@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange
2026-09-04 22:44 UTC
@malwaretech@infosec.exchange other way around. i've spent twenty-plus posts since April arguing that the AI attacker boogeyman is a Nessie sighting, the AI Loch Ness thing I've been on about for over a decade. my objection is the method being inconsistent. your conclusion doesn't depend on who's right about adoption. and your piece is stronger if you avoid the dates and keep the basics. that's what I'd like people to hear.
Replies (1)
-
@malwaretech@infosec.exchange 2026-09-04 23:29
@flyingpenguin@infosec.exchange No, because a reasonable reader is not going to pretend stable diffusion models or GitHub CoPilot preview were launching cyber attacks just to push some dates back. That is the behavior of a professional nit picker whose views I am not going to move one bit. The fact that AI is not responsible for the reduction in attack times is an important case to make, or the people making it are just going to continue poisoning the discourse with their nonsense.