Connect with us

Artificial Intelligence

Deepfakes Could Pose A Threat to National Security, But Experts Are Split On How To Handle It

Experts disagree on the right response to video manipulation — is more tech or a societal shift the right solution?

Published

on

Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio

June 3, 2021—The emerging and growing phenomenon of video manipulation known as deepfakes could pose a threat to the country’s national security, policy makers and technology experts said at an online conference Wednesday, but how best to address them divided the panel.

A deepfake is a highly technical method of generating synthetic media in which a person’s likeness is inserted into a photograph or video in such a way that creates the illusion that they were actually there. A well done deepfake can make a person appear to do things that they never actually did and say things that they never actually said.

“The way the technology has evolved, it is literally impossible for a human to actually detect that something is a deepfake,” said Ashish Jaiman, the director of technology operations at Microsoft, at an online event hosted by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

Experts are wary of the associated implications of this technology being increasingly offered to the general population, but how best to address the brewing dilemma has them split. Some believe better technology aimed at detecting deepfakes is the answer, while others say that a shift in social perspective is necessary. Others argue that such a societal shift would be dangerous, and that the solution actually lies in the hands of journalists.

Deepfakes pose a threat to democracy

Such technology posed no problem when only Hollywood had the means to portray such impressive special effects, says Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, but the technology has progressed to a point that allows most anybody to get their hands on it. He says that with the spread of disinformation, and the challenges that poses to establishing a well-informed public, deepfakes could be weaponized to spread lies and affect elections.

As of yet, however, no evidence exists that deepfakes have been used for this purpose, according to Daniel Kimmage, the acting coordinator for the Global Engagement Center of the Department of State. But he, along with the other panelists, agree that the technology could be used to influence elections and further already growing seeds of mistrust in the information media. They believe that its best to act preemptively and solve the problem before it becomes a crisis.

“Once people realize they can’t trust the images and videos they’re seeing, not only will they not believe the lies, they aren’t going to believe the truth,” said Dana Rao, executive vice president of software company Adobe.

New technology as a solution

Jaiman says Microsoft has been developing sophisticated technologies aimed at detecting deepfakes for over two years now. Deborah Johnson, emeritus technology professor at the University of Virginia School of Engineering, refers to this method as an “arms race,” in which we must develop technology that detects deepfakes at a faster rate than the deepfake technology progresses.

But Jaiman was the first to admit that, despite Microsoft’s hard work, detecting deepfakes remains a grueling challenge. Apparently, it’s much harder to detect a deepfake than it is to create one, he said. He believes that a societal response is necessary, and that technology will be inherently insufficient to address the problem.

Societal shift as a solution

Jaiman argues that people need to be skeptical consumers of information. He believes that until the technology catches up and deepfakes can more easily be detected and misinformation can easily be snuffed, people need to approach online information with the perspective that they could easily be deceived.

But critics believe this approach of encouraging skepticism could be problematic. Gabriela Ivens, the head of open source research at Human Rights Watch, says that “it becomes very problematic if people’s first reactions are not to believe anything.” Ivens’ job revolves around researching and exposing human rights violations, but says that the growing mistrust of media outlets will make it harder for her to gain the necessary public support.

She believes that a “zero-trust society” must be resisted.

Vint Cerf, the vice president and chief internet evangelist at Google, says that it is up to journalists to prevent the growing spread of distrust. He accused journalists not of deliberately lying, but often times misleading the public. He believes that the true risk of deepfakes lies in their ability to corrode America’s trust in truth, and that it is up to journalists to restore that trust already beginning to corrode by being completely transparent and honest in their reporting.

Reporter Tyler Perkins studied rhetoric and English literature, and also economics and mathematics, at the University of Utah. Although he grew up in and never left the West (both Oregon and Utah) until recently, he intends to study law and build a career on the East Coast. In his free time, he enjoys reading excellent literature and playing poor golf.

Artificial Intelligence

Int’l Ethical Framework for Auto Drones Needed Before Widescale Implementation

Observers say the risks inherent in letting autonomous drones roam requires an ethical framework.

Published

on

Timothy Clement-Jones was a member of the U.K. Parliament's committee on artificial intelligence

July 19, 2021 — Autonomous drones could potentially serve as a replacement for military dogs in future warfare, said GeoTech Center Director David Bray during a panel discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council last month, but ethical concerns have observers clamoring for a framework for their use.

Military dogs, trained to assist soldiers on the battlefield, are currently a great asset to the military. AI-enabled autonomous systems, such as drones, are developing capabilities that would allow them to assist in the same way — for example, inspecting inaccessible areas and detecting fires and leaks early to minimize the chance of on-the-job injuries.

However, concerns have been raised about the ability to impact human lives, including the recent issue of an autonomous drone possibly hunting down humans in asymmetric warfare and anti-terrorist operations.

As artificial intelligence continues to develop at a rapid rate, society must determine what, if any, limitations should be implemented on a global scale. “If nobody starts raising the questions now, then it’s something that will be a missed opportunity,” Bray said.

Sally Grant, vice president at Lucd AI, agreed with Bray’s concerns, pointing out the controversies surrounding the uncharted territory of autonomous drones. Panelists proposed the possibility of an international limitation agreement with regards to AI-enabled autonomous systems that can exercise lethal force.

Timothy Clement-Jones, who was a member of the U.K. Parliament’s committee on artificial intelligence, called for international ethical guidelines, saying, “I want to see a development of an ethical risk-based approach to AI development and application.”

Many panelists emphasized the immense risk involve if this technology gets in the wrong hands. Panelists provided examples stretching from terrorist groups to the paparazzi, and the power they could possess with that much access.

Training is vital, Grant said, and soldiers need to feel comfortable with this machinery while not becoming over-reliant. The idea of implementing AI-enabled autonomous systems into missions, including during national disasters, is that soldiers can use it as guidance to make the most informed decisions.

“AI needs to be our servant not our master,” Clement agreed, emphasizing that soldiers can use it as a tool to help them and not as guidance to follow. He compared AI technology with the use of phone navigation, pointing to the importance of keeping a map in the glove compartment in case the technology fails.

The panelists emphasized the importance of remaining transparent and developing an international agreement with an ethical risk-based approach to AI development and application in these technologies, especially if they might enter the battlefield as a reliable companion someday.

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

Complexity, Lack of Expertise Could Hamper Economic Benefits Of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is said to open up a new age of economic development, but its complexity could hamper its rollout.

Published

on

Keith Strier of NVIDIA

May 24, 2021 — One of the great challenges to adopting artificial intelligence is the lack of understanding of it, according to a panel hosted by the Atlantic Council’s new GeoTech Center.

The panel last week discussed the economic benefits of AI and how global policy leaders can leverage it to achieve sustainable economic growth with government buy-in. But getting the government excited and getting them to actually do something about it are two completely different tasks.

That’s because there exists little government understanding or planning around this emerging market, according to Keith Strier, vice-president of worldwide AI initiatives at NVIDIA, a tech company that designs graphics processing units.

If the trend continues, the consequences could be globally impactful, leading to a widening of the global economic divide and could even pose national security threats, he said.

“AI is the new critical infrastructure… It’s about the future of GDP,” said Strier.

Lack of understanding stems from complexity 

The reason for a lack of government understanding stems from the complexity of AI research, and the lack of consensus among experts, Strier said. He noted that the metrics used to quantify AI performance are “deceptively complex” and technical. Experts struggle to even find consensus on defining AI, only adding to its already intrinsic complexity.

This divergence in expert opinion makes the research markedly difficult to break down and communicate to policy makers in digestible, useful ways.

“Policy is just not evidence based,” Strier said. “It’s not well informed.”

World economic divide could widen 

Charles Jennings, AI entrepreneur and founder of internet technology company NeuralEye, warned of AI’s potential to widen the economic divide worldwide.

Currently, the 500 fastest computers in the world are split up between just 29 different countries, leaving the remaining 170 struggling to produce computing power. As computers become faster, the countries best suited to reap the economic benefits will do so at a rate that far outpaces less developed countries.

Jennings also believes that there exists security issues associated with the lack of AI understanding in government, claiming that the public’s increasing dependence on it matched with a lack of regulation could lead to a public safety threat. He is adamant that it’s time to bridge the gap between enterprise and policy.

Strier says there are three essential questions governments must answer: How much domestic AI compute capacity do we have? How does this compare to other nations? Do we have enough capacity to support our national AI ambitions?

Answering these questions would help governments address the AI question in terms of their own national values and interests. This would help create a framework that could mitigate the potential negative consequences which might otherwise affect us.

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

Staying Ahead On Artificial Intelligence Requires International Cooperation

Published

on

Screenshot from the webinar

March 4, 2021—Artificial intelligence is present in most facets of American digital life, but experts are in a constant race to identify and address potential dangers before they impact consumers.

From making a simple search on Google to listening to music on Spotify to streaming Tiger King on Netflix, AI is everywhere. Predictive algorithms learn from a consumer’s viewing habits and attempt to direct consumers to other content an algorithm thinks a consumer will be interested in.

While this can be extremely convenient for consumers, it also raises many concerns.

Jaisha Wray, associate administrator for international affairs at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, was a panelist at a conference hosted Tuesday by the Federal Communications Bar Association.

Wray identified three key areas of interest that are at the forefront of AI policy: content moderation, algorithm transparency, and the establishment of common-ground policies between foreign governments.

In addition to all the aforementioned uses for AI, it also has proven to be an indispensable tool for websites like Facebook, Alphabet’s Youtube, and myriad other social media platforms in auto-moderating their content. While most social media platforms employ humans to review various decisions made by AI (such as Facebook’s Oversight Board), most content is first handled by AI moderators.

According to Tubefilter, in 2019 more than 500 hours of video content were uploaded to Youtube every minute; in less than 20 minutes, a year’s worth of content is uploaded.

Content moderation, algorithm transparency, foreign alignment

On this scale, AI is necessary to police the website, even if it not a perfect system. “[AI] is like a thread that’s woven into every issue that we work on and every venue,” Wray explained. She described how both governments and private entities have looked to AI to not only moderate somewhat mundane things such copyright issues, but also national security issues like violent extremist content.

Her second point pertained to algorithm transparency. She outlined how entities outside of the U.S. have sought to address this concern by providing consumers with the opportunity to have their content reviewed by humans before a final decision is made. Wray pointed to the European General Protection Regulation, “which enshrines the principle that every person has the right not to be subject to a decision solely based on automated processing.”

Her final point raised the issue of coordinating these efforts between different international jurisdictions—namely the U.S. and its allies. “We’re really trying to hone-in on where our values align and where we can find common ground.” She added that coordination does not end with allies, however, and that it is key that the U.S. also coordinate with authoritarian regimes, allied or otherwise.

She said that the primary task facing the U.S. right now is simply trying to determine which issues are worth prioritizing when it comes to coordinating with foreign governments—whether that is addressing the spread of AI, how to police AI multilaterally, or how to address the use of AI by adversarial authoritarian regimes.

Technology needs to be built with security in mind

One of Wray’s co-panelists, Evelyn Remaley, who is the associate administrator for the NTIA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Development, said all multilateral cybersecurity efforts related to AI must be approached from a position of what she called a “zero-trust model.” She explained that this model operates from the presupposition that technology should not and cannot be trusted.

“We have to build in controls and standards from the bottom-up to make sure that we are building in the security layer by layer,” Remaley said. “It’s really that premise of ensuring that we realize that we’re always going to have vulnerabilities within this technical development space.”

Remaley said that increasing competition and collaboration can only be safely achieved with a zero-trust mindset.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending