As we traverse through the epoch of rapid technological advancements, the omnipresence and capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) often spark discussions about its potential to soon perform almost every task autonomously, potentially rendering human effort redundant. However, such fears may be premature, especially in fields like cybersecurity, where human expertise remains irreplaceable.
With the enthusiastic integration of AI tools across various sectors, concerns about their security and reliability have also emerged. The rise of sophisticated algorithms prompts questions about their ability to replace human jobs entirely. Experts from HackerU Poland, a firm specializing in cybersecurity training, are addressing these misconceptions. They argue that while AI can enhance many tasks, its applications must be approached with caution and expert support, particularly in network security.
The development of AI-based models is progressing almost geometrically. A recent report by consulting firm McKinsey noted that Anthropic’s generative AI, Claude, processed about 75,000 words per minute as of May 2023 — the equivalent of an average novel. Such rapid development, aided by new processors and technologies, signifies a breakthrough but also introduces several risks and concerns. Despite these advancements, experts reassure that AI will not replace jobs but rather enhance them.
Marcin Bednarczyk, a Cybersecurity Specialist at HackerU Poland, highlights that there are many areas where machines cannot take over human responsibilities. Cybersecurity, in particular, showcases the indispensability of human labor. AI tools like PentestGPT and WhiteRabbitNeo act as “virtual cyberspecialists,” suggesting commands applicable to specific situations. However, humans must still initiate and verify these actions, underscoring the essential role of human oversight.
Looking ahead, while AI models may assist operators in Security Operations Centers (SOCs) with tedious tasks, the final verification will invariably need human analysts. Companies are unlikely to entrust their entire security to algorithms, opting instead for AI-supported solutions that require human verification. This ensures that while AI can aid, it does not supplant the need for skilled professionals.
Bednarczyk confidently dismisses fears of job loss due to AI, suggesting that the more likely scenario is the deployment of AI-enhanced solutions with continuous human oversight. Therefore, for specialists, there may be even more work opportunities now than before.
In other areas, the narrative is similar. Despite pessimistic media focus on job threats from AI, and overly optimistic views that AI will handle everything while humans rest, reality presents a more balanced perspective. For instance, while AI excels at generating images, there have been mishaps like the creation of a graphic with a three-armed student by the University of Gdańsk. Similarly, AI struggles with tasks like designing logos, where human graphic designers must finalize the work.
In content creation, from texts to videos, AI can generate seemingly authentic outputs, but these still require human verification to correct inaccuracies and add context. An experiment by HackerU Poland with the classic game Snake demonstrated that while AI can generate a playable version, it still required a programmer’s touch to complete.
Thus, while AI continues to facilitate many professional tasks, it is far from replacing specialists in various fields. For now, human expertise remains invaluable and irreplaceable, proving that the fears of AI leading to a jobless future are largely unfounded. As we navigate through this AI-enhanced era, the challenge lies not in competing with machines but in leveraging their capabilities to augment human efforts.