Hong Kong’s AI Conundrum: A Threat to National Security or a Necessary Evolution?

The warnings from outgoing deputy police chief Andrew Kan and state security minister Chen Yixin about the national security threats posed by artificial intelligence (AI) in Hong Kong have sparked a timely debate on its role. While some view AI as a threat, others see it as a necessary tool to combat growing security risks.

Kan’s concerns are not unfounded. The increasing use of AI has led to a rise in “soft resistance,” where individuals or groups exploit vulnerabilities in AI systems for malicious purposes. This creates a cat-and-mouse game for law enforcement agencies, which must contend with complex threats generated by AI.

The Hong Kong government has responded to these concerns proactively. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu’s announcement of an AI risk-governance strategy aims to address the misuse of AI in criminal activities and develop safety-management guidelines for AI agents. This approach acknowledges AI’s dual nature: its potential to enhance security while posing new risks.

As Kan prepares to retire after 35 years on the force, his words serve as a reminder that national security threats often lie hidden in plain sight. The use of AI-generated deepfakes has become increasingly sophisticated, making it difficult for law enforcement to distinguish between authentic and fake evidence. This blurs the lines between legitimate investigation and harassment, raising questions about the balance between surveillance and individual rights.

Chen’s call for robust risk prevention frameworks and stronger global governance of AI highlights the need for a coordinated effort to address the security implications of this technology. The European Union has already taken steps in this direction by proposing measures to regulate AI development and deployment.

Kan’s departure marks the end of an era for the National Security Department, and his legacy will be defined by his efforts to modernize law enforcement practices and adapt to emerging threats. His words serve as a warning to policymakers: AI is not just a tool but also a reflection of our collective values.

The question now is how Hong Kong will address the complex landscape of AI-generated threats. Will the government’s AI risk-governance strategy be effective in addressing these concerns, or will it merely scratch the surface? As Kan’s successor takes the reins, one thing is certain: the use of AI in national security will continue to evolve, and with it, new challenges for law enforcement agencies.

The world watches Hong Kong’s efforts to tackle AI-generated threats, wondering what this means for other countries. Will they follow suit, or will they forge their own paths? The answer lies not just in technological solutions but also in addressing the human aspect of national security – the vulnerabilities that AI exploits and the trust it erodes.

Ultimately, Kan’s warnings serve as a reminder that national security is not just about technology; it is about people. As we continue to navigate the complex landscape of AI-generated threats, one thing remains clear: the need for transparency, accountability, and cooperation in addressing these emerging risks.