Dissertation Project
Navigators of a Hidden Maze
Abstract: Most theories of International Relations (IR) portray states as having curiosity, but not inquisitiveness. States are conventionally characterized as passive watchers, reactively updating their beliefs about their adversary's power or resolve according to observed actions. This portrayal overlooks states' considerable efforts to proactively spy on one another. In response to these shortcomings, this paper proposes the Intelligence Hunting Model, a framework for explaining information-seeking dynamics in IR. As a use case, the model addresses the paradox of state-sponsored hacking: why states tolerate proxies that seemingly undermine their own intelligence efforts in cyberspace. Traditional explanations for why states would support these groups overlook a key drawback: they can "spook" targets into hardening their defenses, potentially hindering future intelligence gathering efforts. I present a model that conceptualizes the state as navigating a complex defense-industrial network. Proxies, so long as they spare targets close to state intelligence targets, may actually improve search speed by providing additional vision to the network. To test this critical assumption of the model, I conduct a novel randomized controlled trial using 60 machines emulating defense and industrial consulting organizations across two locations. The resulting analysis of over 6,000,000 attacks provide evidence that defense-related targets experience fewer malicious payload attempts relative to their industrial counterparts. These findings suggest that targets involved in the military supply chain are partially spared from malware. This leads to a unique metric of indicating heightened espionage-risk: abnormally low levels of destructive cyber attacks.
Published Research
Kreps S, George J, Lushenko P, Rao A. Exploring the artificial intelligence “Trust paradox”: Evidence from a survey experiment in the United States. Plos one. 2023 Jul 18;18(7):e0288109.
Abstract: Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) are set to transform society, national defense, and the economy by enhancing efficiency, precision, and safety. However, public trust and willingness to adopt AI-enabled technologies remain crucial. In this study, we explore the AI "trust paradox," where individuals' willingness to use AI exceeds their level of trust in its capabilities. Through a two-part study, we first conduct a conjoint analysis across various AI applications—including armed drones, surgery, police surveillance, self-driving cars, and social media moderation—to assess conditions under which the trust paradox arises. We then apply causal mediation analysis in a survey experiment to understand why people use AI technologies they don't fully trust. Our results strongly support the trust paradox, especially in the case of AI-enabled police surveillance, where support for use is high despite lower trust levels. Key factors influencing this include fear of missing out, optimism about future AI improvements, belief in AI's benefits outweighing risks, and perceived efficiency gains. These insights have important implications for integrating AI in various sectors.
Melamed A, Rao A, Kreps S, Palmer E. Popular impact: Public opinion and planetary defense planning. Acta Astronautica. 2024 Jan 1;214:505-25.
Abstract: This study examines public attitudes toward planetary defense against asteroid impacts, a low-probability but high-consequence threat. Through surveys conducted in the United States and United Kingdom in 2023, we investigate three factors that may influence support for planetary defense efforts: trust in information sources, preferences for mission characteristics, and perceptions of side benefits. Key findings include: scientists are viewed as the most credible source of information on asteroid threats, though this correlates with more accurate (lower) assessments of impact probability; the public strongly prefers multilateral missions using kinetic impactors launched early, while opposing unilateral missions, nuclear explosives, and late launches; framing planetary defense in terms of economic or security benefits modestly increases support, while emphasizing status/leadership benefits decreases support among some groups; and respondents report feeling a moral obligation to protect even rival nations from asteroid impacts. We conclude that policymakers should consider these public preferences when designing planetary defense initiatives, as deviating from preferred approaches may undermine public support. The study contributes to understanding how the public engages with low-probability, high-impact risks and associated mitigation efforts.
Melamed A, Rao A, de Rohan Willner O, Kreps S. Going to outer space with new space: The rise and consequences of evolving public-private partnerships. Space Policy. 2024 Apr 10:101626.
Abstract: What explains the commercialization of key government space projects through the incorporation of New Space? The newer generation of private companies have seen a significant increase in government contracting as they become instrumental for national security missions and high-profile civil projects. The turn to New Space companies, particularly those entrepreneurially-driven and privately funded, deviates from the governments' historical reliance on more traditional private partners. We argue that the turn towards New Space was neither inevitable nor monocausal, but rather the product of the confluence of the upstart sector's cost-efficient service offerings and rising public profile, which coincided with a period of renewed international competition. New Space firms indeed distinguished themselves by offering affordable products, an innovative production process, and a unique brand of prestigious reputation otherwise unavailable at national programs and older aerospace companies. However, these services were only deemed necessary for integration with the public sector because of the heightened importance of security and national status amidst a perceived return to great power competition. A new generation of public-private partnerships offered the only strategy for spacefaring states to attain and maintain a competitive position in an environment where non-state actors can match government accomplishments and capabilities. However, the utility of current integrative policy threatens to globalize not only the strengths but also the weaknesses of New Space, undercutting the very goals their adoption was meant to achieve.