> If you cannot imagine any value that a human can add to an AI defence, then this conversation is effectively over

I honestly find that a bizarre response in the middle of a discussion but you do you.

Maybe someone else could humour me since you're not in the mood to expand on the point that you made? The topic of the thread was that the ability of the AI tooling is outpacing what individuals can handle. Why would a human then be in a position to defend better than an AI when an AI is in a better position to attack than a human?

▲

lelanthran 2 days ago | parent [-]

>> It's AI attackers vs AI + Human defenders.

> Why would a human then be in a position to defend better than an AI when an AI is in a better position to attack than a human?

I did not make the claim that humans are in a better position to defend.

▲

AlecSchueler a day ago | parent [-]

> There are still protections and mitigations that targets can do, but those things require humans.

You claimed that there are certain protections and mitigations (i.e. defence moves) which require humans (ergo humans do these things better than AI, necessitating an AI+human team).

But you've still avoided expanding on what they might be, preferring instead to make petty remarks about my imaginative abilities.

	▲	lelanthran 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You claimed that there are certain protections and mitigations (i.e. defence moves) which require humans (ergo humans do these things better than AI, necessitating an AI+human team). Right, but I did not make the claim that humans are better than AIs.