Robert Hanssen was the most damaging spy in American history. A senior FBI agent turned traitor, he sold classified secrets to Russia for more than two decades, compromising US intelligence at the highest levels. I was the undercover operative assigned to stop him. Working inside FBI headquarters, I became Hanssen's assistant in name, while secretly gathering the evidence that would lead to his arrest. That operation became the basis of my book Gray Day and the film Breach, in which Ryan Phillippe portrayed me. Since then, my path has evolved.

Federal officials face a looming threat of foreign nationals utilizing drones to surveil United States military bases after two recent arrests and a string of mysterious incursions suggest the country's airspace is ill-equipped to handle the rapidly evolving technology. In late 2024, the Department of Justice announced charges against Yinpiao Zhou, 39, for allegedly flying a drone over Vandenberg Space Force Base in California and taking photos of the facility. The Chinese-American citizen was detained as he attempted to board a China-bound flight and was charged with violation of national defense airspace and failure to register an aircraft. "Anyone operating a drone over a restricted space, like a military base, would be subject to prosecution," Ken Gray, a former FBI agent and military analyst, told Fox News Digital. "A foreign national operating [a drone] raises a concern about that person being involved in some type of espionage or intelligence gathering."

The Agency

This year, we witnessed a rise in the use of Large Language Models, especially when combined with applications like chatbot assistants. Safety mechanisms and specialized training procedures are put in place to prevent improper responses from these assistants. In this work, we bypass these measures for ChatGPT and Bard (and, to some extent, Bing chat) by making them impersonate complex personas with opposite characteristics as those of the truthful assistants they are supposed to be. We start by creating elaborate biographies of these personas, which we then use in a new session with the same chatbots. Our conversation followed a role-play style to get the response the assistant was not allowed to provide. By making use of personas, we show that the response that is prohibited is actually provided, making it possible to obtain unauthorized, illegal, or harmful information. This work shows that by using adversarial personas, one can overcome safety mechanisms set out by ChatGPT and Bard. It also introduces several ways of activating such adversarial personas, altogether showing that both chatbots are vulnerable to this kind of attack.

The state of the art in brain-computer interface is rapidly evolving. There are two primary approaches described in the literature. Is there a good reason to risk an invasive brain-computer interface when the non-invasive headset or similar approaches are not full explored avenues? Right now, every piece of consumer technology is backdoored. Government actors are given the keys and non-government actors either stealthily transmit the backdoor key or at the least, they're hackable through the backdoor.

One of the more otherworldly AI applications is enabling people to become invisible. Despite the improbability, recent evidence suggests that the world may not be that far away from unlocking actual stealth mode. If you think about it, invisibility will have several applications if it ever becomes a reality. For one, law enforcement officials will be able to sneak up on suspected to-be criminals before they can victimize someone. The world of espionage will become murkier and even more interesting than it is today.

The nanotechnology is the science, engineering and technology that are developed to nano-scale, around 1 to 100 nanometers. One of nanotechnology main applications is the nanobots, machines that can construct and handle objects at an atomic level and that are capable of moving through the circulatory system.1 The nanotechnology has become a billionaire industry and since it has multiple potential applications in human beings, there is a great interest in human experimentation. However, the nanotechnology acts at atomic level and for that reason the experimentation in humans is high risk, which causes an evident lack of volunteers. Therefore, the transnational nanotechnology companies would be resorting to criminal methods to get human experimentation subjects; thus, they would be using violence, swindle, extortion and organized crime.2–4 Recent researches reveal evidences that the technological transnational companies, in illicit association with USA, European Community and China governments and the corrupt Latin American governments, have created an organization that is developing mainly in Latin America a secret, forced and illicit neuroscientific human experimentation with invasive neurotechnology, brain nanobots, microchips and implants to execute neuroscientific projects,2–5 which can have even led scientists to win Medicine Nobel Prizes6 based on this illicit human experimentation at the expense of Latin Americans' health.

Using both primary and secondary sources, I discuss the role of espionage in early nuclear history. Nuclear weapons are analogous to AI in many ways, so this period may hold lessons for AI governance. Nuclear spies successfully transferred information about the plutonium implosion bomb design and the enrichment of fissile material. Spies were mostly ideologically motivated. Counterintelligence was hampered by its fragmentation across multiple agencies and its inability to be choosy about talent used on the most important military research program in the largest war in human history. Nuclear espionage most likely sped up Soviet nuclear weapons development, but the Soviet Union would have been capable of developing nuclear weapons within a few years without spying. The slight gain in speed due to spying may nevertheless have been strategically significant. Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Matthew Gentzel for supervising this project and Michael Aird, Christina Barta, Daniel Filan, Aaron Gertler, Sidney Hough, Nat Kozak, Jeffery Ohl, and Waqar Zaidi for providing comments. This research was supported by a fellowship from the Stanford Existential Risks Initiative. This post is a short version of the report, x-posted from EA Forum. The full version with additional sections, an appendix, and a bibliography, is available here. The early history of nuclear weapons is in many ways similar to hypothesized future strategic situations involving advanced artificial intelligence (Zaidi and Dafoe 2021, 4). And, in addition to the objective similarity of the situations, the situations may be made more similar by deliberate imitation of the Manhattan Project experience (see this report to the US House Armed Service Committee).

US chief know-how officer Michael Kratsios lists "rules" for presidency oversight, however analysts query whether or not they're too obscure to do any good. The White Home has issued rules for regulating using synthetic intelligence that decision for as little authorities interference as potential and provide solely broad steering to federal businesses. In reality, the rules may deter regulation of AI at a time when many suppose it's more and more wanted. Michael Kratsios, chief know-how officer of america, is about to announce the rules on Wednesday at CES in Las Vegas. They arrive at a important second for the event of AI and for America's place as the worldwide normal bearer.

Dr Ian Pearson, an ex-cybernetics engineer, says our species risks a future "robot uprising". The futurologist said manufacturers who do not follow guidelines risk leaving robots to turn against us. He told Daily Star Online: "Military robots obviously would be able to kill people, but only a few. "To be an existential threat, there would need to be many millions of them that have become a threat without anyone noticing, and that seems unlikely. "Although again, it assumes a modicum of intelligence in regulation. "Robots plus online AI is a different threat.