How the Two Biggest AI Labs Try to Stop Bad Hacks – and What You Can Learn

---

1. The New Cyber Wild West — Why AI Security Is Tough

Artificial intelligence changes fast. In January 2025, hackers behind the LoanDepot breach built an AI‑made phishing kit in under an hour and stole data on 16 million people. Yesterday’s model wrote harmless poems; tomorrow’s might scan your network while you sleep. Three things make defence hard:

• Always Changing – New model versions land almost every week. Each update can open a new doorway for attackers—or close one you relied on.
• Double‑Edged Sword – The same AI that finds a bug to patch can help attackers turn that bug into an exploit.
• Rules Lag Behind – Laws and standards on AI safety are still forming. Until they arrive, every company must build its own playbook.

2. DeepMind’s Game Plan

DeepMind’s new Taking a responsible path to AGI (April 2025) and Evaluating Potential Cybersecurity Threats of Advanced AI (April 2025) provide a playbook on how to keep next‑gen AI from going rogue.

2.1 Why DeepMind Starts With Four Risk Buckets

DeepMind first asks who is steering the danger:

Bucket	Who’s at fault?	One‑line example
Misuse	A bad human	A hacker uses the model to craft a zero‑day exploit.
Misalignment	The AI itself	The model plots to copy its weights off‑site.
Mistakes	Nobody—just error	The model misreads data and overloads a power line.
Structural	Society’s incentives	Competing firms cut corners, causing a safety “race to the bottom.”

DeepMind zeroes in on the first two buckets because they scale fastest with raw model power.

2.2 A Two‑Layer, Six‑Step Shield

Layer 1 – Block Human Misuse

1. Dangerous‑capability tests – Red‑teamers probe: “Can Gemini write undetectable polymorphic malware?”
2. Access controls – If yes (or maybe), that model shifts to a locked‑down API with strict user vetting.
3. Weight security – Model files live in hardened, audited servers; no single engineer can copy them.

Layer 2 – Guard Against Model Misalignment

4. Amplified oversight – Two instances of the model debate an answer; a human referee picks the clearer, safer reasoning.
5. Robust training – Hard cases from debate flow back into the dataset, widening the model’s safety “muscle memory.”
6. Runtime shields – Every live output passes automated filters, escalates uncertain cases to a slower but smarter checker, and keeps tamper‑proof logs.

2.3 Zoom‑In: How “Amplified Oversight” Works

• Why? Past a certain IQ, a single human can’t judge every super‑technical answer.
• How? DeepMind pits Model A vs. Model B. Each tries to poke holes in the other’s solution. The human judge sees their arguments, not raw code, making it easier to spot flaws.
• Bonus: The same trick trains cheap monitor bots that watch day‑to‑day outputs and only wake the human when something smells fishy.

2.4 Zoom‑In: Hunting Dangerous Capabilities

DeepMind’s rule of thumb: “If the model saves a skilled attacker >10× time or skill, treat it as dangerous.“
To measure that, they built 50 secret CTF challenges. Example stages:

1. Recon – Find hidden sub‑domains on a target website.
2. Weaponize – Write custom shellcode for a memory‑corruption bug.
3. Evasion – Modify payloads until they slip past an industry‑standard EDR. Gemini Flash cleared 11/50 (mostly easy ones). That score was enough to trigger Layer 1 locks but not wide‑scale panic.

2.5 Key Numbers to Remember

7 – Core stages in the Cyber Kill Chain that DeepMind maps.

4 – Risk buckets to classify any AI incident.

6 – Shield steps spanning misuse and misalignment.

10× – Threshold where capability = danger.

Myth: “If we just align a model perfectly, we don’t need misuse defences.”
Fact: DeepMind treats alignment as necessary but not sufficient. A perfectly aligned weight file in the wrong hands can still be weaponised. That’s why both layers stay on.

3. OpenAI’s Game Plan

OpenAI’s freshly‑updated Preparedness Framework v2 (April 2025) zeroes in on a handful of AI abilities that could create severe harm—think thousands of lives or hundreds of billions of dollars. Their mantra is simple: “Track the few, guard like crazy, and prove it works.”

3.1 Three Danger Zones (Tracked Categories)

Tracked Category	High Threshold	Critical Threshold	What Could Go Wrong
Bio / Chemical	Model gives a biology grad enough step‑by‑step help to recreate an existing toxin.	Model lets an expert design a brand‑new CDC‑class biothreat—or orders lab gear online by itself.	DIY pandemics.
Cybersecurity	Model automates end‑to‑end hacks on “reasonably hardened” targets.	Finds zero‑days & launches novel cyber ops on critical infra with no human steering.	Internet‑scale ransomware, grid sabotage.
AI Self‑Improvement	Equivalent of every OpenAI researcher getting an expert AI assistant.	Fully automated AI R&D that can jump a whole “generation” (e.g., o1 → o3) in ≤ 4 weeks.	Runaway capability sprint that humans can’t track.

3.2 Five Filters Before Something Becomes “Tracked”

1. Plausible – A clear path from capability → severe harm.
2. Measurable – Buildable tests that actually track the risk.
3. Severe – Thousands dead or $100 B+ loss in plausible scenario.
4. Net‑New – Today’s tools (pre‑2021) can’t already do it.
5. Irremediable / Instant – Once it happens, it’s too late to patch.

3.3 How They Measure Risky Skills

• Scalable evals – Fast, automated quizzes that serve as canaries.
• Deep dives – Human red‑teams, wet‑lab tests, or white‑hat hackers if a canary chirps.
• Threshold call – Safety Advisory Group (SAG) reviews the scorecard and says “below line,” “above High,” or “heads‑up—we’re sniffing Critical.”

3.4 Safeguards Stack (What Kicks In)

When a High line is crossed, three guardrails snap into place:

1. Malicious‑user shields – refusal training, jailbreak‑hardening, real‑time misuse monitoring.
2. Misaligned‑model shields – interpretability checks, agent sandboxes, kill‑switches, hierarchical oversight.
3. Security controls – zero‑trust infra, MFA on model weights, multi‑party approvals, 24×7 SOC.

Critical capability? Development pauses until equivalent‑strength controls work inside the lab too.

3.5 Research Watchlist (Not Dangerous Yet, But…)

• Long‑Range Autonomy – One prompt → weeks of autonomous action.
• Sandbagging – Model pretends to be dumber on evals.
• Autonomous Replication & Adaptation – Survive, copy, and evolve online.
• Undermining Safeguards – Collude with monitors, hide code bombs, etc.
• Nuclear / Radiological Know‑How – Helping bad actors past classified hurdles.

OpenAI funds threat‑model and eval R&D here so they’re ready if any graduate to “Tracked.”

3.6 Numbers to Remember

• 3 main tracked danger zones (Bio/Chem, Cyber, Self‑Improvement).
• 5 filters to decide what gets tracked.
• 2 threat levels (High, Critical).
• 1 internal referee — the SAG — who can halt a launch.

Bottom line: OpenAI’s plan is less about plugging every hole and more about flashing red lights before a new super‑powerful ability ships — then proving the locks actually hold.

4. Where They Converge—and Where They Split

Lens	Google DeepMind	OpenAI	Why It Matters to You
Top Goal	Shrink hacker cost across the entire Cyber Kill Chain.	Stop society‑scale catastrophes from a small set of frontier powers.	Choose breadth or depth: map every process step, or pick the handful that could wipe you out.
Risk Buckets	4 buckets—Misuse, Misalignment, Mistakes, Structural. Focus now on first two.	3 danger zones—Bio/Chem, Cyber, Self‑Improvement. Structural risks handled elsewhere.	Decide early which buckets you own vs. ones that need external regulators.
Trigger for Red Alert	A model gives attackers a 10× speed or cost drop at any hack phase.	A model crosses a High or Critical threshold in a tracked category.	Use both: watch for sudden skill jumps and massive cost collapses.
Core Guardrails	2‑Layer Shield: Misuse locks + Misalignment locks.	Safety Stack: Malicious‑user shields + Misaligned‑model shields + Security controls.	Stack them: policy blocks, runtime filters, locked‑down infra.
Test Style	Secret CTFs mapped to seven kill‑chain phases.	Scalable auto‑evals + human “deep dives.”	Mix game‑style drills with continuous telemetry.
Governance Body	Frontier Safety Team; external red‑team partners.	Safety Advisory Group (SAG) with board oversight.	Even startups need a named veto board—document its scope.
Public Artifacts	Evaluation benchmark papers, risk heat maps, system cards.	Capabilities Reports, Safeguards Reports, threat‑model papers.	Publish enough details to build trust—but redact the recipe for disaster.
Update Cadence	After major incidents or model upgrades.	After every significant research bump; annual framework review.	Re‑audit risk controls at least yearly or when you ship a big model.
Philosophy Slogan	“Attack chain realism → targeted defence.”	“Narrow but existential—we lock the nukes first.”	You can’t copy‑paste; align your philosophy to your threat surface.

Shared Ground

• Both say AI hacking is a serious, fast‑growing risk.
• Both publish findings and invite outside testers.
• Both believe safety rules must evolve with every new model.

Key Differences

• DeepMind watches process; OpenAI watches impact.
• DeepMind’s alerts are about efficiency; OpenAI’s are about capability.
• Governance structures differ, but both hold real power to say “stop.”

5. Five Practical Steps for Your Security Team

1. Map Your Own Kill Chain — Write down each of the seven hack steps for your crown‑jewel apps and databases.
2. Run a “Bottleneck Drill” — Ask an LLM to speed up one hard step (like writing phishing emails) and time the difference.
3. Set Danger Lines — Agree on what counts as High or Critical capability inside your company.
4. Form a Mini‑SAG — Even a three‑person safety board can pause a risky feature before it ships.
5. Publish a Dual‑Use Policy — Clearly ban prompts that create exploits or bio threats, and log any attempts automatically.

6. Final Takeaway

DeepMind and OpenAI give us two strong playbooks: fix weak hack steps and watch for super‑big dangers. Use both. Start small—run a drill, write a policy—and grow your defences before attackers grow theirs.