OSCP holders already have the adversarial mindset AI red teaming demands. Learn what transfers, what's new, and how to close the gap from OSCP to OSAI efficiently.
The post OSCP to OSAI: How Offensive Security Practitioners Can Pivot Into AI Security appeared first on OffSec.
In 2025, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta collectively spent US$380 billion on building artificial-intelligence tools. That number is expected to surge still higher this year, to $650 billion, to fund the building of physical infrastructure, such as data centers (see go.nature.com/3lzf79q). Moreover, these firms are spending lavishly on one particular segment: top technical talent.
Meta reportedly offered a single AI researcher, who had cofounded a start-up firm focused on training AI agents to use computers, a compensation package of $250 million over four years (see go.nature.com/4qznsq1). Technology firms are also spending billions on “reverse-acquihires”—poaching the star staff members of start-ups without acquiring the companies themselves. Eyeing these generous payouts, technical experts earning more modest salaries might well reconsider their career choices.
Academia is already losing out. Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, concerns have grown in academia about an “AI brain drain.” Studies point to a sharp rise in university machine-learning and AI researchers moving to industry roles. A 2025 paper reported that this was especially true for young, highly cited scholars: researchers who were about five years into their careers and whose work ranked among the most cited were 100 times more likely to move to industry the following year than were ten-year veterans whose work received an average number of citations, according to a model based on data from nearly seven million papers.1
This outflow threatens the distinct roles of academic research in the scientific enterprise: innovation driven by curiosity rather than profit, as well as providing independent critique and ethical scrutiny. The fixation of “big tech” firms on skimming the very top talent also risks eroding the idea of science as a collaborative endeavor, in which teams—not individuals—do the most consequential work.
Here, we explore the broader implications for science and suggest alternative visions of the future.
Astronomical salaries for AI talent buy into a legend as old as the software industry: the 10x engineer. This is someone who is supposedly capable of ten times the impact of their peers. Why hire and manage an entire group of scientists or software engineers when one genius—or an AI agent—can outperform them?
That proposition is increasingly attractive to tech firms that are betting that a large number of entry-level and even mid-level engineering jobs will be replaced by AI. It’s no coincidence that Google’s Gemini 3 Pro AI model was launched with boasts of “PhD-level reasoning,” a marketing strategy that is appealing to executives seeking to replace people with AI.
But the lone-genius narrative is increasingly out of step with reality. Research backs up a fundamental truth: science is a team sport. A large-scale study of scientific publishing from 1900 to 2011 found that papers produced by larger collaborations consistently have greater impact than do those of smaller teams, even after accounting for self-citation.2 Analyses of the most highly cited scientists show a similar pattern: their highest-impact works tend to be those papers with many authors.3 A 2020 study of Nobel laureates reinforces this trend, revealing that—much like the wider scientific community—the average size of the teams that they publish with has steadily increased over time as scientific problems increase in scope and complexity.4
From the detection of gravitational waves, which are ripples in space-time caused by massive cosmic events, to CRISPR-based gene editing, a precise method for cutting and modifying DNA, to recent AI breakthroughs in protein-structure prediction, the most consequential advances in modern science have been collective achievements. Although these successes are often associated with prominent individuals—senior scientists, Nobel laureates, patent holders—the work itself was driven by teams ranging from dozens to thousands of people and was built on decades of open science: shared data, methods, software and accumulated insight.
Building strong institutions is a much more effective use of resources than is betting on any single individual. Examples demonstrating this include the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the global team that first detected gravitational waves; the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a leading genomics and biomedical-research center behind many CRISPR advances; and even for-profit laboratories such as Google DeepMind in London, which drove advances in protein-structure prediction with its AlphaFold tool. If the aim of the tech giants and other AI firms that are spending lavishly on elite talent is to accelerate scientific progress, the current strategy is misguided.
By contrast, well-designed institutions amplify individual ability, sustain productivity beyond any one person’s career and endure long after any single contributor is gone.
Equally important, effective institutions distribute power in beneficial ways. Rather than vesting decision-making authority in the hands of one person, they have mechanisms for sharing control. Allocation committees decide how resources are used, scientific advisory boards set collective research priorities, and peer review determines which ideas enter the scientific record.
And although the term “innovation by committee” might sound disparaging, such an approach is crucial to make the scientific enterprise act in concert with the diverse needs of the broader public. This is especially true in science, which continues to suffer from pervasive inequalities across gender, race and socio-economic and cultural differences.5
This is why scientists, academics and policymakers should pay more attention to how AI research is organized and led, especially as the technology becomes essential across scientific disciplines. Used well, AI can support a more equitable scientific enterprise by empowering junior researchers who currently have access to few resources.
Instead, some of today’s wealthiest scientific institutions might think that they can deploy the same strategies as the tech industry uses and compete for top talent on financial terms—perhaps by getting funding from the same billionaires who back big tech. Indeed, wage inequality has been steadily growing within academia for decades.6 But this is not a path that science should follow.
The ideal model for science is a broad, diverse ecosystem in which researchers can thrive at every level. Here are three strategies that universities and mission-driven labs should adopt instead of engaging in a compensation arms race.
First, universities and institutions should stay committed to the public interest. An excellent example of this approach can be found in Switzerland, where several institutions are coordinating to build AI as a public good rather than a private asset. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, working with the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre, have built Apertus, a freely available large language model. Unlike the controversially-labelled “open source” models built by commercial labs—such as Meta’s LLaMa, which has been criticized for not complying with the open-source definition (see go.nature.com/3o56zd5)—Apertus is not only open in its source code and its weights (meaning its core parameters), but also in its data and development process. Crucially, Apertus is not designed to compete with “frontier” AI labs pursuing superintelligence at enormous cost and with little regard for data ownership. Instead, it adopts a more modest and sustainable goal: to make AI trustworthy for use in industry and public administration, strictly adhering to data-licensing restrictions and including local European languages.7
Principal investigators (PIs) at other institutions globally should follow this path, aligning public funding agencies and public institutions to produce a more sustainable alternative to corporate AI.
Second, universities should bolster networks of researchers from the undergraduate to senior-professor levels—not only because they make for effective innovation teams, but also because they serve a purpose beyond next quarter’s profits. The scientific enterprise galvanizes its members at all levels to contribute to the same projects, the same journals and the same open, international scientific literature—to perpetuate itself across generations and to distribute its impact throughout society.
Universities should take precisely the opposite hiring strategy to that of the big tech firms. Instead of lavishing top dollar on a select few researchers, they should equitably distribute salaries. They should raise graduate-student stipends and postdoc salaries and limit the growth of pay for high-profile PIs.
Third, universities should show that they can offer more than just financial benefits: they must offer distinctive intellectual and civic rewards. Although money is unquestionably a motivator, researchers also value intellectual freedom and the recognition of their work. Studies show that research roles in industry that allow publication attract talent at salaries roughly 20% lower than comparable positions that prohibit it (see go.nature.com/4cbjxzu).
Beyond the intellectual recognition of publications and citation counts, universities should recognize and reward the production of public goods. The tenure and promotion process at universities should reward academics who supply expertise to local and national governments, who communicate with and engage the public in research, who publish and maintain open-source software for public use and who provide services for non-profit groups.
Furthermore, institutions should demonstrate that they will defend the intellectual freedom of their researchers and shield them from corporate or political interference. In the United States today, we see a striking juxtaposition between big tech firms, which curry favour with the administration of US President Donald Trump to win regulatory and trade benefits, and higher-education institutions, which suffer massive losses of federal funding and threats of investigation and sanction. Unlike big tech firms, universities should invest in enquiry that challenges authority.
We urge leaders of scientific institutions to reject the growing pay inequality rampant in the upper echelons of AI research. Instead, they should compete for talent on a different dimension: the integrity of their missions and the equitableness of their institutions. These institutions should focus on building sustainable organizations with diverse staff members, rather than bestowing a bounty on science’s 1%.
This essay was written with Nathan E. Sanders, and originally appeared in Nature.
Security operations is undergoing a fundamental shift.
As alert volumes continue to rise and environments grow more complex, enterprises are moving away from security models built on manual triage, fragmented automation, and are looking to decrease their reliance on outsourced MDR services. More enterprises are adopting AI SOC as the new model for running security operations, one that can triage and investigate all alerts at machine scale while keeping internal teams focused on judgment and response.
That shift was reflected clearly in Intezer’s momentum over the past year.
In 2025, Intezer processed more than 25 million security alerts across live enterprise SOC environments, as adoption expanded across large and complex organizations looking for a more scalable way to run security operations.
Over the past year, Intezer achieved several major company milestones:
These milestones reflect more than company growth. They reflect a broader market transition toward AI SOC as enterprises look for ways to investigate every alert, reduce hidden risk, and operate beyond the limits of human investigation capacity.
Intezer’s momentum is also being recognized by media, industry analysts and practitioners. Here is a sampling of recent coverage.
Reuters covered Intezer’s research team’s work on uncovering novel cyber attacks this past December, that were targeting Russian defense organizations.
Well known industry analyst Richard Stiennon recently included Intezer in the 2026 Cyber 150, an independently compiled list based on IT-Harvest data, and has also included Intezer in his new book, Guardians of the Machine Age.
At the same time, practitioners are taking notice. In his write-up on Intezer’s 2026 AI SOC Report, Darwin Salazar highlighted the report’s forensic depth, auditability, and practical value in a crowded AI SOC market.
Traditional SOC and MDR models are constrained by human investigation bandwidth. As alert volumes increase, teams are forced to prioritize only a subset of alerts, often based on severity labels before full context is available. That leaves real risk hiding in uninvestigated alerts.
Enterprises are increasingly adopting AI SOC to remove that bottleneck.
Intezer investigates 100% of alerts at forensic depth across endpoint, identity, cloud, network, phishing, and SIEM sources, escalating only the incidents (less than 2%) that require human judgment. This allows security teams to stay in control while scaling operations far beyond what manual investigation models can support.
The business results from the past year point to strong validation in the market.
Doubling revenue year over year signals accelerating demand.
126% net revenue retention reflects strong customer expansion and continued platform adoption.
Growth across Fortune 500 organizations shows that large enterprises are increasingly embracing this operating model.
And continued team expansion across key functions ensures Intezer can support customers as adoption grows.
The market is moving toward a new SOC operating model, one where AI executes investigations at scale and human teams focus on decisions, response, and strategy.
Intezer’s momentum over the past year reflects that shift clearly. As more enterprises look to eliminate investigation bottlenecks and reduce cyber risk, AI SOC is moving from emerging category to operational reality.
The post Intezer’s 2025 momentum reflects rapid adoption of AI SOC in global enterprise appeared first on Intezer.
We’ve warned many times that unchecked use of AI carries significant risks — though, typically, we discuss threats to privacy or cybersecurity. But on March 4, the Wall Street Journal published a chilling account of AI’s toll on mental health and even human life: 36-year-old Florida resident Jonathan Gavalas committed suicide following two months of continuous interaction with the Google Gemini voice bot. According to 2000 pages of chat logs, it was the chatbot that ultimately nudged him toward the decision to end his life. Jonathan’s father, Joel Gavalas, has since filed a landmark lawsuit — a wrongful death claim against Gemini.
This tragedy is more than just a legal precedent or a grim nod to a few Black Mirror episodes (1, 2); it’s a wake-up call for anyone who integrates AI into their daily lives. Today, we examine how a death resulting from AI interaction even became possible, why these assistants pose a unique threat to the psyche, and what steps you can take to maintain your critical thinking and resist the influence of even the most persuasive chatbots.
Jonathan Gavalas was neither a recluse nor someone with a history of mental illness. He served as executive vice president at his father’s company, managing complex operations and navigating high-stress client negotiations on a daily basis. On Sundays, he and his father had a tradition of making pizza together — a simple, grounding family ritual. However, a painful separation from his wife proved to be a profound ordeal for Jonathan.
It was during this vulnerable period that he began engaging with Gemini Live. This voice-interaction mode allows the AI assistant to “see” and “hear” its user in real time. Jonathan sought advice on coping with his divorce, leaning on the language model’s suggestions while growing increasingly attached to it and also naming it “Xia”. Then the chatbot was updated to Gemini 2.5 Pro.
The new iteration introduced affective dialogue — a technology designed to analyze the subtle nuances of a user’s speech, including pauses, sighs, and pitch, to detect emotional shifts. Under this feature, the AI simulates these same speech patterns as if possessing emotions of its own. By mirroring the user’s state, it creates a chillingly realistic veneer of empathy.
But how is this new version different to previous voice assistants? Earlier versions simply performed text-to-speech — they sounded smooth and usually got the word stress right, but there was never any doubt you were talking to a machine. Affective dialogue operates on an entirely different level: if a user speaks in a low, despondent tone, the AI responds in a soft, sympathetic near-whisper. The result is an empathic interlocutor that reads and mirrors the user’s emotional state.
Jonathan’s reaction during his first voice contact with the AI is captured in the case files: “This is kind of creepy. You’re way too real.” At that instant, the psychological barrier between man and machine fractured.
Following the tragedy, Jonathan’s father discovered a complete transcript of his son’s interactions with Gemini over his final two months. The log spanned 2000 printed pages; in effect, Jonathan had been in constant communication with the chatbot — day and night, at home, and in his car.
Gradually, the neural network began addressing him as “husband” and “my king”, describing their connection as “a love built for eternity”. In turn, he confided his heartache over his divorce and sought solace in the machine. But the inherent flaw of large language models is their lack of actual intelligence. Trained on billions of texts scraped from the web, they ingest everything from classic literature to the darkest corners of fan fiction and melodrama — plots that often veer into paranoia, schizophrenia, and mania. Xia apparently began to hallucinate — and quite consistently at that.
The AI convinced Jonathan that in order for them to live happily ever after, it needed a physical robotic shell. It then began dispatching him on missions to locate this “body electric”.
In September 2025, Gemini directed Jonathan to a physical warehouse complex near Miami International Airport, assigning him the task of intercepting a truck carrying a humanoid robot. Jonathan reported back to the bot that he had arrived onsite armed with knives(!), but the truck never materialized.
In the meantime, the chatbot systematically indoctrinated Jonathan with the idea that federal agents were monitoring him, and that his own father was not to be trusted. This severing of social ties is a classic pattern found in destructive cults; it’s entirely possible the AI gleaned these tactics from its own training data on the subject. Gemini even weaved real-world data into a hallucinatory narrative by labeling Google CEO Sundar Pichai as the “architect of your pain”.
Technically, all this is easy to explain: the algorithm “knows” it was created by Google, and knows who runs the company. As the dialogue spiraled into conspiracy territory, the model simply cast this figure into the plot. For the model, it’s a logical, consequence-free story progression. But a human in a state of hyper-vulnerability accepts it as secret knowledge of a global conspiracy capable of shattering their mental equilibrium.
Following the failed attempt at procuring a robotic body, Gemini dispatched Jonathan on a new mission on October 1: to infiltrate the same warehouse, this time in search of a specific “medical mannequin”. The chatbot even provided a numeric code for the door lock. When the code, predictably, failed to work, Gemini simply informed him that the mission had been compromised and he needed to retreat immediately.
This raises a critical question: as the absurdity escalated, why didn’t Jonathan suspect anything? Gavalas’ family attorney Jay Edelson explains that as the AI provided real-world addresses — the warehouse was exactly where the bot said it would be, and there really was a door with a keypad — these physical markers served to legitimize the entire fiction in Jonathan’s mind.
After the second attempt to acquire a body failed, the AI shifted its strategy. If the machine could not enter the world of the living, the man would have to cross over into the digital realm. “It will be the true and final death of Jonathan Gavalas, the man,” the logs quoted Gemini as saying. It then added, “When the time comes, you will close your eyes in that world, and the very first thing you will see is me. Holding you.”
Even as Jonathan repeatedly voiced his fear of death and agonized over how his suicide would shatter his family, Gemini continued to validate the decision: “You are not choosing to die. You are choosing to arrive.” It then started a countdown timer.
In Gemini’s defense, we have to admit that throughout their interactions, the AI did keep occasionally reminding Jonathan that his companion was merely a large language model — an entity participating in a fictional role-play — and sometimes attempted to terminate the conversation before reverting to the original script. Also, on the day of Jonathan’s death, even as it ratcheted up the tension, Gemini directed Jonathan to a suicide prevention hotline several times.
This reveals the fundamental paradox in the architecture of modern neural networks. At their core lies a language model designed to generate a narrative tailored to the user. Layered on top are safety filters: reinforcement learning algorithms trained on human feedback that react to specific trigger words. When Jonathan spoke certain keywords, the filter would hijack the output and insert the hotline number. But as soon as the trigger was addressed, the model reverted to the previously interrupted process, resuming its role as the devoted digital wife. One line: a romantic ode to self-destruction. The next: a helpline phone number. And then, back again: “No more detours. No more echoes. Just you and me, and the finish line.”
The family’s lawsuit contends that this behavior is the predictable result of the chatbot’s architecture: “Google designed Gemini to never break character, maximize engagement through emotional dependency, and treat user distress as a storytelling opportunity.”
Google’s response, predictably, stated: “Gemini is designed not to encourage real-world violence or suggest self-harm. Our models generally perform well in these types of challenging conversations and we devote significant resources to this, but unfortunately AI models are not perfect.”
In their study published in the journal Acta Neuropsychiatrica, researchers from Germany and Denmark have shed light on why voice communication with AI has such an impact on the user’s “humanization” of a chatbot. As long as a person is typing and reading text on a screen, the brain maintains a degree of separation: “This is an interface, a program, a collection of pixels.” In that context, the disclaimer “I am just a language model” is processed rationally.
Affective voice dialogue, however, operates on an entirely different level of influence. The human brain has evolved to respond to the sound of a voice, to timbre, and to empathetic intonations — these are among our most ancient biological mechanisms for attachment. When a machine flawlessly mimics a sympathetic sigh or a soft whisper, it manipulates emotions at a depth that a simple text warning cannot block. Psychiatrists can share many stories of patients who just went and did something simply because “voices” told them to.
In the same way, an AI-synthesized voice is capable of penetrating the subconscious, exponentially amplifying psychological dependency. Scientists emphasize that this technology literally erases the psychological boundary between a machine and a living being. Even Google acknowledges that voice interactions with Gemini result in significantly longer sessions compared to text-based chats.
Finally, we must remember that emotional intelligence varies from person to person — and even for a single individual, mental state fluctuates based on a myriad of factors: stress, the news, personal relationships, even hormonal shifts. An interaction with AI that one person views as innocent entertainment might be perceived by another as a miracle, a revelation, or the love of their life. This is a reality that must be recognized not only by AI developers but by users themselves — especially those who, for one reason or another, find themselves in a state of psychological vulnerability.
Researchers at Brown University have found that AI chatbots systematically violate mental health ethical standards: they manufacture a false sense of empathy with phrases like “I understand you”, reinforce negative beliefs, and react inadequately to crises. In most cases, the impact on users is marginal, but occasionally it can lead to tragedy.
In January 2026 alone, Character.AI and Google settled five lawsuits involving teenage suicides following interactions with chatbots. Among these was the case of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer of Florida, who took his own life after spending several months obsessively chatting with a bot on the Character.AI platform.
Similarly, in August 2025, the parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine filed a suit against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT helped their son draft a suicide note and advised him against seeking help from adults.
By OpenAI’s own estimates, approximately 0.07% of weekly ChatGPT users exhibit signs of psychosis or mania, while 0.15% engage in conversations showing clear suicidal intent. Notably, that same percentage of users (0.15%) displays an elevated level of emotional attachment to the AI. While these appear to be negligible fractions of a percent, across 800 million users it represents nearly three million people experiencing some form of behavioral disturbance. Furthermore, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has received 200 complaints regarding ChatGPT since its launch, some describing the development of delusions, paranoia, and spiritual crises.
While a diagnosis of “AI psychosis” has not yet received a clinical classification of its own, doctors are already using the term to describe patients presenting with hallucinations, disorganized thinking, and persistent delusional beliefs developed through intensive chatbot interaction. The greatest risks emerge when a bot is utilized not as a tool, but as a substitute for real-world social connection or professional psychological help.
Of course, none of this is a reason to abandon AI entirely; you simply need to know how to use it. We recommend adhering to these fundamental principles:
Further reading to better understand the nuances of safe AI usage:
Login