AI Advancements – Washington’s Cybersecurity Blindspot

As artificial intelligence barrels toward general intelligence capabilities, it’s becoming terrifyingly clear that no one in Washington has the first clue how to keep us safe from the cyber warfare it will unleash against America.

At a Glance

  • Advanced AI offers dual capabilities as both defense against and enablement of sophisticated cyberattacks
  • Government agencies are scrambling to create frameworks for evaluating AI threats while they simultaneously pour billions into AI development
  • Analysis of 12,000+ real-world AI cyberattack attempts reveals seven archetypal attack patterns that could threaten national security
  • Current AI models alone don’t yet enable breakthrough attack capabilities, but this false sense of security masks the true danger as capabilities advance
  • NIST’s proposed regulations add more bureaucracy while doing little to address the fundamental security issues

The Two-Faced Beast of AI in Cybersecurity

We’re building the tools of our own destruction, folks. While big tech companies and the federal government pour billions into advancing artificial intelligence capabilities, they’re simultaneously warning us about the dangers these very same systems pose to our cybersecurity infrastructure. It’s like watching someone hand a loaded gun to a toddler while explaining proper gun safety. The cognitive dissonance is staggering, but entirely predictable from the same bureaucrats who can’t even secure our physical borders, let alone our digital ones.

According to reports from Google DeepMind, AI is already proving valuable for malware detection and network traffic analysis, serving as a digital guardian against conventional threats. But as we hurtle toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), that same technology becomes increasingly capable of launching sophisticated, automated attacks that current systems simply aren’t prepared to defend against. This is the digital equivalent of building better locks while simultaneously distributing master keys to potential burglars.

The Framework Fantasy

Google DeepMind has presented what they’re calling a “new framework” for evaluating AI’s offensive capabilities in cyberspace. How convenient that the very companies building these systems also get to define how we measure their dangers. It’s like letting tobacco companies design their own health warning labels. Their updated “Frontier Safety Framework” acknowledges that advanced AI could automate cyberattacks while lowering costs for attackers. You don’t say! Nothing like stating the obvious while continuing full-speed ahead with development.

“Our updated Frontier Safety Framework recognizes that advanced AI models could automate and accelerate cyberattacks, potentially lowering costs for attackers”, says Four Flynn, Mikel Rodriguez and Raluca Ada Popa.

The framework adapts existing cybersecurity evaluation systems like MITRE ATT&CK to account for AI’s role in cyberattacks. Translation: they’re taking outdated systems designed for human hackers and slapping some AI buzzwords on them. This is like trying to evaluate the danger of nuclear weapons using frameworks designed for conventional explosives. These aren’t even remotely the same threat profiles, but bureaucrats love nothing more than recycling old solutions for new problems.

The Real-World Threat Is Already Here

While the eggheads debate theoretical frameworks, the analysis of over 12,000 real-world AI cyberattack attempts across 20 countries has already revealed seven distinct attack categories. Those aren’t hypothetical scenarios—those are actual attacks happening right now. The benchmark created to assess AI models’ cybersecurity capabilities consists of 50 challenges covering the entire attack chain, from initial reconnaissance to maintaining access in compromised systems. It’s a comprehensive approach to understanding what we’re up against.

According to those specialists: “Our new framework for evaluating the emerging offensive cyber capabilities of AI helps us do exactly this.”  

The most alarming finding? Current evaluations completely overlook critical aspects like evasion and persistence—precisely where AI shows its most dangerous potential. It’s like worrying about someone breaking your front door while ignoring that they’re already living in your attic. Initial evaluations suggest current AI models alone aren’t yet capable of unleashing cyber apocalypse, but that’s small comfort when we’re advancing these technologies at breakneck speed with practically zero guardrails or constitutional protections for citizens.

NIST: Adding More Bureaucracy to the Fire

Not to be outdone in the race for irrelevance, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed its own “AI Risk Management Framework” to address AI-related risks. Because if there’s one thing that will save us from sophisticated AI threats, it’s more government paperwork. NIST is launching yet another program focused on AI’s impact on cybersecurity and privacy, promising to collaborate with “industry, government, and academia.” Conspicuously absent? Any mention of constitutional protections or individual rights that might be trampled in their regulatory fervor.

“MANAGING CYBERSECURITY AND PRIVACY RISKS IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: LAUNCHING A NEW PROGRAM AT NIST”, says Katerina Megas.

Organizations are being told they must adapt to AI’s impact by updating data asset inventories and anti-phishing training. It’s like telling people to use umbrellas during a hurricane. The scale of the threat is several orders of magnitude beyond what these corporate compliance measures can handle. 

The fundamental issue remains: we’re building systems with capabilities we don’t fully understand or control, while simultaneously creating frameworks that give the illusion of safety without addressing the root problems. It’s the perfect storm of technological hubris and bureaucratic incompetence.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR