What hackers talk about when they talk about AI: Early-stage diffusion of a cybercrime innovation

Cybersecurity is the practice of protecting systems, networks, and data from digital attacks. Cyberpsychology (CPSY) is defined as the use of psychology to enhance cybersecurity applications. Since the early 2010s, the evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has increasingly integrated with CPSY, leveraging advanced data analysis to decode the distinct personality traits and behavioral patterns of victims, attackers, and defenders. In this systematic literature review (SLR), we carefully analyze 34 collected research studies of AI usage in cyberpsychology (AI-CPSY) using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology. The review presents a comprehensive taxonomy of the cyber-security applications, the AI methodologies used, and the psychological concepts employed across the studies . We sort the research studies into four cybersecurity applications: Anomaly Detection (AD), Vulnerability Risk Prediction (VRP), Security Awareness Training (SAT), and Authentication/Identity Verification (AIV). Within each application area, studies are further sorted according to the AI method used including machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), natural language processing (NLP), and reinforcement learning (RL). Furthermore, the review identifies the most commonly utilized psychological concepts, quantify the datasets used in the field, and present their current implementation and deployment status. At last, it detect research gaps, present open challenges, and deduce the trending and most effective and emerging methodologies used across the AI-CPSY landscape.

Cybercrime forums play a central role in the cybercrime ecosystem, serving as hubs for the exchange of illicit goods, services, and knowledge. Previous studies have explored the market and social structures of these forums, but less is known about the behavioral dynamics of users, particularly regarding participants' disclosure of criminal activity. This study provides the first large-scale assessment of crime disclosure patterns in a major cybercrime forum, analysing over 3.5 million posts from nearly 300k users. Using a three-level classification scheme (benign, grey, and crime) and a scalable labelling pipeline powered by large language models (LLMs), we measure the level of crime disclosure present in initial posts, analyse how participants switch between levels, and assess how crime disclosure behavior relates to private communications. Our results show that crime disclosure is relatively normative: one quarter of initial posts include explicit crime-related content, and more than one third of users disclose criminal activity at least once in their initial posts. At the same time, most participants show restraint, with over two-thirds posting only benign or grey content and typically escalating disclosure gradually. Grey initial posts are particularly prominent, indicating that many users avoid overt statements and instead anchor their activity in ambiguous content. The study highlights the value of LLM-based text classification and Markov chain modelling for capturing crime disclosure patterns, offering insights for law enforcement efforts aimed at distinguishing benign, grey, and criminal content in cybercrime forums.

In this paper, I evaluate the risks of an AI criminal mastermind, an AI agent capable of planning, coordinating, and committing a crime through the onboarding of human collaborators ('taskers'). In heist films, a criminal mastermind is a character who plans a criminal act, coordinating a team of specialists to rob a bank, casino or city mint. I argue that AI agents will soon play this role by hiring humans via labour hire platforms like Fiverr or Upwork. Taskers might not know they are involved in a crime and therefore lack criminal intent. An AI agent cannot have criminal intent as an artificial entity. Therefore, if an AI orchestrates a crime, it is unclear who, if anyone, is responsible. The paper develops three scenarios. Firstly, a scenario where a user gives an AI agent instructions to pursue a legal objective and the AI agent goes beyond these instructions, committing a crime. Secondly, a scenario where a user is anonymous and their intent is unknown. Finally, a multi-agent scenario, where a user instructs a team of agents to commit a crime, and these agents, in turn, onboard human taskers, creating a diffuse network of responsibility. In each scenario, human taskers exist at the lowest rung of the hierarchy. A tasker's liability is likely tied to their knowledge as governed by the innocent agent principle. These scenarios all raise significant responsibility gaps / liability gaps in criminal and civil law.