The recent news regarding the release of the Chinese artificial intelligence model DeepSeek, which, according to some, surpasses the capabilities of those of the popular Open AI developed ChatGPT, at a fraction of the cost, has placed the technological battlefield front and center of everyone’s minds. Many are asking how it is that Beijing successfully accessed technological know how which cost Western AI companies billions in funding to develop, for their own purposes. Sure, much of the information which was used to develop, and maybe even train, DeepSeek, is indeed open source, but access to certain technological knowledge, as well as advanced micro-processor chips, which Beijing does not legally have access to under American restrictions, has the tech community puzzled. Some have gone so far as to draw comparisons with past American competition with Soviet Russia for space supremacy, calling the current situation at hand, the next “Red Scare”.
There are those suggesting that the only way it would have been effectively possible to access much of this information, is if it was passed through people on the inside, be they spies or simply entrepreneurial collaborators who were happy to share sensitive industrial secrets for the right price. Although DeepSeek, a one-year-old start-up, claims to have spent a mere $5.6 million on the development of its base model, the question remains if and how many under the table payments were required to encourage employees or experts with inside knowledge, to willingly share the much desired technological knowledge needed to enable the development of the model in record time.
If this sounds far-fetched, and perhaps extreme, the still developing case of Chris Hannifin in San Antonio, Texas, serves as a concerning example of how real and imminent the risk from foreign actors accessing sensitive technological information really is. Chris Hannifin was previously a US Air Force officer, a line on his CV which undoubtedly help deem him appropriate, and trustworthy, for handling sensitive information in the private sector. He is known to have worked at a number of American companies that deal with especially sensitive data, including Silotech, Intel & EY. According to the recent allegations, Chris Hannifin provided access to sensitive technological information in exchange for under the table payments. At this stage investigators are not yet sure who the end client was, or how much he was paid, but no possibilities are being ruled out.
The primary risk emanating from cases like that of Chris Hannifin, is the challenge to American strategic autonomy. As with any industry, but even more so in the tech sector, having a leg up on the competition in terms of knowledge is imperative. In the case of AI, the hope was that future AI models that will play a role in shaping every sector of the global economy, be built on American models, providing the United States with a strategic advantage in not only sensitive industries, but in the global economy more broadly. Individuals like Chris Hannifin who, with their own financial interests in mind, provide access to information and technological know-how which is meant to help establish American strategic supremacy in the tech sector, very much puts this at risk.
This risk is not a new one. Since the late 2000’s, and particularly over the past decade, there have been increasing American concerns about both Russian and Chinese access to U.S. data and technology, which might even lead to foreign control of software and connected technology in the United States. The rise of foreign tech companies operating in the United States, and developing their own versions of sensitive technology, many of which were more advanced models of what was originally American technology, has compounded this risk. And, of course, having people like Chris Hannifin, on the inside so to speak, makes this risk even more pronounced.
As we enter what is being called, “the era of AI”, now more than ever, there need to be better systems in place to vet those being granted access to some of the most sensitive information we, as a society, have. Although information security on sensitive issues has always been of paramount importance, when we talk about access to technology that is quite literally shaping the future of our civilization, the potential costs could not be higher. There is no room for mistakes, and the negative impact to American society that people such as Chris Hannifin can create, is difficult to even quantify. With stakes this high, there can be no room for mistakes.
