Michael D. Moberly, Principal, Founder kpstrat. November 25, 2023 – Post II
We are obliged to consider the advancement – proliferation of artificial intelligence will pose risks to businesses which are intangible assets intensive, dependent, and reliant.
We are obliged to consider that those already holding ‘nefarious inclinations’ are likely to use artificial intelligence to ‘develop – execute various nefarious endeavors, some of which may exceed current foreseeability. Each of which are likely to test and stretch many of the current capabilities to mitigate, safeguard, and avoid many of the nefarious initiatives and outcomes.
We are obliged to consider ways which the nefariously inclined and the nefarious products-outcomes, correspond to the following convention-laden business operating principles, e.g.,
- capability to sustain exclusivity of proprietarily developed innovation for periods of time for research, testing, development, and rollout.
- IP deterrents, standing, safeguards, and risk mitigation.
We are obliged to consider if, when, how, where, and why nefariously applied AI may introduce economic-operational-legal havoc to…
- conventional concepts of and benefits gleaned from safeguarding and mitigating risk to proprietarily developed innovation-information, which include…
- pursuing IP (intellectual property), i.e., a patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secrecy.
- non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements may be both outmoded and less relevant.
We are obliged to consider, there are few sources experientially positioned to unequivocally describe neither of the above, or variations, will not materialize, nor propose definitive parameters to how ‘the nefariously inclined’ may use AI to achieve a ‘nefarious outcome’ which can be wholly prevented, acceptably mitigated, or conventionally deterred.
We are obliged to consider that most, myself, included, hold sophomoric familiarity with AI, aside perhaps from very specific ‘consumerism’ experiences. This should give us pause to discuss whether there is any comparability to the potential-probable nefarious uses of AI, to for example, tactics – strategies applied by global economic – competitive adversaries and data-mining operation which enable or engage in misappropriation – infringement of IP, ransomware attacks, and/or economic espionage.
Presuming otherwise or conveying dismissiveness to either of these obligatory considerations may be preludes to elevating vulnerability to, probability of, and criticality of (AI) risk materialization conveyed herein.
We are obliged to consider ways which artificial intelligence, when nefariously applied, can likely present occasions to introduce misinformation and reputational risks, ala sophisticated forms-contexts of uncertainty to undermine the standing of developing (proprietary) innovations, etc. Also, as either become more prevalent…
- confrontative clarifications, defenses, and mitigation may be deemed less obligatory due to volume, frequency, adverse notoriety, and debatable returns, and all at significant cost and time. (Respectfully drawn from Writing the AI Rulebook – Columbia Journalism Review (cjr.org)
Note: There are absolutely no inferences here that current and yet-to-be developed positives stemming from should be curtailed due to the nefarious intentions of a few, the challenges that will surely follow, and nefarious outcomes which are likely to materialize and embed, ‘the surface has merely been scratched’.
As a practitioner and educator who has devoted decades to engaging the expanding/dominant intangible asset sides of business (operation, economics, and strategy) I am confident that nefariously applied AI can lead to new forms of challenge and risk which we are obliged to discuss.
This discussion about risk potentials emanating from nefarious applications of artificial intelligence….
- stem from my research, engagements, instruction, and writing over many years on matters related to competitive intelligence collection, insider theft, open-source data mining, and economic espionage directed primarily to mature and early-stage businesses and R&D projects, and
- foresee challenges to sustaining, safeguarding, and mitigating risk to business’s proprietary ‘mission essential’ intangible assets and IP.
- is unlikely (sic) to be receptive to conventional deterrents, mitigation, preventatives, slowed down, or withdraw, once materialization has occurred.
Businesses ‘mission essential’ intangible assets emerge from innovative, experiential, and collaborative inputs of…
- intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow).
- structural capital (processes, procedures), and
- relationship capital (associations, alliances).
Each – all frequently embed in (business, institution, and/or R&D) operating cultures and interact with various technologies and software.
These nuanced challenges and risks are likely to be bold, asymmetric, costly, time consuming, and frustrating to mitigate and recoup from upon materialization.
Too, the challenges and risks potentially generated by nefariously applied AI will be increasingly reputational, e.g., adversely affecting…
- verity of the origin, development, resilience, and valuation of the intangible assets in play.
- underlying forms, contexts, applications of the ‘mission essential’ intellectual, structural, and/or relationship capital and reliability, exclusivity, and valuation of issued IP projected outcomes rely-depend..
Course correcting legislative proposals should not be presumed to quickly enable the return of a whole bunch of startled cats back into their owner’s home once they have absconded through an opened door, with no one being scratched. In situations like this, chin-stroking gives way to earnest thought, discussion, and collaboration.
Whether – how artificial intelligence legislation proposals find it relevant or necessary at some point, to consider partitioning particular-AI search pathways to…
- mitigate the exposure – vulnerability of legitimately held and safeguarded (proprietary) information and IP content to make it less revealable – capturable to the globally nefarious, represents a rationale for this paper.
For these reasons, I encourage business leaders, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors, et al, who may yet to hold familiarity with intentionally nefarious – criminal machinations – capabilities (of artificial intelligence) be informed, aware, and alert.
Post III at ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ about what we are obliged to consider ‘artificial intelligence effects on business’s proprietary intangible assets, is forthcoming.
As a business intangible asset strategist, risk mitigator, and founder of ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ drawing attention to particular-advancements, safeguard methodologies, strategies for risk-threat mitigation, is deemed ‘mission essential’ especially when same is devoid of shrill, brash, ill-considered dramatics.
kpstrat is a Business Intangible Asset Strategy – Risk Mitigation Collaborative and Business Intangible Asset Blog is a reliable resource about business things intangible.
This post, and each post published @ Business Intangible Asset Blog, is developed, researched, written, and published entirely @ the experienced hand of Michael D. Moberly.
The ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ originated in 2006 and now includes 1100+ long form (topic specific) posts intended to respectfully provide readers, ala business leaders, management teams, boards, and investors (nationally – internationally) with reliable insights and perspectives about the intangible asset-side of business development, economics, valuation, competitiveness, operability, resilience, and sustainability.
