Palestinians celebrate near a destroyed Israeli tank. , AP Photo/Yousef MasoodThank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
When Hamas militants shocked the world last weekend By far the largest and most violent attack on Israel in decades, it was almost as shocking How they did it.
Hamas destroyed a super-high-tech, $1 billion security system on the Gaza border using little more than bulldozers, paragliders and a 2G cellular network, a marked improvement in the technological mobility of both sides – as Politico’s Daniela Cheslow gives surprising details today morning.
As their story shows, this is a big deal not only for stunned Israelis but for the entire Western defense establishment, which has developed a great deal of trust in Israel as being technologically adept. Arms and Security Suppliers, As Audrey Kurth Cronin, director of the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Security and Technology, told Daniela: “It has become easier to create fairly advanced technological means to go against high-tech countries” – a lesson borne out by skyrocketing deaths. It happens. Both the Gaza Strip and Israel.
Where do the results end? To find out, I spoke with Cronin today and asked him what lessons there are for the world from this conflict as the rapid pace of technological development continues to overwhelm megabucks-possessed nations and their smaller counterparts, political factions — or even Reduces differences between individuals.
Cronin, author of a book published in 2019 “Power to the people: How open tech innovation is arming tomorrow’s terrorists,” Described how he has seen its thesis about the democratization of technology leading to a more chaotic world come true.
Cronin said, “Technology is changing war, but it is not necessarily changing it in the way that most techno-optimists think.” “Because technologies are so accessible, you have … groups like Hamas being able to use low-tech clusters of both high and low technology, from drones to social media, that can have a huge impact. “
For Hamas, it took staying away from smartphones and preparing its propaganda in advance, as well as occupying the Israeli border so quickly that its drone surveillance system failed. Cronin characterizes three key areas where low-tech actors can and do dominate their counterparts: democratization of media technology; increased physical reach allowed by cheap drones and rocketry; and systems integration, or the ability to communicate effectively within the group.
Cronin drew a comparison between the current conflicts in Israel and Ukraine, where the Ukrainians have used a relatively high level of technological sophistication to oppose a larger conventional army by following those three principles of asymmetric warfare.
“You’ve seen Hamas learning from the Ukrainians, and they’re using drones the same way to take out Israeli Merkavas [Mark] For example, IV tanks,” he said. “The parallel only goes so far, but you can see that the technology is much more complex than the side that has the most expensive, high-tech, advanced capabilities.”
Numerically outmatched, spirited fighters Sparta has defeated its better-equipped opponents throughout history, from the Napoleonic Wars to the failed Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But Cronin argues that the current state of affairs also has unique contemporary roots, notably the decision by the Bill Clinton administration in the 1990s to make information technologies such as GPS widely available to the public – starting a trend that Making this possible for individual consumers as well. Viewing around the world with the help of drones and geolocation.
This creates a wildly evolving threat landscape, where the famous saying “‘The future is already here, it’s just not equally distributed” – attributed to author William Gibson – is now commonly used. Takes on a very different meaning than it is understood. Large, wealthy states can increase their defense budgets and boast of systems like Israel’s Iron Dome, but the extent to which sophisticated technology is “distributed” across the broader consumer landscape remains beyond the reach of highly motivated smaller actors. Wanting to commit violence is enough.
“We have to learn to focus on the state threat … but on the other side of the story is the tremendous increase in leverage that is now accessible to traditionally weak actors, which includes not only terrorists, like Hamas,” Cronin said. Groups, but also vulnerable actors like individuals with large numbers of mass shootings, which is what we’re seeing.
The outlook of the world’s democracies is serious What can AI do in the upcoming election season?
Politico’s Gian Volpicelli reported yesterday For Pro subscribers How election monitors in democracies from the US to Ukraine are preparing for the use of AI-powered disinformation over the next 16 months.
Henry Adger, a visiting researcher at the University of Cambridge, said the text and image generators used to generate disinformation “were previously extremely expensive or difficult for an ordinary person to access.” They are now available in consumer-facing apps, on websites, often for free or very inexpensively.
The world has already seen many examples of what he speaks of: Jian said in last month’s Slovak elections. fake audio clip The liberal candidate is depicted “planning” to rig the election and raise the price of beer. However, it’s not just right-wing populists using the tactic, as Poland’s centrist opposition party has used an AI-generated audio clip impersonating the country’s right-wing prime minister. It has its own attack ads,
A pair of researchers have a warning for Washington: Keep your AI work in-house.
In politico magazine this morningGanesh Sitharaman and Ramsay Eyre of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator made the case that the federal government should build its own AI capability rather than award contracts to private corporations, potentially resulting in “higher costs, creating conflicts of interest open to abuse.” and the long-term institutional knowledge needed for agencies to carry out their duties is lost.”
They point out that the program including US Digital ServiceThe 18F of General Services Administration And AI Center of Excellence, And this Presidential Innovation Fellow Those within the government are already doing this and just need to move forward.
“Policymakers can build on this existing capacity, but they need to address two problems: There are too few AI experts in government, and they do not always coordinate their work effectively,” they write, Suggesting that President Joe Biden should create a US Artificial Intelligence Service and that Congress should fund a US Technology Administration to coordinate digital services between agencies.
Stay in touch with the entire team: ben schreckinger ,[email protected], derek robertson ,[email protected], Mohar Chatterjee ([email protected], steve heuser ,[email protected], Nate Robson ([email protected]) and Daniela Cheslow ([email protected],
If you have been forwarded this newsletter, you can Sign up Read more Our Mission Statement On the given link.