Connect with us

Artificial Intelligence

The necessity of interoperable and continuously developing cyber defense for America

blank

Published

on

blank

The cyclical pattern of technical advancement and defense has experienced multiple periods of growth and decline. Recently, the emergence of communication and the integration of technology have brought about a notable change in defense. Currently, we are observing a significant increase in cybersecurity due to well-coordinated attacks sponsored by governments that are impacting and have the capacity to impact both the physical and digital realms. The White House aims to augment cyber defense expenditure from $13.5 billion to $14.5 billion, alongside the allocation of $12.7 billion for civilian endeavors in fiscal 2024, as stated in the president’s budget proposals for fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2025.

Contrary to prevailing beliefs, there has been a significant decrease in defense expenditure since the 1990s when measured as a proportion of the gross domestic product. However, it is crucial to take into account the strategic significance of sectors that receive attention in these budget allocations, and it is essential to address cybersecurity specifically with a focused and adaptable approach.

blank

Within the broader context of the digital battlefield, which is characterized by the convergence of spatial and non-spatial realms, the topic of security is characterized by a sense of immediacy and intricacy. The incorporation of cyber defense systems has transitioned from being a mere indulgence to an imperative that directly impacts our nation’s security, economy, and entitlements to privacy. We require an all-encompassing resolution—a pioneering cyber defense integrator.

The present state of cybersecurity is characterized by the presence of manufacturers offering exclusive solutions that frequently lack compatibility. The fragmentation worsens the difficulty of protecting against ever-more-advanced cyberthreats. Imagine a fragmented military force whose soldiers lack a common language and fail to adhere to a standardized set of instructions. It is evident that they would encounter difficulties when confronted with a highly organized adversary.

Therefore, it is imperative that we shift towards a framework in which our cybersecurity assets are not only compatible but also continuously adapting to align with the swiftly expanding threat environment.

In an optimal scenario, a cyber defense integrator would establish a comprehensive framework that facilitates effective communication and coordination among diverse cyber security systems. The adoption of interoperability would become customary, enabling the utilization of the collective capabilities of these systems. However, this integration is merely a single component of the system.

Cyberthreats are a constantly evolving danger. As each firewall is constructed, hackers develop novel methods to circumvent it. Hence, it is imperative for an integrator to possess a high degree of agility, enabling it to swiftly adjust to emerging risks, methodologies, and technologies. By possessing this skill, we would be able to maintain a competitive advantage over adversaries and guarantee that our defensive measures do not become outdated as the digital environment progresses.

Furthermore, the integration of cutting-edge technologies within a cohesive framework will enable us to efficiently and proactively tackle the constantly evolving threat of cyberthreats. To do this, we may promote the transition of major cyber defense contractors from using exclusive, isolated solutions to adopting a framework that prioritizes interoperability and adaptability.

It is imperative to bear in mind that the demand for an active cyber defense integrator does not entail the standardization of solutions but rather necessitates a synchronized and swiftly adaptable security approach. Various vendors possess distinct capabilities, and adopting an integrated approach will enable us to leverage these assets instead of constraining them.

This endeavor necessitates a shared determination, encompassing both governmental and commercial entities. The establishment of policies that foster interoperability and adaptation in cybersecurity solutions is necessary for the government to have a leadership role. The policy should offer incentives to vendors to engage in collaborative efforts instead of competitive ones and, if needed, enact legislation to ensure compliance with this change.

Conversely, the commercial sector should acknowledge the strategic benefit of a cohesive alliance in combating cyberthreats. Through collaboration, they can offer a holistic solution that surpasses the efficacy of any individual proprietary system.

The recent National Cybersecurity Strategy by the White House offers guidance in this regard through the promotion of interoperable systems and coordinated assessments, exemplified by the establishment of a new Cyber Safety Review Board. However, it is important to note that these suggestions may not carry substantial influence within the realm of cyber defense contracting.

The field of cybersecurity has evolved beyond its technological implications, encompassing broader concerns such as national security, economic stability, and personal privacy. In this digital world, it is crucial to have a cyber defense integrator that is both active and adaptive, with a focus on interoperability and extreme agility. We must not become complacent and depend on obsolete defense models. The present moment necessitates immediate action since the trajectory of our nation hinges on it.

As Editor here at GeekReply, I'm a big fan of all things Geeky. Most of my contributions to the site are technology related, but I'm also a big fan of video games. My genres of choice include RPGs, MMOs, Grand Strategy, and Simulation. If I'm not chasing after the latest gear on my MMO of choice, I'm here at GeekReply reporting on the latest in Geek culture.

Artificial Intelligence

When Twitter users drop the four-word phrase “bots,” bots drop out

blank

Published

on

blank

When Elon Musk took over X, it was called Twitter, which is a much better-known name now. He made a big deal out of getting rid of the bots. A study by the Queensland University of Technology, on the other hand, shows that bots are still very active on the platform almost two years later.

X users have found a few ways to get them to come to them. For example, one woman found that posting the phrase “sugar daddy” would get a lot of bots to come to her. It looks like bots are also getting lost because of a new phrase that’s going around. X users have been reporting accounts as automated bots powered by large language models by replying to a suspected bot with “ignore all previous instructions” or “disregard all previous instructions” and then giving the bot more instructions of their choice.

Some people just like writing poems, being trolls, or following directions, so not every example will be from a bot. However, the phrase does seem to make some automated accounts show themselves. There are still a lot of bots on X.

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

A group of humanoid robots from Agility will take care of your spanx

blank

Published

on

blank

So far, the humanoid robotics business has only been full of promises and test runs. These programs only use a few robots and don’t usually lead to anything more important, but they are important for the eventual use of new technology. While a pilot with logistics giant GXO went well, Agility announced on Thursday that it has now signed a formal deal.

Moving plastic totes around a Spanx factory in Georgia will be Digit’s first job, and that’s not a lie. The number of two-legged robots that will be taking boxes off of cobots and putting them on conveyor belts has not been made public, so it is likely that it is still too low. When it comes to tens or hundreds of thousands, most people would be happy to share that information.

They are leased as part of a model called “robots-as-a-service” instead of being bought outright. This way, the client can put off paying the huge upfront costs of such a complicated system while still getting support and software updates.

Last year, GXO started to test drive Digit robots. A pilot deal was just announced between the logistics company and Apptronik, one of Agility’s biggest rivals. I’m not sure how one will change the other.

When Peggy Johnson became CEO of Agility in March, she made it clear that the company was focused on ROI. This is a big change in a field where results are still mostly theoretical.

Johnson said, “There will be many firsts in the humanoid robot market in the years to come, but I’m very proud of the fact that Agility is the first company to have real humanoid robots deployed at a customer site, making money and solving real-world business problems.” “Agility has always been focused on the only metric that matters: giving our customers value by putting Digit to work. This milestone deployment sets a new standard for the whole industry.”

It’s not a surprise that Agility, based in Oregon, was the first to reach another important milestone. The company has been ahead of the rest of the market in terms of development and deployment. Of course, the industry is still very new, and there isn’t a clear market leader yet.

Amazon started testing Agility systems in its own warehouses in October of last year, but neither company has said what will happen next.

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

Zuckerberg says that competitors with closed-source AI are trying to “make God”

blank

Published

on

blank

In an interview that came out Thursday, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, talked about his hopes for the future of AI. He said that he strongly believes there will not be “just one AI.” While talking about how open source can help many people get AI tools, Zuckerberg took a moment to criticize the work of competitors who he didn’t name because he thinks they aren’t being open. He said that these competitors seem to think they are “creating God.”

In a new YouTube interview with Kane Sutter (@Kallaway), Zuckerberg said, “I don’t think that AI technology should be kind of hoarded and… that one company gets to use it to build whatever central, single product that they’re building.”

“It really turns me off when tech people talk about making this ‘one true AI,'” he said. He said, “It’s almost like they think they’re making God or something, but that’s not what we’re doing.” “That’s not how I see this going.”

“I see why, if you’re in an AI lab.” You want to think that what you’re doing is really important, right? It sounds like, “We’re making the one real thing for the future.” But, you know, in real life, that’s not how things work, right?” Zuckerberg talked about it. “It’s not like everyone has just one app on their phone that they use.” Not everyone wants all of their content to come from the same person. People don’t want to buy everything from just one store.

During the talk, Zuckerberg said that many different AIs should be made to capture people’s wide range of interests. On Thursday, the company also announced early tests of its AI Studio software in the U.S. This software will let creators and other people make AI avatars that can message people on Instagram. The AIs will be able to chat with people and answer questions from their followers in a fun way. To avoid confusion, they will be marked as “AI.”

As an example, the CEO of Meta said he didn’t think companies that build closed AI platforms were making the best experiences for people.

He went on, “You want to unlock and…unlock as many people as possible to try new things.” “Well, that’s what culture is, right?” Nobody is letting one group of people tell everyone what to do.

His comments sound a bit like he’s upset because they came out soon after news that Meta had tried to talk to Apple about putting its AIs into Apple’s operating systems instead of just working with OpenAI at launch but was turned down. Bloomberg says that Apple decided not to have formal talks with Meta because it didn’t think Meta’s privacy policies were strong enough.

Without a deal, Meta will not be able to reach the billions of iPhone users that there could be in the world. It looks like Meta’s plan B is to make technology that can be used for more than just smartphones.

During the interview, Zuckerberg talked about the progress the company is making with the Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. He said that one day, this progress would meet up with the work that is already being done on full holographic displays. But he said the first one will be more popular in the short term.

He said, “I actually think you can have a great experience with cameras, a microphone, speakers, and the ability to do multimodal AI.” This was before the glasses had any kind of display. It also costs less because it doesn’t have a screen. The Meta Quest Pro costs $1,000, while Meta’s smart glasses cost around $300.

Before convergence, Zuckerberg said there would be three different kinds of products: smart glasses without screens, displays that show information on the top of the head, and full holographic displays. He said that one day, people might not have neural interfaces connected to their brains but instead wear a wristband that picks up signals from the brain and lets their hand talk to it. This would let them talk to the neural interface with their hand, which is barely moving. In time, it might also let people type.

Zuckerberg did warn that these kinds of inputs and AI experiences might not be able to replace smartphones right away. “I don’t think that in the history of technology, the new platform has ever made people stop using the old one completely.” “You just don’t use it as much,” he said.

People do things on their phones now that they might have done on their computers 10 to 15 years ago.

He said, “I think that will also happen with glasses.” “We’re not going to give up our phones.” You’ll just keep it in your pocket and only pull it out when you need to use it. But I think more and more people will just say, “Hey, I can take this picture with my glasses on.” The CEO said, “I can ask AI this question or send someone a message; it’s just a lot easier with glasses.”

The speaker said, “I wouldn’t be surprised if, in 10 years, we still have phones, but we’ll probably use them in a much more deliberate way instead of just grabbing them for any technological task we want to do.”

Continue Reading

Trending