Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

cipherbrief

Welcome! Log in to stay connected and make the most of your experience.

Input clean

How the Intelligence Community Can Shape AI Trust With New Terminology

  • -AI-in-the-loop is not a new expression. Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence used the term as a centerpiece for a conference on the topic in 2022, arguing that humans should remain in charge while AI operates as part of a human-directed process.
    • -ICD 505, as amended in 2025, on AI underscores the importance of IC personnel, noting that they “shall remain responsible and accountable for the analysis, decisions, and outcomes derived from insights gleaned using AI.” While the Directive does not mandate specific terminology, it requires users to “understand” and be accountable for AI use. It goes further in insisting that “personnel be able to review, challenge, and reject or replace AI-derived recommendations and findings when appropriate.” The President has since mandated that the IC publish a Standard on AI Assurance under ICD 505 and signed a memorandum on AI mandating “responsible acceleration of the use of AI across intelligence and warfighting domains.”
      • -Human-Led AI (HLAI) — simple, direct, and clear about who leads the process
        • -After 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the IC shifted the terminology it used for adopting new or different tradecraft from our baseline techniques in analysis. The term Structured Analytic Techniques became official at CIA’s Sherman Kent School in 2005 as part of the Agency’s effort to promote these methods from the long-held category of “alternative” analysis into the mainstream of tradecraft. In my decades of experience in analysis, this change was more than a title change; the new terminology reshaped how analysts thought about their work. As a junior CIA analyst at the time, I remember a proliferation of structured analytic techniques that became so commonplace they were literally no longer alternative.
        • -In the late 2010s, we shifted from “intelligence sharing,” a process that intelligence professionals I knew detested as giving away secrets for little to no gain, to “intelligence diplomacy,” a practice many of us willingly adopted to offer insights aimed at promoting US interests. The IC formally codified this approach in 2025 through ICD 405, Intelligence Diplomacy. The ICD distinguishes between mere intelligence sharing and intelligence diplomacy, noting that the latter must “be done in support of advancing a preferred policy objective.” The ICD goes further in noting that the intent is to “shape foreign leader perspectives,” a materially different approach than sharing alone. The Senate’s Intelligence Authorization Act in August 2026 endorsed Intelligence Diplomacy as “critical to advancing US foreign policy and national security goals,” and called for “elevating intelligence diplomacy as a tool of US statecraft” through continued investment.
        • -The IC should act with deliberate speed to formalize AI-in-the-loop, or a related term, to set a tone of expectation and clarity for agencies and industry partners that even agentic autonomy must begin with human intent and be wrapped in human decision. We can do so in a presidentially required Standard on AI Assurance under ICD 505. Further, IC directors using an agreed-upon, more human-focused term and impressing on their workforce its importance would chart a path. IC acquisition shops’ requests to industry should also make this shift, giving industry clear guidance that development and implementation should include a workflow that explicitly highlights human ownership of AI adoption. Even when AI does the heavy lifting across data sets that humans can’t process alone at speed and scale, it must do it on our behalf.

        All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author's views.

        The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.


        Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.

        Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief

Make us preferred on Google

Related Articles

The Nations That Don’t Appear on the Map

The most influential media network operating inside a dozen allied countries today has no masthead, no headquarters and no country of incorporation. [...] More

Heads They Win, Tails They Win: The CMMC Trap and the Way Out

Here is a prediction from inside the compliance trenches: the CMMC Reform Task Force closed its sixty-day review on September 11 and is now [...] More

Not the Destroyer of Worlds: Why Compute is Humanity’s Most Vital Defense

Eighty years ago, the architects of our first dual-use revolution whispered that they had “become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Today, a new power [...] More

When Policy and War Collapse Into One: Fighting in the Sixth Domain

We may soon face conflict with nation-states in a new model of warfare—one not defined by geography, but instead defined by AIs competing directly [...] More

The Compute We Cannot Power

On September 9, Oracle reported a cloud backlog of $664 billion — up $209 billion from a year earlier, an order book the size of a mid-cap national [...] More

Pakistan’s New Military Order Is a Warning for Washington

In Washington, Field Marshal Asim Munir increasingly looks like the man who can make Pakistan useful to the United States. Pakistan has just written [...] More

{{}}