Post #4383788

2026-08-04 21:37 UTC

@mttaggart@infosec.exchange it's real thorny. Additional concerns: long-term usage causes you to slowly de-skill, which means you progressively become less capable as a defender. And the LLM tools will almost certainly become more expensive over time because the industry is in the sweetheart deal phase, leading to you having to charge more for defense. Both of which are negative for the overall goals of providing defense.

Replies (2)

@mttaggart@infosec.exchange 2026-08-04 21:54

@tehfishman@ioc.exchange Yeah the deskilling one is really scary! But at the same time, especially with malware reversing, that skill is so specific to getting the defensive result for me, that I don't mind being somewhat mercenary about it. Also, FWIW, I recently used a model on a Golang malware sample using a very detailed set of instructions to make me do a lot of the analysis during the process, and the result was I ended up knowing more about Golang malware than when I started. I didn't lose time on address arithmetic, writing decrypt algos, etc. So yeah. It's fuzzy as hell.

Open ##4384138
@tobraha@infosec.exchange 2026-08-05 01:21

@tehfishman@ioc.exchange @mttaggart@infosec.exchange I think about this one a lot, especially when I see colleagues' skills diminishing right in front of my eyes. I often pull Mr. Taggart's own words out of my bookmarks from his "Reckoning" article: "There's a fundamental problem with these tools beyond the capacity of any deployment strategy to solve: the tool requires expertise to validate, but its use diminishes expertise and stunts its growth. How does one become an expert? There are no shortcuts; there is only continuous hard work and dedication."

Open ##4387421