Adversarial Attacks on AI Systems: Insights from Adversarial Policies Against Superhuman Go AIs and Beyond

Introduction

The accelerating evolution of artificial intelligences (AIs) has led to the development of systems capable of superhuman performance in various domains, from competitive games to generative models. However, a critical concern remains regarding the robustness of these AI systems, particularly in the face of adversarial attacks. This essay explores the nature of adversarial attacks, well beyond what we explored in Navigating the Complex Landscape of AI Security: Threats and Countermeasures in Artificial Intelligence Systems, by focusing on findings from recent research on adversarial policies against the state-of-the-art Go-playing AI system, KataGo, and extends the discussion to broader implications for AI security across various domains.

Background

Adversarial attacks involve manipulating input data to deceive AI systems into making incorrect decisions. These attacks have been extensively studied in the context of image classifiers, where slight perturbations to images can cause significant classification errors. For example, a minor alteration to an image—imperceptible to the human eye—can lead an AI model to misclassify the image entirely, as demonstrated by the famous "panda to gibbon" adversarial example by Goodfellow et al. (2014). However, the vulnerability of reinforcement learning (RL) agents, especially those achieving superhuman performance, to such attacks is an area of growing concern and research.

Key Findings from Adversarial Attacks on KataGo

Overview of KataGo

KataGo is a highly advanced Go-playing AI system that utilizes self-play and Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to achieve its superhuman performance. Developed by David J. Wu, KataGo is renowned for its efficiency and strategic depth, surpassing previous Go AIs such as AlphaGo and ELF OpenGo. Despite its capabilities, recent research has demonstrated that KataGo is vulnerable to adversarial policies that do not necessarily play Go well but rather exploit specific weaknesses in the AI's decision-making process.

Adversarial Policies and Their Effectiveness

The study by Wang et al. (2023) trained adversarial policies using less than 14% of the compute used to train KataGo, achieving a win rate of over 97% against KataGo at superhuman settings. These adversarial policies trick KataGo into making serious blunders by exploiting blind spots in its strategy. Notably, these attacks do not involve playing a strong game of Go but rather manipulating the game's conditions to force KataGo into unfavorable positions.

Mechanisms of Adversarial Attacks

 Zero-Shot Transferability

One of the most significant findings is the zero-shot transferability of these adversarial policies. The attacks designed against KataGo were also effective against other superhuman Go-playing AIs without any additional training. This indicates a broader vulnerability in AI systems, suggesting that improvements in average-case performance do not necessarily translate into robustness against worst-case scenarios.

Human Replication

Interestingly, human experts can replicate the adversarial strategies without algorithmic assistance, consistently beating superhuman AIs. This human-implementable attack demonstrates the comprehensibility of the adversarial strategies and underscores the inherent weaknesses in AI decision-making processes that can be exploited.

Broader Implications for AI SecurityThe research on KataGo highlights several critical implications for AI security that extend beyond the domain of game-playing AIs:

1. Vulnerability of Superhuman Systems: Even the most advanced AI systems can harbor significant vulnerabilities, suggesting that high performance does not equate to robustness. This vulnerability is not limited to game-playing AIs; similar weaknesses have been identified in other domains:
   1. In cybersecurity, Apruzzese et al. (2020) demonstrated that adversarial attacks could significantly degrade the performance of AI-based intrusion detection systems. By crafting malicious network traffic that mimics benign patterns, they were able to evade detection by state-of-the-art machine learning models, potentially leaving networks vulnerable to cyber attacks.
   2. In autonomous driving, Eykholt et al. (2018) demonstrated that physical adversarial examples, such as carefully designed stickers on road signs, can fool state-of-the-art object detectors.
   3. In natural language processing, Wallace et al. (2019) showed that large language models like GPT-2 can be manipulated to generate biased or harmful content through carefully crafted prompts.
   4. In facial recognition systems, Sharif et al. (2016) developed adversarial eyeglass frames that could fool facial recognition systems, highlighting vulnerabilities in biometric security systems.
2. Need for Robust Training: There is a pressing need for dedicated efforts to improve the robustness of AI systems. Traditional training methods focusing solely on average-case performance are insufficient. Recent work by Madry et al. (2018) on adversarial training has shown promise in enhancing model robustness, but challenges remain in scaling these techniques to complex, real-world scenarios.
3. Adversarial Training and Its Limitations: While adversarial training has shown promise, recent studies highlight its limitations. Tramer et al. (2020) demonstrated that adversarially trained models can still be vulnerable to attacks slightly outside their training distribution. This suggests that adversarial training must be a continuous process, adapting to new types of attacks as they emerge.
4. Explainable AI and Security: The ability of humans to replicate adversarial strategies against KataGo underscores the importance of explainable AI in security contexts. As highlighted by Gilpin et al. (2018), developing interpretable models can aid in identifying and addressing vulnerabilities, potentially leading to more robust AI systems. Recent advancements in this field, such as the work by Ribeiro et al. (2020) on anchoring model explanations, offer promising avenues for enhancing AI interpretability and, consequently, security.

Ethical Implications and Economic Impacts

The ethical implications of adversarial attacks and defenses are significant, particularly in sensitive domains such as healthcare, finance, and military applications.

In healthcare, adversarial attacks on medical imaging AI could lead to misdiagnoses with life-threatening consequences (Finlayson et al., 2019). For example, carefully crafted perturbations to medical images could cause an AI system to misclassify tumors as benign or vice versa, potentially leading to incorrect treatment decisions and endangering patient lives.

In finance, vulnerabilities in AI-driven trading systems could potentially destabilize markets (Koshiyama et al., 2021). Adversarial attacks on algorithmic trading systems could trigger unexpected market behaviors, leading to flash crashes or other forms of market manipulation that could have far-reaching economic consequences.

The implications for military AI are particularly concerning, a theme we will explore further in subsequent essays. Adversarial attacks on AI systems used in military applications could have severe consequences for national security and international stability. Brundage et al. (2018) highlight several potential risks:

1. Autonomous weapons systems could be manipulated to misidentify targets, potentially leading to friendly fire incidents or civilian casualties.

2. AI-driven intelligence analysis systems could be compromised, leading to flawed strategic decisions based on manipulated information.

3. Cyber defense systems relying on AI could be rendered ineffective, leaving critical infrastructure vulnerable to attacks.

Moreover, the potential for adversarial attacks on military AI systems raises complex ethical questions about the use of AI in warfare and the potential for unintended escalation of conflicts (Horowitz et al., 2020).

The economic impact of adversarial vulnerabilities in AI systems is also substantial. A study by Accenture (2021) estimates that AI-related security breaches could cost the global economy up to $90 billion annually by 2025. This figure encompasses not only direct financial losses but also the costs associated with reputational damage, regulatory fines, and loss of consumer trust.

In the military sector, the economic implications are equally significant. The global market for military AI applications is projected to reach $18.82 billion by 2025 (MarketsandMarkets, 2020). Vulnerabilities in these systems could not only compromise national security but also lead to substantial financial losses and potentially trigger an AI arms race as nations scramble to develop more robust and secure military AI capabilities.

These ethical and economic considerations underscore the urgent need for robust AI systems, not just for security but also for maintaining public trust, economic stability, and international peace. As AI systems become increasingly integrated into critical infrastructure and decision-making processes, ensuring their resilience against adversarial attacks becomes a matter of paramount importance across all sectors of society.

Ongoing Efforts and Future Research Directions

Major tech companies and research institutions are actively addressing these security challenges. For example, Google's AI division has been working on developing more robust models through techniques like interval bound propagation (Gowal et al., 2019). Microsoft has launched the AI Red Team to proactively identify and mitigate AI vulnerabilities (Microsoft, 2021).

International collaboration efforts are also emerging to address AI security challenges on a global scale. The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI), launched in 2020, brings together 25 countries and the European Union to promote responsible AI development, including addressing security concerns (GPAI, 2021). Additionally, the OECD AI Principles, adopted by 42 countries, emphasize the importance of robust and secure AI systems (OECD, 2019).

Based on these ongoing efforts and the findings discussed, several key areas for future research emerge:

1. Adaptive Defenses: Developing AI systems that can dynamically adapt to new types of adversarial attacks in real-time, possibly through meta-learning techniques as explored by Yin et al. (2020).
2. Cross-Domain Robustness: Investigating how adversarial vulnerabilities manifest across different AI domains and developing unified frameworks for enhancing robustness across multiple applications.
3. Theoretical Foundations: Strengthening the theoretical understanding of adversarial vulnerabilities in complex AI systems, building on work like that of Ilyas et al. (2019) on the existence of non-robust features in standard machine learning models.
4. Human-AI Collaboration: Exploring how human insight into adversarial strategies can be systematically incorporated into AI training and defense mechanisms.
5. Policy and Governance: Developing international standards and guidelines for AI security, focusing on creating a framework that can keep pace with rapid technological advancements.

Limitations and Counterarguments

It's important to note some limitations of the KataGo study and potential counterarguments:

1. The study focuses on a specific domain (Go), and the generalizability of its findings to all AI systems may be limited.

2. The adversarial policies were developed under specific conditions, and their effectiveness in more dynamic or constrained environments remains to be fully explored.

3. Some argue that the existence of adversarial examples is not necessarily a flaw but a feature of any sufficiently complex decision-making system, including human cognition (Ilyas et al., 2019).

Conclusion

The study of adversarial attacks on AI systems like KataGo provides valuable insights into the vulnerabilities of superhuman AI, with implications extending far beyond game-playing systems. These findings emphasize the need for more robust AI training methodologies and highlight the potential for adversarial strategies to uncover hidden weaknesses in AI systems across various domains.

As AI continues to integrate into critical applications, ensuring the robustness and security of these systems will be paramount. Future research should focus on developing comprehensive, adaptive defense mechanisms that can mitigate new types of adversarial attacks, while also striving for greater interpretability and cross-domain robustness.

Addressing the complex challenges of AI security will require an interdisciplinary approach, bringing together AI researchers, security experts, ethicists, policymakers, and domain specialists. This collaborative effort is essential to develop AI systems that are not only powerful but also trustworthy, robust, and aligned with human values and societal needs.

Only through continued vigilance, innovation, and international cooperation in AI security can we hope to build AI systems that are not just powerful, but also trustworthy and resilient in the face of adversarial challenges. As we stand on the brink of a new era in AI capabilities, the importance of securing these systems against adversarial threats cannot be overstated. Our ability to harness the full potential of AI while mitigating its risks will play a crucial role in shaping the future of technology and society.

References:

Accenture. (2021). Securing the Digital Economy: Reinventing the Internet for Trust. Retrieved from https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/thought-leadership-assets/pdf/accenture-securing-the-digital-economy-reinventing-the-internet-for-trust.pdf

Apruzzese, G., Colajanni, M., Ferretti, L., & Marchetti, M. (2020). Addressing adversarial attacks against security systems based on machine learning. In 2020 IEEE 19th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) (pp. 1272-1277). IEEE.

Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garfinkel, B., ... & Amodei, D. (2018). The malicious use of artificial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07228.

Eykholt, K., Evtimov, I., Fernandes, E., Li, B., Rahmati, A., Xiao, C., ... & Song, D. (2018). Robust physical-world attacks on deep learning visual classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 1625-1634).

Finlayson, S. G., Bowers, J. D., Ito, J., Zittrain, J. L., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2019). Adversarial attacks on medical machine learning. Science, 363(6433), 1287-1289.

Gilpin, L. H., Bau, D., Yuan, B. Z., Bajwa, A., Specter, M., & Kagal, L. (2018). Explaining explanations: An overview of interpretability of machine learning. In 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on data science and advanced analytics (DSAA) (pp. 80-89). IEEE.

Goodfellow, I. J., Shlens, J., & Szegedy, C. (2014). Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572.

Gowal, S., Dvijotham, K., Stanforth, R., Bunel, R., Qin, C., Uesato, J., ... & Kohli, P. (2019). Scalable verified training for provably robust image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 4842-4851).

GPAI. (2021). Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://gpai.ai/

Horowitz, M. C., Scharre, P., & Velez-Green, A. (2020). A Stable Nuclear Future? The Impact of Autonomous Systems and Artificial Intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.05291.

Ilyas, A., Santurkar, S., Tsipras, D., Engstrom, L., Tran, B., & Madry, A. (2019). Adversarial examples are not bugs, they are features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32.

Koshiyama, A., Firoozye, N., & Treleaven, P. (2021). Algorithmic trading and machine learning based on GPU. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(7), 301.

Madry, A., Makelov, A., Schmidt, L., Tsipras, D., & Vladu, A. (2018). Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

MarketsandMarkets. (2020). Artificial Intelligence in Military Market - Global Forecast to 2025. Retrieved from https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/artificial-intelligence-military-market-41793495.html

Microsoft. (2021). AI Red Team: Proactively identifying and mitigating machine learning risks. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2021/01/21/ai-red-team-proactively-identifying-and-mitigating-machine-learning-risks/

OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Legal Instruments. Retrieved from https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449

Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2020). Anchors: High-precision model-agnostic explanations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 32, No. 1).

Sharif, M., Bhagavatula, S., Bauer, L., & Reiter, M. K. (2016). Accessorize to a crime: Real and stealthy attacks on state-of-the-art face recognition. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 1528-1540).

Tramer, F., Carlini, N., Brendel, W., & Madry, A. (2020). On adaptive attacks to adversarial example defenses. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1633-1645.

Wallace, E., Feng, S., Kandpal, N., Gardner, M., & Singh, S. (2019). Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing NLP. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) (pp. 2153-2162).

Wang, T. T., Gleave, A., Tseng, T., Pelrine, K., Belrose, N., Miller, J., Dennis, M. D., Duan, Y., Pogrebniak, V., Levine, S., & Russell, S. (2023). Adversarial Policies Beat Superhuman Go AIs. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.00241

Yin, M., Tucker, G., Zhou, M., Levine, S., & Finn, C. (2020). Meta-learning without memorization. In International Conference on Learning Representations.