Brilliant framing of the accountability vacuum. The line about AI agents being literlly "agents" lands perfectly. Most security discussions focus on perimeter defense while ignoring that purchased software sits inside the perimeter by design. The wind power example illustrates how a forecast skewed by 50% can't be distinguished from legitimate model error, which is the real problem, there's no smoking gun.
You've nailed the core of it. The threat is already inside the perimeter by design. What I keep coming back to is your point about the smoking gun. In traditional espionage, the evidence trail exists even if it's hard to find. With AI, the absence of a smoking gun isn't a limitation of the investigation. It's a feature of the attack. A 50% forecast error is indistinguishable from a bad model on a bad day. That's what makes this so different from anything security teams are trained to handle. Appreciate you reading.
Brilliant framing of the accountability vacuum. The line about AI agents being literlly "agents" lands perfectly. Most security discussions focus on perimeter defense while ignoring that purchased software sits inside the perimeter by design. The wind power example illustrates how a forecast skewed by 50% can't be distinguished from legitimate model error, which is the real problem, there's no smoking gun.
You've nailed the core of it. The threat is already inside the perimeter by design. What I keep coming back to is your point about the smoking gun. In traditional espionage, the evidence trail exists even if it's hard to find. With AI, the absence of a smoking gun isn't a limitation of the investigation. It's a feature of the attack. A 50% forecast error is indistinguishable from a bad model on a bad day. That's what makes this so different from anything security teams are trained to handle. Appreciate you reading.