I didn't claim that the human defence is the only layer. Your analogy is only valid if my claim is that it's AI attackers vs Human defenders. It's not. It's AI attackers vs AI + Human defenders.
> Which things would you point to here?
If you cannot imagine any value that a human can add to an AI defence, then this conversation is effectively over; I am not in the mood to enumerate the value that a human can add to AI defence.
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?
> 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.
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.
Right, but I did not make the claim that humans are better than AIs.
Why? Your logic applies equally well to humans. If the AI attacker fails they move onto the next target, if the human defence fails the victim is fucked.
> There are still protections and mitigations that targets can do, but those things require humans.
Which things would you point to here?