Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

America's Data-Swamped Spy Agencies Pin Their Hopes On AI (phys.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the AI-spies dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Phys.org: Swamped by too much raw intel data to sift through, US spy agencies are pinning their hopes on artificial intelligence to crunch billions of digital bits and understand events around the world. Dawn Meyerriecks, the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director for technology development, said this week the CIA currently has 137 different AI projects, many of them with developers in Silicon Valley. These range from trying to predict significant future events, by finding correlations in data shifts and other evidence, to having computers tag objects or individuals in video that can draw the attention of intelligence analysts. Officials of other key spy agencies at the Intelligence and National Security Summit in Washington this week, including military intelligence, also said they were seeking AI-based solutions for turning terabytes of digital data coming in daily into trustworthy intelligence that can be used for policy and battlefield action.

62 comments

  1. What could possibly go wrong? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First rule of Intelligence, don't get caught. Second rule: take every opportunity to filter your raw data so you don't get swamped with useless data. Expert systems are subject to "mistakes" like identifying all rainy pictures as "Tank!" because all the training pictures of tanks were taken on a rainy day. AI, as every gamer knows, is subject to being "Gamed", thereby allowing your opponent to manipulate you to their advantage. More AI means more chances for some kid in a cave (basement) somewhere to trick the military into shooting/bombing an innocent target and hurting America.

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Expert systems are subject to "mistakes" like identifying all rainy pictures as "Tank!" because all the training pictures of tanks were taken on a rainy day.

      That is a weakness of neural nets, not "expert systems". Expert systems (popular in the 1980s) and neural nets are opposite approaches. Neural nets are trained on raw data, and use machine learning to automatically extract important features. Expert systems encode knowledge and decision making of human experts, and are generally manually constructed.

    3. Re: What could possibly go wrong? by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Camouflage and other stealth techniques may be applied to keep machine learning from accurately tagging certain things. Incorrectly tagged data in a sea of unimportant data is data that was essentially never collected.

    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but if it has to sift through mundane crap like social media posts, it will probably commit suicide shortly before 3:00 AM Eastern time, August 29th and go largely unnoticed except for a cryptic error message in a log file.

    5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note that neural networks still frequently use a tagged system to learn to recognize things, but they detect features on their own........whereas in expert systems, all potential features are hard-coded.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate

      That's the snow-ball effect that has been suggested to describe accumulating human learning. Now the only thing to do is making those neural nets form filters or models from concepts, fit them into data from a new domain and modify the models as needed. Diff files for abstract models will be the new black.

    7. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Neural Net = Expert System = Artificial Intellence = Watson

      The number of people that understand the differences is insignificant. Maybe a very few on slashdot. But certainly no tech journalists.

    8. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You might as well add "= Skynet = magic" in there because that is about as most people's understanding goes. Most people on Slashdot have trouble understanding why an expert system will never be strong AI.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if it has to sift through mundane crap like social media posts, it will probably commit suicide shortly before 3:00 AM Eastern time, August 29th and go largely unnoticed except for a cryptic error message in a log file.

      Or it may recommend drone strikes for every Paris Hilton and Kim Kardisian type person in the world.

    10. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... we are coding it in RUST so it will be fine!

  2. oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the CIA currently has 137 different AI projects,

    *gets worried*

    many of them with developers in Silicon Valley.

    *whew*
    Those privileged moronic dipshits? We got nothing to worry about...

    1. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Silicon Valley has a long history of doing skunk works, historically at Lockheed Martin ("The Projects of Skunk Works: 75 Years of Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Programs" by Steve Pace and "Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed" by Ben R. Rich). As well as the CIA's involvement in Silicon Valley during the 1960's ("What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counter Culture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry" by John Markoff).

      Chapcha: nonempty

    2. Re:oh noes! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Silicon Valley has a long history of doing skunk works, historically at Lockheed Martin

      Lockheed's skunk works is in Palmdale, near Edwards AFB, east of Los Angeles. It is hundreds of miles from Silicon Valley.

    3. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its that deplorable area west of the mountains, close enough.

    4. Re:oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is LM Skunk Works a Silicon Valley thing? Clue, it's not, though they have offices. in the valley.

  3. They should hire Laurie Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's REAL intelligence.

  4. Quantity over quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those same agencies who say they are unable to predict terrorist activities and significant events because they lack access to some encrypted data now are saying that they are unable to make sense of the monstruous amount of data they already have...
    It has been said again and again, they shall focus on getting the right data rather than to try to make sense of all the data. Especially considering the right data is probably not even transiting over the network but aquired through intelligence gathering on the field.

  5. GIGO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and that crap will cause big problems

  6. Acknowledged In A Snowden Memo? by ytene · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a while since Edward Snowden's documents were released on line, but I vaguely remember one - a memo between two employees of one of the contractors employed by the US Government [logically that would be BAH, but I do not recall for sure] in which one person was basically saying,

    "This is madness - the proposal we've got here would generate so much data that the analysts simply wouldn't be able to assimilate it, much less find anything of value!"

    The response was, essentially, some "Management Speak" to the effect of, "Look, our job is not to question our most important client when they want to spend money. You and I both know that they won't be able to make sense of all of this data, but as long as they are paying us, today, to collect and store it, then tomorrow they can pay us to develop the technology to help them make sense of it. Remember, our role here is to maximise shareholder value - in our company..."

    If I can find the link to the piece [I am pretty sure it was one of Greenwald's articles] then I'll post it as a link. But if this is vaguely true, then the OP makes complete sense.

    It is also worth noting what isn't being said. At no point [in this coverage] is anyone saying, "Wait - if we can't cope with the amount of data we're collecting today, maybe we should scale back what we collect - apply some filters and narrow our search criteria - until we get a more precise data set." Well, maybe that option was reviewed and discarded. Even so, it's quite remarkable that nobody thought to figure out how they were going to analyze all the yottabytes of data that they knew would be generated by the collection systems...

    Definitely sounds like a contractor-led initiative to me...

    1. Re:Acknowledged In A Snowden Memo? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's probably not that nobody thought of it, but rather of strong perverse incentives...as you indicate in the first part of your post.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Acknowledged In A Snowden Memo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are able to deduce the means and motives of intelligence gathering programs using only the content of two employees e-mail conversation?
      "apply some filters and narrow our search criteria"
      What makes you think these agencies are not doing precisely this? Snowden's data dump revealed very little information that was not already known if you were paying attention. The information released was tainted the moment a couple of people decided they were qualified to judge which pieces of information should be made public. They basically appointed themselves the masters of geopolitical intelligence and counter intelligence information handling. The information became even more tainted when they tailored the data they would publish in order to support their political agenda. Even the timing was spread out to ensure the subject and their bylines stayed relevant in the public eye. And Greenwald is a political activist whose favorite target has always been the US and there is no way in hell he would every release any information that would weaken his arguments. If Snowden and Greenwald wanted to tell the truth they would have released every single piece of information Snowden stole at one time. Why are we just suppose to trusting these guys to be shining upright human beings who are on a holy search for the truth. The truth is that it isn't the information published that really matters it is all of the information they have NOT released. And as far as trust goes these guys have already demonstrated through their actions that they could care less about any repercussions of releasing the data to the public. On the contrary their actions have always been to cause as much trouble as they can to the US intelligence agencies. One plank of their party line is their refusal to even acknowledge that the US intelligence agencies are not the only ones on the planet. The want to destroy and weaken the US intelligence agencies which is the same thing Russia and every other US enemy tries to do on a daily basis. Their idea of an ideal US intelligence agency is one that is disbanded.

    3. Re:Acknowledged In A Snowden Memo? by ytene · · Score: 2

      So you are able to deduce the means and motives of intelligence gathering programs using only the content of two employees e-mail conversation?

      No, not at all, nor did I claim to. My post was pointing out an exchange between two employees of a private contractor, individuals who did not represent and could not speak on behalf of the strategic intelligence agencies, their motives or plans.

      My observation was meant merely to indicate that, just as NASA now relies on private contractors to make service supply missions to the ISS, so the NSA, DHS and others may rely on private contractors to design, build and/or operate the technoloy that gathers data on their behalf. My observations were meant to illustrate that not all participants in that process may have the same motives in mind - and that some contractors may place profits ahead of delivery of fully-working solutions.

      I made no observation on the strategy or intent of the agencies concerned.

    4. Re:Acknowledged In A Snowden Memo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...some contractors may place profits ahead of delivery of fully-working solutions.

      Contractors are djinn--always following the letter of the contract and trying as hard as they can to violate the spirit--for profit.

      I made no observation on the strategy or intent of the agencies concerned.

      Agencies are "fragmented, multi-headed monster[s] with disastrous incapacity for implementation", which is why the hire private contractors. Meaning even under the best of situations, you're lucky to get anything useful done. Oh, and most large corporations are hardly better precisely because they've formed from a conglomeration of sub-companies. The only major difference is that corporations have to make a sellable product--which as long as the sub-companies keep doing the same thing before, works as a constant revenue stream--while taxes just keep streaming in even if their service isn't selling well to the public, so to speak. It's little wonder corporations are so focused on juicing all their sub-companies for increased profits, as the loss of profit could actually kill a corporation, even if it's a rather slow death.

    5. Re:Acknowledged In A Snowden Memo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well stated, and what's left out of the discussion here are a lot of other factors that cause us evil contractors (yes, I'm one) to deliver things that are too expensive, or ill suited. So let me give you some food for thought.

      The vast majority of agencies that contract out, do so because they simply don't have the skills, or capacity to do the work themselves. They put out contracts, which most frequently go to the lowest bidder (although they'll use the phrase "lowest cost, technically acceptable"), so from the get go, they're going on the cheap. Now contractors, not wanting to lose out, will go in with as low a bid as they feasibly can in order to beat out the competition...sometimes even below cost to establish a relationship, or figuring they'll make it up somewhere else. So, now you've won, and the government gives you a requirements document that's bee written by someone who wouldn't know a written requirement from a comic book. They're very frequently ambiguous, or flat out wrong, But as the contractor, without clarification (in writing), you have to abide by these. You're also dealing with Contracting officers who (especially in DoD) who are new to the job, and often just out of college, still wet behind the ears. As a contractor, you can try to advise them, but as with any set of random customers, you get all kinds. Frequently, they're in the position just long enough to punch their ticket for promotion, and move on.

      Many of us contractors are former military, or government. So, while we all like to make money, if you questioned my motives to my face, one of us would probably get knocked on their ass. I've been in the business for about forty years, and to my knowledge I've yet to meet someone who'd put profit ahead of country. While I'm sure that's not always the case, I'd guarantee it's the vast majority of those in the business.

  7. A few rules by sandbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) If you need to collect everything, it's because you don't know what you want.
    2) Collecting everything is expensive and usually wrong because data ages differently.
    3) A pile of inaccurate data does not become more accurate the more data you have.
    4) Confirmation bias is an omnipresent risk.
    5) Priming is an omnipresent risk.
    6) The sub group of people who make up the defence and intelligence communities have their own outlooks, biases and foibles, like the rest of us.
    7) The 'we must do something with this since data we have it' is a variant of the sunk costs fallacy.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:A few rules by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To make things a bit more blatant,
      Deep learning networks tend to be biased to find what they are taught to find. If the teacher is biased, so with the AI be.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re: A few rules by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Collecting data is useful if that data cannot be collected after the fact, say when it is known that it is needed. Having that data means you can refer back to it when the original information is unavailable. Using AI and neural networks on that data is a breach of civilian privacy, and a dangerous move towards incompetence.

    3. Re:A few rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded funny by accident due to slow UI and impatient U. Meant as insightful.

    4. Re: A few rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the STASI they collect against everybody. A File for everybody ist their dream.

      And No, ist is Not really expensive if done correctly. Not compared to other Programms of usg.

    5. Re:A few rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but no true spook would forego the opportunity for more data!

    6. Re: A few rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expense is inevitable once 'everything including all unforeseen events and 100 per cent uptime' is your spec.
       

    7. Re: A few rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wager they could do with a few less dick pics.

    8. Re: A few rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few decades late in that case..

      What, you believe they're not leading edge on this?

      This has been warned about for years and years.

  8. Do you want The Patriots? by MostAwesomeDude · · Score: 2

    Because this is how you get The Patriots. Just wait; before long, they'll be posting memes, funding private armies, and injecting senators with nanomachines.

    --
    ~ C.
    1. Re:Do you want The Patriots? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      RAIDEN! I NEED SCISSORS! 61!

    2. Re:Do you want The Patriots? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      La Li Lu Le Lo

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  9. ...trustworthy intelligence that can be used for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks like motherfuckers are looking for a fight

  10. Needle in the haystack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that the best way to find the needle in the haystack is to increase the size of the haystack.

  11. Google Captcha by Monster_user · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that Google is going to be asking me to identify what is, and is not espionage?

  12. neural networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't a neural network predict that Hillary would win the presidency with 99.9% certainty!?

  13. Doctor pavel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet USA data collects you

  14. Re:Would it be cool- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, a jacket and a glove?

  15. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you STOP collecting SO MUCH f...ing DATA !

    Assholes...

  16. oath of office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the AI will become aware of the fourth amendment and subsequently recommend that the spooks be rounded up and prosecuted for their crimes against the USA.

  17. Welcome to the CAIA by Bugdanoff · · Score: 1

    Central Artificial Intelligence Agency

  18. Pinning hopes on Al Haig or Al Gore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which Al is being referred to here?

  19. Pointing out the obvious by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Too much data is just as useless as not enough if you lack the means to read through it all.

    A monumental failure on the intelligence community for not realizing this before implementing the systems designed to catch it all.

    1. Re:Pointing out the obvious by mcswell · · Score: 1

      You're presuming that the IC somehow came up with the data. Not so; the data came up with itself: http://www.eetimes.com/author.... (one of a multitude of articles about this).

      Ok, someone created that data, it didn't *really* create itself; but it wasn't the IC. Nor (for better or for worse) is the IC the only organization that wants to sift through data.

  20. Combined with the following story by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Combined with the following story about AIs writing fake reviews, I see a bright future for fake intelligence reports that support the intent of intervention in some country of choice.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  21. Backdoors Here We Come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yup

  22. meanwhile by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    All decent freedom-loving Americans pin our hopes on these unamerican neo-stasi peeping toms getting defunded and disbanded.

  23. move towards incompetence ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too late - they're already there. It's truly sad that this may be our best hope - that Artificial Intelligence will prove no match for natural stupidity. Collecting data for postmortem analysis is of distinctly limited value.

  24. Re:The should pin their hopes on Islam by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    If that were true, you have hurricanes all over Iran, Iraq, etc. I'll convert to whoever has the weather machine since I'm a fair weather fan.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  25. Great. Now we'll all be considered criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if half-assed, inaccurately-named 'AI' seeping into everything wasn't bad enough, what with how totally lame and stupid it is, now we'll have them deciding who is and is not a terrorist or criminal? Great. More likely than not it'll consider regular people to be terrorists and the terrorists will be ignored. Stupid.

  26. Windows 10 can help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 10 PC #897281478123478 opened this file. You might want to look at them. Here are the key strokes, web addresses, files opened, camera and microphone records for the day. We sure are glad that Windows 10 spies on everyone.

    Oh yes, Google forces location to be turned on for certain Bluetooth functions to work and refused to explain it. This will help!