独家:消息人士称美军因使用AI生成虚假情报报告险些引发冲突


2026-09-18T16:55:50.899Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-false-intelligence-china-ship

这份情报报告于今年春季美伊战争期间在美军内部传阅,一经发布便拉响了警报:一艘在中东地区的中国船只正在运输核武器项目相关部件。

据四位熟悉这一事件的消息人士透露,美军随即启动行动,计划拦截该船只。其中两位消息人士称,美军武装人员当时正准备登船。一位消息人士和另一位熟悉该事件的消息人士表示,多架军机已升空待命。

直到行动计划实施前不久,官员们才对这份由特种作战司令部分析师撰写的报告进行深入核查,发现其生成过程借助了人工智能(AI),且分析师使用的聊天机器人错误识别了该船只所载货物。CNN未能获悉被误认的货物具体是什么。

据其中一位消息人士透露,这份报告“完全是虚假的”。但该消息人士同时表示,它“险些引发一场战争”。任何针对中国船只的美军行动都可能升级为两国之间的武装冲突。

目前,美国军方和情报界官员正推动将AI融入几乎所有工作环节,从分析美军收集的海量原始情报、选定打击目标,到更日常的预算管理、后勤和供应链等应用场景。

但这一事件凸显了在战争期间使用这种强大、新颖且相对鲜为人知的技术进行目标定位所存在的巨大风险。长期以来,分析人士一直担忧,如果各国依赖劣质或被篡改的数据,AI可能导致灾难性的误判——这种误判可能让美国基于不准确的信息向中国船只开火。

在这起特定事件中,分析师针对夏威夷美国太平洋特种作战司令部提供的有关该船只舱单的情报报告,向一款聊天机器人进行了查询。目前尚不清楚该聊天机器人是商用产品还是美国政府自研产品。

一位熟悉军方和情报分析师所用AI系统的美国前高级官员表示:“内部工具大多只是商用产品的翻版,只是换了层包装。”

该聊天机器人将开源情报与政府持有的机密信号情报进行融合,得出了关于该船只所载货物的错误结论。

随后,分析师再次使用AI将调查结果整理成一份标准情报报告——一份获得军方官员信任的报告——并进行了传阅。

美国太平洋特种作战司令部和五角大楼未置评。

美军快速采用AI的理由是,它可以帮助军方更快地做出战场决策,比如选择打击目标或调配军事资产。官员们表示,美国不能在AI集成方面落后,以免有朝一日与中国或其他对手开战,而对方可能在节奏上领先美国。

今年1月,国防部长皮特·赫格斯发布了国防部的“人工智能加速战略”,以期加快军方对AI的使用。

赫格斯在公布该战略的演讲中表示:“我们将推动试验、消除官僚壁垒、集中投资,并展示必要的执行方法,以确保我们在军事AI领域保持领先。”

一份公布该战略的备忘录显示,该战略还推动AI在全军范围内广泛应用,要求国防部通过多个项目提供AI服务,旨在“通过将全球领先的AI模型直接交给所有密级层级的300万文职和军事人员,在国防部范围内普及AI试验和转型”。

但多位熟悉相关情况的美国官员表示,这项工作呈现去中心化特点,政府不同部门在不同指令和安全标准下使用不同工具。美国没有统一的标准来验证这些工具生成的信息。军方和情报界不同部门部署的AI系统五花八门,意味着其相对可靠性和功能差异巨大。

几周来,华盛顿的政策制定者一直在就AI问题展开激烈辩论,此前硅谷工程师和科技巨头们接连发出严厉警告,称AI可能摆脱人类约束,带来可能终结人类文明的后果。

但此次中国船只事件凸显了另一种更直接的风险:人类基于AI或其他自动化系统生成的不准确或误导性信息做出灾难性决策。消息人士称,军方正迅速将AI用于目标定位,这一领域显然存在犯下致命错误的风险。

另一位熟悉美军当前政策的消息人士表示:“AI在目标定位方面的应用无疑正在加速,目前尚无切实指导方针来明确‘人机协同’将如何避免平民伤亡或友军误伤。”

据其中一位消息人士透露,自这类工具在政府部门普及以来,该分析师所用工具出现的这类“幻觉”现象在情报界并非孤立事件。

对于一些资深情报官员——即便他们总体上支持在军方内部使用AI——AI给分析师带来了更快生成和传播情报的压力,为错误埋下了隐患。多位消息人士表示,年轻分析师尤其擅长使用这些工具,且更倾向于不加批判地信任它们。

“AI能让你更快得出一个糟糕的结论。”其中一位消息人士说道。

Exclusive: US military had close call after using AI for false intelligence report, sources say

2026-09-18T16:55:50.899Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/18/politics/us-military-ai-false-intelligence-china-ship

The intelligence report, circulated across the US military this spring in the midst of the war with Iran, immediately set off alarm bells: A Chinese ship in the Middle East was transporting components of a nuclear weapons program.

The US military swung into action with plans to intercept the vessel, according to four sources familiar with the episode. According to two of the sources, armed members of the US military were preparing to board the ship. Military planes were in the air, one of those sources and another source familiar with the incident said.

It was only just before the planned operation that officials dug deeper into the report put together by a special operations command analyst and found it had been generated with the help of artificial intelligence (AI) — and that a chatbot the analyst had used inaccurately identified the material the ship was carrying. CNN was not able to learn what the misidentified cargo was.

The report, according to one of the sources, was “entirely false.” But it also “almost started a war,” the source said. Any US operation against a Chinese vessel could have risked spiraling into an armed conflict between the two nations.

Across the US military and the intelligence community, officials are pushing to weave AI into nearly every facet of their work, from analyzing the huge volumes of raw intelligence the US collects and selecting targets for strikes, to more mundane applications like managing budgeting, logistics and supply chains.

But the episode underscores the profound risks of using this powerful, new and relatively poorly understood technology for targeting in the middle of a war. Analysts have long feared that AI could lead to a catastrophic miscalculation if nation states are relying on poor or corrupted data — the kind of miscalculation that might lead the United States to fire on a Chinese ship based on inaccurate information.

In this particular instance, the analyst queried a chatbot about some intelligence reporting on the ship’s manifest that originated with US Special Operations Command Pacific, based in Hawaii. It was not clear whether the chatbot was a commercially available one or a US government product.

“The internal tools are mostly just copies of the commercial stuff wearing lipstick,” a former senior US official familiar with the AI systems used by military and intelligence analysts.

The bot fused together open-source intelligence with secret signals intelligence in government holdings and reached its fateful conclusion about the material the ship was carrying.

The analyst then used AI again to package the findings into a standard intelligence report — the kind that is trusted by military officials — and disseminated it.

US Special Operations Command Pacific and the Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.

The rationale for the rapid adoption of AI is that it can help the military make battlefield decisions, like which targets to strike or which military assets to move where, faster. Officials say the US can’t afford to fall behind in integrating AI in case it must one day fight China or another adversary who would potentially be able to stay one step ahead of the US.

In January, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth released his agency’s “Artificial Intelligence Acceleration Strategy” in a bid to speed up the military’s use of AI.

“We will unleash experimentation, eliminate bureaucratic barriers, focus our investments and demonstrate the execution approach needed to ensure we lead in military AI,” Hegseth said in a speech announcing the strategy.

The strategy also pushes for its broad use across the military, ordering the department to make AI available via several programs with the aim of “democratizing AI experimentation and transformation across the Department by putting America’s world-leading AI models directly in the hands of our three million civilian and military personnel, at all classification levels,” a memo announcing the strategy said.

But the effort is decentralized, multiple US officials familiar with the dynamic said, with different parts of the government using different tools under different orders and safety standards. There’s no one set of standards for how the US verifies the information generated by these tools. The constellation of different AI systems being deployed by disparate corners of the military and intelligence community means that the relative reliability and functionality vary widely.

For weeks, Washington policymakers have been intensely debating AI after a series of dire warnings from Silicon Valley engineers and tech CEOs of the possibility that AI could break free of human constraints, with potentially civilization-ending consequences.

But the episode with the Chinese ship underscores a different, and more immediate risk: human beings making disastrous decisions based on inaccurate or misleading information generated by AI or other automated systems. Sources said that the military is rapidly turning to AI to help with targeting, an area which holds the obvious risk of fatal mistakes.

“AI in targeting is definitely something that is ramping up and there is no real guidance for how having a human in the loop will prevent civilian casualties or fratricide,” another source familiar with the military’s current policies said.

The kind of “hallucination” that the tool used by the analyst in this case conjured has not been an isolated incident across the intelligence community since these tools began proliferating across government, according to one of the sources.

For some older intelligence officials — even those who broadly support the use of AI inside the military — AI has put pressure on analysts to produce and disseminate intelligence faster, opening the door for mistakes. Young analysts in particular, several sources said, are natives on these tools and more likely to trust them uncritically.

“AI allows you to get to a bad idea faster,” one of the sources said.

评论

发表回复

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

湘ICP备2026001899号-2