includes a clear articulation of audit standards, an important baseline for the development of audit certification mechanisms and to guard against audit-washing. Algorithmic audits have the potential to transform the way technology works in the 21st century, much as financial audits transformed the way businesses operated in the 20th century. They will take different forms, either within a sector or across sectors, especially for systems which pose the highest risk. But as algorithmic audits are encoded into law or adopted voluntarily as part of corporate social responsibility, the audit industry must arrive at shared understandings and expectations of audit goals and procedures. This paper provides such an outline so that truly meaningful algorithmic audits can take their deserved place in AI governance frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Regulation, Accountability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus