Advisory for APS School Students

Introduction

The AI Action Summit is a global forum that brings together world leaders, policymakers, technology experts, and industry representatives to discuss AI governance, ethics, and its role in society. This year, the week-long  Paris AI Action Summit officially culminated on the 11th of February, 2025. It brought together experts from the industry, policymakers, and other dignitaries to discuss Artificial Intelligence and its challenges. The event was co-chaired by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron. In line with the summit, the Indian delegation actively engaged in the 2nd India-France AI Policy Roundtable, an official side event of the summit, and the 14th India-France CEOs Forum. These discussions were on diverse sectors including defense, aerospace, technology, etc. among other things.

Prime Minister Modi’s Address 

During the AI Action Summit in Paris, Prime Minister Narendra Modi drew attention to the revolutionary effect of AI in politics, the economy, security, and society. Stressing the requirement of international cooperation, he promoted strong frameworks of governance to combat AI-based risks and consequently, build public confidence in new technologies. Needed efforts with respect to cybersecurity issues such as deepfakes and disinformation were also acknowledged. 

Democratising AI, and sharing its benefits, particularly with the Global South not only aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) but also affirmed India’s resolve towards sharing expertise and best practices. India’s remarkable feat of creating a Digital Public Infrastructure,  that caters to a population of 1.4 billion through open and accessible technology was highlighted as well.

Among the key announcements, India revealed its plans to create its own Large Language Model (LLM) that reflects the country's linguistic diversity, strengthening its AI aspirations. Further, India will be hosting the next AI Action Summit, reaffirming its position in international AI leadership. The Prime Minister also welcomed France's initiatives, such as the launch of the "AI Foundation" and the "Council for Sustainable AI", initiated by President Emmanuel Macron. He emphasized the necessity to extend the Global Partnership for AI and to get it more representative and inclusive so that Global South voices are actually incorporated into AI innovation and governance.

Other Perspectives

Though there were 58 countries that signed the international agreement on a more open, inclusive, sustainable, and ethical approach to AI development (including India, France, and China), the UK and the US have refused to sign the international agreement at the AI Summit stating their issues with global governance and national security. While the former raised concerns about the lack of sufficient details regarding the establishment of global AI governance and AI’s effect on national security as their reason, the latter showcased its reservations about the overly wide AI regulations which had the potential to hamper a transformative industry. Meanwhile, the US is also looking forward to ‘Stargate’, its $500 billion AI infrastructure project alongside the companies- OpenAI, Softbank, and Oracle. 

CyberPeace Insights

The Summit has garnered greater significance with the backdrop of the release of platforms such as DeepSeek R1, China’s AI assistant system similar to that of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. On its release, it was the top-rated free application on Apple’s app store and sent the technology stocks tumbling. Moreover, investors world over appreciated the creation of the model which was made roughly in about $5 million while other AI companies spent more in comparison (keeping in mind the restrictions caused by the chip export controls in China). This breakthrough challenges the conventional notion that massive funding is a prerequisite for innovation, offering hope for India’s burgeoning AI ecosystem. With the IndiaAI mission and fewer geopolitical restrictions, India stands at a pivotal moment to drive responsible AI advancements. 

References:

• https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/39023/Prime_Minister_cochairs_AI_Action_Summit_in_Paris_February_11_2025
• https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-sci-tech/what-is-stargate-trumps-500-billion-ai-project-9793165/
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2102056
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2101947
• https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2101896
• https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/uk-and-us-decline-to-sign-global-ai-agreement-at-paris-ai-action-summit-here-is-why-article-118164497 
• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/india-57-others-sign-paris-joint-statement-on-inclusive-sustainable-ai/article69207937.ece 

‍

A Foray into the Digital Labyrinth

In our digital age, the silhouette of truth is often obfuscated by a fog of technological prowess and cunning deception. With each passing moment, the digital expanse sprawls wider, and within it, synthetic media, known most infamously as 'deepfakes', emerge like phantoms from the machine. These adept forgeries, melding authenticity with fabrication, represent a new frontier in the malleable narrative of understood reality. Grappling with the specter of such virtual deceit, social media behemoths Facebook and YouTube have embarked on a prodigious quest. Their mission? To formulate robust bulwarks around the sanctity of fact and fiction, all the while fostering seamless communication across channels that billions consider an inextricable part of their daily lives.

In an exploration of this digital fortress besieged by illusion, we unpeel the layers of strategy that Facebook and YouTube have unfurled in their bid to stymie the proliferation of these insidious technical marvels. Though each platform approaches the issue through markedly different prisms, a shared undercurrent of necessity and urgency harmonizes their efforts.

The Detailing of Facebook's Strategic

Facebook's encampment against these modern-day chimaeras teems with algorithmic sentinels and human overseers alike—a union of steel and soul. The company’s layer upon layer of sophisticated artificial intelligence is designed to scrupulously survey, identify, and flag potential deepfake content with a precision that borders on the prophetic. Employing advanced AI systems, Facebook endeavours to preempt the chaos sown by manipulated media by detecting even the slightest signs of digital tampering.  

However, in an expression of profound acumen, Facebook also serves reminder of AI's fallibility by entwining human discernment into its fabric. Each flagged video wages its battle for existence within the realm of these custodians of reality—individuals entrusted with the hefty responsibility of parsing truth from technologically enabled fiction.

Facebook does not rest on the laurels of established defense mechanisms. The platform is in a perpetual state of flux, with policies and AI models adapting to the serpentine nature of the digital threat landscape. By fostering its cyclical metamorphosis, Facebook not only sharpens its detection tools but also weaves a more resilient protective web, one capable of absorbing the shockwaves of an evolving battlefield.

YouTube’s Overture of Transparency and the Exposition of AI

Turning to the amphitheatre of YouTube, the stage is set for an overt commitment to candour. Against the stark backdrop of deepfake dilemmas, YouTube demands the unveiling of the strings that guide the puppets, insisting on full disclosure whenever AI's invisible hands sculpt the content that engages its diverse viewership.

YouTube's doctrine is straightforward: creators must lift the curtains and reveal any artificial manipulation's role behind the scenes. With clarity as its vanguard, this requirement is not just procedural but an ethical invocation to showcase veracity—a beacon to guide viewers through the murky waters of potential deceit.

The iron fist within the velvet glove of YouTube's policy manifests through a graded punitive protocol. Should a creator falter in disclosing the machine's influence, repercussions follow, ensuring that the ecosystem remains vigilant against hidden manipulation.

But YouTube's policy is one that distinguishes between malevolence and benign use. Artistic endeavours, satirical commentary, and other legitimate expositions are spared the policy's wrath, provided they adhere to the overarching principle of transparency.

The Symbiosis of Technology and Policy in a Morphing Domain

YouTube's commitment to refining its coordination between human insight and computerized examination is unwavering. As AI's role in both the generation and moderation of content deepens, YouTube—which, like a skilled cartographer, must redraw its policies increasingly—traverses this ever-mutating landscape with a proactive stance.

In a Comparative Light: Tracing the Convergence of Giants

Although Facebook and YouTube choreograph their steps to different rhythms, together they compose an intricate dance aimed at nurturing trust and authenticity. Facebook leans into the proactive might of their AI algorithms, reinforced by updates and human interjection, while YouTube wields the virtue of transparency as its sword, cutting through masquerades and empowering its users to partake in storylines that are continually rewritten.

Together on the Stage of Our Digital Epoch

The sum of Facebook and YouTube's policies is integral to the pastiche of our digital experience, a multifarious quilt shielding the sanctum of factuality from the interloping specters of deception. As humanity treads the line between the veracious and the fantastic, these platforms stand as vigilant sentinels, guiding us in our pursuit of an old-age treasure within our novel digital bazaar—the treasure of truth. In this labyrinthine quest, it is not merely about unmasking deceivers but nurturing a wisdom that appreciates the shimmering possibilities—and inherent risks—of our evolving connection with the machine. 

Conclusion 

The struggle against deepfakes is a complex, many-headed challenge that will necessitate a united front spanning technologists, lawmakers, and the public. In this digital epoch, where the veneer of authenticity is perilously thin, the valiant endeavours of these tech goliaths serve as a lighthouse in a storm-tossed sea. These efforts echo the importance of evergreen vigilance in discerning truth from artfully crafted deception. 

References 

• https://about.fb.com/news/2020/01/enforcing-against-manipulated-media/
• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/google-sheds-light-on-how-its-fighting-deep-fakes-and-ai-generated-misinformation-in-india-9047211/
• https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/14/youtube-adapts-its-policies-for-the-coming-surge-of-ai-videos/
• https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/youtube-twitter-hunt-down-deepfakes
  

Digitisation in Agriculture

The traditional way of doing agriculture has undergone massive digitization in recent years, whereby several agricultural processes have been linked to the Internet. This globally prevalent transformation, driven by smart technology, encompasses the use of sensors, IoT devices, and data analytics to optimize and automate labour-intensive farming practices. Smart farmers in the country and abroad now leverage real-time data to monitor soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health, enabling precise resource management and improved yields. The integration of smart technology in agriculture not only enhances productivity but also promotes sustainable practices by reducing waste and conserving resources. As a result, the agricultural sector is becoming more efficient, resilient, and capable of meeting the growing global demand for food.

Digitisation of Food Supply Chains

There has also been an increase in the digitisation of food supply chains across the globe since it enables both suppliers and consumers to keep track of the stage of food processing from farm to table and ensures the authenticity of the food product. The latest generation of agricultural robots is being tested to minimise human intervention. It is thought that AI-run processes can mitigate labour shortage, improve warehousing and storage and make transportation more efficient by running continuous evaluations and adjusting the conditions real-time while increasing yield. The company Muddy Machines is currently trialling an autonomous asparagus-harvesting robot called Sprout that not only addresses labour shortages but also selectively harvests green asparagus, which traditionally requires careful picking. However, Chris Chavasse, co-founder of Muddy Machines, highlights that hackers and malicious actors could potentially hack into the robot's servers and prevent it from operating by driving it into a ditch or a hedge, thereby impending core crop activities like seeding and harvesting. Hacking agricultural pieces of machinery also implies damaging a farmer’s produce and in turn profitability for the season.

Case Study: Muddy Machines and Cybersecurity Risks

A cyber attack on digitised agricultural processes has a cascading impact on online food supply chains. Risks are non-exhaustive and spill over to poor protection of cargo in transit, increased manufacturing of counterfeit products, manipulation of data, poor warehousing facilities and product-specific fraud, amongst others. Additional impacts on suppliers are also seen, whereby suppliers have supplied the food products but fail to receive their payments. These cyber-threats may include malware(primarily ransomware) that accounts for 38% of attacks, Internet of Things (IoT) attacks that comprise 29%, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, SQL Injections, phishing attacks etc. 

Prominent Cyber Attacks and Their Impacts

Ransomware attacks are the most popular form of cyber threats to food supply chains and may include malicious contaminations, deliberate damage and destruction of tangible assets (like infrastructure) or intangible assets (like reputation and brand). In 2017, NotPetya malware disrupted the world’s largest logistics giant Maersk and destroyed all end-user devices in more than 60 countries. Interestingly, NotPetya was also linked to the malfunction of freezers connected to control systems. The attack led to these control systems being compromised, resulting in freezer failures and potential spoilage of food, highlighting the vulnerability of industrial control systems to cyber threats.

Further Case Studies

NotPetya also impacted Mondelez, the maker of Oreos but disrupting its email systems, file access and logistics for weeks. Mondelez’s insurance claim was also denied since NotPetya malware was described as a “war-like” action, falling outside the purview of the insurance coverage. In April 2021, over the Easter weekend, Bakker Logistiek, a logistics company based in the Netherlands that offers air-conditioned warehousing and food transportation for Dutch supermarkets, experienced a ransomware attack. This incident disrupted their supply chain for several days, resulting in empty shelves at Albert Heijn supermarkets, particularly for products such as packed and grated cheese. Despite the severity of the attack, the company successfully restored their operations within a week by utilizing backups. JBS, one of the world’s biggest meat processing companies, also had to pay $11 million in ransom via Bitcoin to resolve a cyber attack in the same year, whereby computer networks at JBS were hacked, temporarily shutting down their operations and endangering consumer data. The disruption threatened food supplies and risked higher food prices for consumers. Additional cascading impacts also include low food security and hindrances in processing payments at retail stores. 

Credible Threat Agents and Their Targets

Any cyber-attack is usually carried out by credible threat agents that can be classified as either internal or external threat agents. Internal threat agents may include contractors, visitors to business sites, former/current employees, and individuals who work for suppliers. External threat agents may include activists, cyber-criminals, terror cells etc. These threat agents target large organisations owing to their larger ransom-paying capacity, but may also target small companies due to their vulnerability and low experience, especially when such companies are migrating from analogous methods to digitised processes.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation warns that the food and agricultural systems are most vulnerable to cyber-security threats during critical planting and harvesting seasons. It noted an increase in cyber-attacks against six agricultural co-operatives in 2021, with ancillary core functions such as food supply and distribution being impacted. Resultantly, cyber-attacks may lead to a mass shortage of food not only meant for human consumption but also for animals.

Policy Recommendations

To safeguard against digital food supply chains, Food defence emerges as one of the top countermeasures to prevent and mitigate the effects of intentional incidents and threats to the food chain. While earlier, food defence vulnerability assessments focused on product adulteration and food fraud, including vulnerability assessments of agriculture technology now be more relevant.  

Food supply organisations must prioritise regular backups of data using air-gapped and password-protected offline copies, and ensure critical data copies are not modifiable or deletable from the main system.  For this, blockchain-based food supply chain solutions may be deployed, which are not only resilient to hacking, but also allow suppliers and even consumers to track produce. Companies like Ripe.io, Walmart Global Tech, Nestle and Wholechain deploy blockchain for food supply management since it provides overall process transparency, improves trust issues in the transactions, enables traceable and tamper-resistant records and allows accessibility and visibility of data provenance. Extensive recovery plans with multiple copies of essential data and servers in secure, physically separated locations, such as hard drives, storage devices, cloud or distributed ledgers should be adopted in addition to deploying operations plans for critical functions in case of system outages. For core processes which are not labour-intensive,  including manual operation methods may be used to reduce digital dependence. Network segmentation, updates or patches for operating systems, software, and firmware are additional steps which can be taken to secure smart agricultural technologies. 

References

1. Muddy Machines website, Accessed 26 July 2024.  https://www.muddymachines.com/ 
2. “Meat giant JBS pays $11m in ransom to resolve cyber-attack”, BBC, 10 June 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57423008 
3. Marshall, Claire & Prior, Malcolm, “Cyber security: Global food supply chain at risk from malicious hackers.”, BBC, 20 May 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61336659 
4. “Ransomware Attacks on Agricultural Cooperatives Potentially Timed to Critical Seasons.”, Private Industry Notification, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 20 April  https://www.ic3.gov/Media/News/2022/220420-2.pdf. 
5. Manning, Louise & Kowalska, Aleksandra. (2023). “The threat of ransomware in the food supply chain: a challenge for food defence”, Trends in Organized Crime. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-023-09516-y 
6. “NotPetya: the cyberattack that shook the world”, Economic Times, 5 March 2022. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/newsletters/ettech-unwrapped/notpetya-the-cyberattack-that-shook-the-world/articleshow/89997076.cms?from=mdr 
7. Abrams, Lawrence, “Dutch supermarkets run out of cheese after ransomware attack.”, Bleeping Computer, 12 April 2021. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dutch-supermarkets-run-out-of-cheese-after-ransomware-attack/ 
8. Pandey, Shipra; Gunasekaran, Angappa; Kumar Singh, Rajesh & Kaushik, Anjali, “Cyber security risks in globalised supply chains: conceptual framework”, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, January 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shipra-Pandey/publication/338668641_Cyber_security_risks_in_globalized_supply_chains_conceptual_framework/links/5e2678ae92851c89c9b5ac66/Cyber-security-risks-in-globalized-supply-chains-conceptual-framework.pdf 
9. Daley, Sam, “Blockchain for Food: 10 examples to know”, Builin, 22 March 2023 https://builtin.com/blockchain/food-safety-supply-chain 

‍