MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393750598 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.00139

Security Risks Concerns of Generative AI in the IoT

2024· preprint· en· W4393750598 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Honghui Xu, Yingshu Li, Olusesi Balogun, Shaoen Wu, Yue Wang, Zhipeng Cai

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AlbertaKennesaw State UniversityGeorgia State UniversityAuburn UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaBeijing University of Posts and TelecommunicationsGeorge Mason UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGenerative grammarComputer scienceComputer securityInternet of ThingsRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era where the Internet of Things (IoT) intersects increasingly with generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), this article scrutinizes the emergent security risks inherent in this integration. We explore how generative AI drives innovation in IoT and we analyze the potential for data breaches when using generative AI and the misuse of generative AI technologies in IoT ecosystems. These risks not only threaten the privacy and efficiency of IoT systems but also pose broader implications for trust and safety in AI-driven environments. The discussion in this article extends to strategic approaches for mitigating these risks, including the development of robust security protocols, the multi-layered security approaches, and the adoption of AI technological solutions. Through a comprehensive analysis, this article aims to shed light on the critical balance between embracing AI advancements and ensuring stringent security in IoT, providing insights into the future direction of these intertwined technologies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.035
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.265
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.069 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207