If I were in charge of an org's cybersecurity I would have AI agents continually trying to attack the systems 24/7 and inform me of successful exploits; it would suck if the major model providers block this type of usage.
https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s...
I like how Terence Tao framed this [0]: blue teams (builders aka 'vibe-coders') and red teams (attackers) are dual to each other. AI is often better suited for the red team role, critiquing, probing, and surfacing weaknesses, rather than just generating code (In this case, I feel hallucinations are more of a feature than a bug).
We have an early version and are looking for companies to try it out. If you'd like to chat, I'm at varun@keygraph.io.
Pour one out for your observability team. Or, I guess here's hoping that the logs, metrics, and traces have a distinct enough attribute that one can throw them in the trash (continuously, natch)
Not convinced "AI" is needed for this sort of around the clock pen testing - a well-defined set of rules that is being actively maintained as the threat landscape changes, and I am pretty sure there are a bunch of businesses that offer this already - but I think constant attacking is the only way to really improve security posture.
To quote one of my favourite lines in Neal Stephenson's Anathem: "The only way to preserve the integrity of the defenses is to subject them to unceasing assault".