Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41064132›Full record

ArticleEthics and information technology2025

The fundamental rights risks of countering cognitive warfare with artificial intelligence.

Henning Lahmann, Bart Custers, Benjamyn I Scott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics and information technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Henning LahmannLeiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Bart CustersLeiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Benjamyn I ScottLeiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article analyses ideas to use AI-supported systems to counter 'cognitive warfare' and critically examines the implications of such systems for fundamental rights and values. After explicating the notion of 'cognitive warfare' as used in contemporary public security discourse, the article describes the emergence of generative AI tools that are expected to exacerbate the problem of adversarial activities against the online information ecosystems of democratic societies. In response, researchers and policymakers have proposed to utilize AI to devise countermeasures, ranging from AI-based early warning systems to state-run content moderation tools. These interventions, however, interfere, to different degrees, with fundamental rights and values such as privacy, communication rights, and self-determination. This article argues that such proposals insufficiently account for the complexity of contemporary online information ecosystems, particularly the inherent difficulty in establishing causality and attribution. Reliance on the precautionary principle might offer a justificatory frame for AI-enabled measures to counter 'cognitive warfare' in the absence of conclusive empirical evidence of harm. However, any such state intervention must be based in law and adhere to strict proportionality.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCognitive warfareDisinformationEpistemic paternalismFundamental rightsPrecautionary principle

Identifiers

PMID41064132
PMCPMC12500826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.