Epistemic Defenses against Scientific and Empirical Adversarial AI Attacks

In this paper, we introduce “scientific and empirical adversarial AI attacks” (SEA AI attacks) as umbrella term for not yet prevalent but technically feasible deliberate malicious acts of specifically crafting AI-generated samples to achieve an epistemic distortion in (applied) science or engineering contexts. In view of possible socio-psychotechnological impacts, it seems responsible to ponder countermeasures from the onset on and not in hindsight. In this vein, we consider two illustrative use cases: the example of AI-produced data to mislead security engineering practices and the conceivable prospect of AI-generated contents to manipulate scientific writing processes. Firstly, we contextualize the epistemic challenges that such future SEA AI attacks could pose to society in the light of broader i.a. AI safety, AI ethics and cybersecurityrelevant efforts. Secondly, we set forth a corresponding supportive generic epistemic defense approach. Thirdly, we effect a threat modelling for the two use cases and propose tailor-made defenses based on the foregoing generic deliberations. Strikingly, our transdisciplinary analysis suggests that employing distinct explanation-anchored, trustdisentangled and adversarial strategies is one possible principled complementary epistemic defense against SEA AI attacks – albeit with caveats yielding incentives for future work.

[1]  G. Ragsdell Systems , 2002, Economics of Visual Art.

[2]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Saving Face: Investigating the Ethical Concerns of Facial Recognition Auditing , 2020, AIES.

[3]  Eric Medvet,et al.  Exploring the Potential of GPT-2 for Generating Fake Reviews of Research Papers , 2020, FSDM.

[4]  Thabo Mahlangu,et al.  ‘Data Poisoning’ – Achilles heel of cyber threat intelligence systems , 2019 .

[5]  S. Ho,et al.  Let’s nab fake science news: Predicting scientists’ support for interventions using the influence of presumed media influence model , 2020, Journalism.

[6]  Marco Spruit,et al.  The Cybersecurity Focus Area Maturity (CYSFAM) Model , 2021, J. Cybersecur. Priv..

[7]  Norman Meuschke,et al.  Are Neural Language Models Good Plagiarists? A Benchmark for Neural Paraphrase Detection , 2021, ArXiv.

[8]  Dan Boneh,et al.  How Relevant Is the Turing Test in the Age of Sophisbots? , 2019, IEEE Security & Privacy.

[9]  Anita Makri Give the public the tools to trust scientists , 2017, Nature.

[10]  Sean McGregor,et al.  Preventing Repeated Real World AI Failures by Cataloging Incidents: The AI Incident Database , 2020, AAAI.

[11]  Mark Chen,et al.  Language Models are Few-Shot Learners , 2020, NeurIPS.

[12]  Ruben Verborgh,et al.  Rule-driven inconsistency resolution for knowledge graph generation rules , 2019, Semantic Web.

[13]  Dylan Hadfield-Menell,et al.  Multi-Principal Assistance Games , 2020, ArXiv.

[14]  Andrew Feenberg,et al.  Philosophy of technology , 2015 .

[15]  Laurent Orseau,et al.  AI Safety Gridworlds , 2017, ArXiv.

[16]  Howard Barnum,et al.  The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World , 2012 .

[17]  T. Vinnakota,et al.  A cybernetics paradigms framework for cyberspace: Key lens to cybersecurity , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Cybernetics (CYBERNETICSCOM).

[18]  Aleksander Madry,et al.  On Evaluating Adversarial Robustness , 2019, ArXiv.

[19]  Leon Kester,et al.  Transdisciplinary AI Observatory - Retrospective Analyses and Future-Oriented Contradistinctions , 2020, Philosophies.

[20]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge , 1972 .

[21]  Tim Finin,et al.  Generating Fake Cyber Threat Intelligence Using Transformer-Based Models , 2021, 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

[22]  Huajun Chen,et al.  The Semantic Web , 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[23]  Michael Benz,et al.  Calculated risk? A cybersecurity evaluation tool for SMEs , 2020 .

[24]  Jingyue Li,et al.  The AI-Based Cyber Threat Landscape , 2020, ACM Comput. Surv..

[25]  Chengbin Deng,et al.  Deep fake geography? When geospatial data encounter Artificial Intelligence , 2021 .

[26]  Hyrum S. Anderson,et al.  The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation , 2018, ArXiv.

[27]  K. Popper In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years , 2012 .

[28]  José Hernández-Orallo,et al.  Exploring AI Safety in Degrees: Generality, Capability and Control , 2020, SafeAI@AAAI.

[29]  L. Kester,et al.  Facing Immersive “Post-Truth” in AIVR? , 2020, Philosophies.

[30]  Viktor Mikhaĭlovich Glushkov,et al.  An Introduction to Cybernetics , 1957, The Mathematical Gazette.

[31]  Ilya Sutskever,et al.  Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners , 2019 .

[32]  David Deutsch The Logic of Experimental Tests, Particularly of Everettian Quantum Theory , 2015 .

[33]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

[34]  Robert M. Chesney,et al.  Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security , 2018 .

[35]  Magnus Sahlgren,et al.  The Singleton Fallacy: Why Current Critiques of Language Models Miss the Point , 2021, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence.

[36]  Roman V. Yampolskiy,et al.  Unethical Research: How to Create a Malevolent Artificial Intelligence , 2016, ArXiv.

[37]  L. Floridi Artificial Intelligence, Deepfakes and a Future of Ectypes , 2018, Philosophy & Technology.

[38]  Sherali Zeadally,et al.  Harnessing Artificial Intelligence Capabilities to Improve Cybersecurity , 2020, IEEE Access.

[39]  N. Bostrom Strategic Implications of Openness in AI Development , 2017, Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security.

[40]  Thomas J. Holt,et al.  Don’t shoot the messenger! A criminological and computer science perspective on coordinated vulnerability disclosure , 2018, Crime Science.

[41]  John Schulman,et al.  Concrete Problems in AI Safety , 2016, ArXiv.

[42]  Ryan Smith,et al.  A step-by-step tutorial on active inference and its application to empirical data , 2021, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[43]  Seán S. ÓhÉigeartaigh,et al.  Overcoming Barriers to Cross-cultural Cooperation in AI Ethics and Governance , 2020, Philosophy & Technology.

[44]  N Dehouche,et al.  Plagiarism in the age of massive Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT-3) , 2021, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics.

[45]  Vittorio Bufacchi Truth, lies and tweets: A Consensus Theory of Post-Truth , 2020 .

[46]  J. Sarkis,et al.  The zero trust supply chain: Managing supply chain risk in the absence of trust , 2021, Int. J. Prod. Res..

[47]  Anna Jobin,et al.  The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines , 2019, Nature Machine Intelligence.

[48]  R. Lathe Phd by thesis , 1988, Nature.

[49]  Zeyd Boukhers,et al.  ECOL: Early Detection of COVID Lies Using Content, Prior Knowledge and Source Information , 2021, CONSTRAINT@AAAI.

[50]  Richard Van Noorden Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers , 2014 .

[51]  IEEE Access , 2021, IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems.

[52]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations , 2018, Minds and Machines.