Publications

CSET produces evidence-driven analysis in a variety of forms, from informative graphics and translations to expert testimony and published reports. Our key areas of inquiry are the foundations of artificial intelligence — such as talent, data and computational power — as well as how AI can be used in cybersecurity and other national security settings. We also do research on the policy tools that can be used to shape AI’s development and use, and on biotechnology.

Report

CSET’s 2024 Annual Report

Center for Security and Emerging Technology
| March 2025

In 2024, CSET continued to deliver impactful, data-driven analysis at the intersection of emerging technology and security policy. Explore our annual report to discover key research highlights, expert testimony, and new analytical tools — all aimed at shaping informed, strategic decisions around AI and emerging tech.

Filter publications
Reports

Academics, AI, and APTs

Dakota Cary
| March 2021

Six Chinese universities have relationships with Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) hacking teams. Their activities range from recruitment to running cyber operations. These partnerships, themselves a case study in military-civil fusion, allow state-sponsored hackers to quickly move research from the lab to the field. This report examines these universities’ relationships with known APTs and analyzes the schools’ AI/ML research that may translate to future operational capabilities.

Reports

Trusted Partners

Margarita Konaev, Tina Huang, and Husanjot Chahal
| February 2021

As the U.S. military integrates artificial intelligence into its systems and missions, there are outstanding questions about the role of trust in human-machine teams. This report examines the drivers and effects of such trust, assesses the risks from too much or too little trust in intelligent technologies, reviews efforts to build trustworthy AI systems, and offers future directions for research on trust relevant to the U.S. military.

Reports

AI and the Future of Cyber Competition

Wyatt Hoffman
| January 2021

As states turn to AI to gain an edge in cyber competition, it will change the cat-and-mouse game between cyber attackers and defenders. Embracing machine learning systems for cyber defense could drive more aggressive and destabilizing engagements between states. Wyatt Hoffman writes that cyber competition already has the ingredients needed for escalation to real-world violence, even if these ingredients have yet to come together in the right conditions.

Reports

Hacking AI

Andrew Lohn
| December 2020

Machine learning systems’ vulnerabilities are pervasive. Hackers and adversaries can easily exploit them. As such, managing the risks is too large a task for the technology community to handle alone. In this primer, Andrew Lohn writes that policymakers must understand the threats well enough to assess the dangers that the United States, its military and intelligence services, and its civilians face when they use machine learning.

Reports

Automating Cyber Attacks

Ben Buchanan, John Bansemer, Dakota Cary, Jack Lucas, and Micah Musser
| November 2020

Based on an in-depth analysis of artificial intelligence and machine learning systems, the authors consider the future of applying such systems to cyber attacks, and what strategies attackers are likely or less likely to use. As nuanced, complex, and overhyped as machine learning is, they argue, it remains too important to ignore.

Data Brief

U.S. Demand for Talent at the Intersection of AI and Cybersecurity

Cindy Martinez and Micah Musser
| November 2020

As demand for cybersecurity experts in the United States has grown faster than the supply of qualified workers, some organizations have turned to artificial intelligence to bolster their overwhelmed cyber teams. Organizations may opt for distinct teams that specialize exclusively in AI or cybersecurity, but there is a benefit to having employees with overlapping experience in both domains. This data brief analyzes hiring demand for individuals with a combination of AI and cybersecurity skills.

Data Brief

“Cool Projects” or “Expanding the Efficiency of the Murderous American War Machine?”

Catherine Aiken, Rebecca Kagan, and Michael Page
| November 2020

Is there a rift between the U.S. tech sector and the Department of Defense? To better understand this relationship, CSET surveyed U.S. AI industry professionals about their views toward working on DOD-funded AI projects. The authors find that these professionals hold a broad range of opinions about working with DOD. Among the key findings: Most AI professionals are positive or neutral about working on DOD-funded AI projects, and willingness to work with DOD increases for projects with humanitarian applications.

Reports

Destructive Cyber Operations and Machine Learning

Dakota Cary and Daniel Cebul
| November 2020

Machine learning may provide cyber attackers with the means to execute more effective and more destructive attacks against industrial control systems. As new ML tools are developed, CSET discusses the ways in which attackers may deploy these tools and the most effective avenues for industrial system defenders to respond.

National security leaders view AI as a priority technology for defending the United States. This two-part analysis is intended to help policymakers better understand the scope and implications of U.S. military investment in autonomy and AI. It focuses on the range of autonomous and AI-enabled technologies the Pentagon is developing, the military capabilities these applications promise to deliver, and the impact that such advances could have on key strategic issues.

This brief examines how the Pentagon’s investments in autonomy and AI may affect its military capabilities and strategic interests. It proposes that DOD invest in improving its understanding of trust in human-machine teams and leverage existing AI technologies to enhance military readiness and endurance. In the long term, investments in reliable, trustworthy, and resilient AI systems are critical for ensuring sustained military, technological, and strategic advantages.