SoK: On the Offensive Potential of AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18442v4
• Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:39:32 GMT
• Title: SoK: On the Offensive Potential of AI
• Authors: Saskia Laura Schröer, Giovanni Apruzzese, Soheil Human, Pavel Laskov, Hyrum S. Anderson, Edward W. N. Bernroider, Aurore Fass, Ben Nassi, Vera Rimmer, Fabio Roli, Samer Salam, Ashley Shen, Ali Sunyaev, Tim Wadhwa-Brown, Isabel Wagner, Gang Wang,
• Abstract summary: More and more evidence shows that AI is also used for offensive purposes. No extant work has been able to draw a holistic picture of the offensive potential of AI.
• Score: 14.072632973726906
• License:
• Abstract: Our society increasingly benefits from Artificial Intelligence (AI). Unfortunately, more and more evidence shows that AI is also used for offensive purposes. Prior works have revealed various examples of use cases in which the deployment of AI can lead to violation of security and privacy objectives. No extant work, however, has been able to draw a holistic picture of the offensive potential of AI. In this SoK paper we seek to lay the ground for a systematic analysis of the heterogeneous capabilities of offensive AI. In particular we (i) account for AI risks to both humans and systems while (ii) consolidating and distilling knowledge from academic literature, expert opinions, industrial venues, as well as laypeople -- all of which being valuable sources of information on offensive AI. To enable alignment of such diverse sources of knowledge, we devise a common set of criteria reflecting essential technological factors related to offensive AI. With the help of such criteria, we systematically analyze: 95 research papers; 38 InfoSec briefings (from, e.g., BlackHat); the responses of a user study (N=549) entailing individuals with diverse backgrounds and expertise; and the opinion of 12 experts. Our contributions not only reveal concerning ways (some of which overlooked by prior work) in which AI can be offensively used today, but also represent a foothold to address this threat in the years to come.

Related papers

• A Survey on Offensive AI Within Cybersecurity [1.8206461789819075]
  This survey paper on offensive AI will comprehensively cover various aspects related to attacks against and using AI systems. It will delve into the impact of offensive AI practices on different domains, including consumer, enterprise, and public digital infrastructure. The paper will explore adversarial machine learning, attacks against AI models, infrastructure, and interfaces, along with offensive techniques like information gathering, social engineering, and weaponized AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T17:36:22Z)
• Mapping Technical Safety Research at AI Companies: A literature review and incentives analysis [0.0]
  Report analyzes the technical research into safe AI development being conducted by three leading AI companies. Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and OpenAI. We defined safe AI development as developing AI systems that are unlikely to pose large-scale misuse or accident risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-12T09:34:55Z)
• Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases [1.556153237434314]
  We argue that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the humans to AI biases and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T21:34:04Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• AI Usage Cards: Responsibly Reporting AI-generated Content [25.848910414962337]
  Given AI systems like ChatGPT can generate content that is indistinguishable from human-made work, the responsible use of this technology is a growing concern. We propose a three-dimensional model consisting of transparency, integrity, and accountability to define the responsible use of AI. Second, we introduce AI Usage Cards'', a standardized way to report the use of AI in scientific research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T08:41:31Z)
• Out of Context: Investigating the Bias and Fairness Concerns of "Artificial Intelligence as a Service" [6.824692201913679]
  "AI as a Service" (AI as a Service) is a rapidly growing market, offering various plug-and-play AI services and tools. Yet, it is known that AI systems can encapsulate biases and inequalities that can have societal impact. This paper argues that the context-sensitive nature of fairness is often incompatible with AI' 'one-size-fits-all' approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T22:32:10Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• The Threat of Offensive AI to Organizations [52.011307264694665]
  This survey explores the threat of offensive AI on organizations. First, we discuss how AI changes the adversary's methods, strategies, goals, and overall attack model. Then, through a literature review, we identify 33 offensive AI capabilities which adversaries can use to enhance their attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-30T01:03:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.