8.17 - The Soap Opera That AI Created

Speaker A: Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Security Noise, where we cut through the static and get to what really matters in information security. On today's episode, uh, we're going to wrap up the season with a little bit of fun. Uh, we're going to have the uh, soap opera that AI created, not rope, mind you created. We'll be, uh, discussing the whole trial that uh, recently concluded and I think probably a very unsatisfying ending for most folks between, uh, Elon OpenAI and some other folks there. And today, of course, we are also joined by Alex Hammerstone, longtime guest of the show over the years. Happy to have you back, Alex. Care to say hi?

Speaker B: Great to be back. Great to see everybody.

Speaker A: All right, well, as usual, we'll do just a little bit of quick, uh, information security. In case you missed it, there has been another local privilege exploit on Windows 11, uh, that apparently was affecting fully patched systems. I believe, uh, updates are going out on the uh, May 26th patch Tuesday. So hopefully, as long as you have updates enabled and haven't played any, uh, strange games with group policy, you should be uh, okay in the near future. But that is uh, actually a reassert, resurface or regression of CVE 20002017 103. Uh, so this was actually patched in the past and kind of came back to the world somehow, uh, through some sort of regression and other patches in the Windows, uh, ecosystem there. And anyway, uh, seems to allow you to go from a ordinary user to system. So, you know, great, great exploit if you've got that uh, running and you're trying to figure out how to, how to get, uh, some elevated privileges in your Windows environment, I guess for uh, all you red, uh, teamers and offensive, uh, operators out there. All right, well, as I said, our main topic today is the soap opera that the whole OpenAI Fun alliance trial thing that's been going on has played out. Um, I think a lot of people were watching this one with bated breath because certainly the potential to change the ownership, literally, uh, of OpenAI and some other things could have had some really significant impacts I think, for the ecosystem and the markets and everything around what's happening right now in the whole world of frontier models. However, what began with a bang and ended with a whimper. And not to ruin the ending, but the jury decided pretty quickly that uh, the statute of limitations to raise, uh, the issue had expired. And that's kind of where things ended. I don't know exactly what the avenues for appeal and if there will be any are uh, so, you know, we may see this one come back to life yet, but, uh, so far it looks like, uh, it may be in the rearview mirror. But to provide just a little bit of Backstory, um, between 2015 and 2018, there was an alliance around OpenAI. Uh, this was started in 2015 by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Greg Brackman, and some others, uh, to create the nonprofit AI lab. Uh, Musk's claim during the trial essentially was that he was promised OpenAI was going to remain a nonprofit, that, uh, AGI, or General AI would benefit humanity broadly and that the technology would not become closed source in corporate property. Open API eventually created a capped profit structure in 2019 to raise an enormous amount of capital, uh, that they needed for AI training. The structural change became the core of the later lawsuit. Uh, in 2023, Musk launches his, uh, Xai, in other words, his own company, as part of his X Corp, uh, empire after leaving OpenAI years earlier. And X basically became a significant rival with the release of Grok in 2023. Uh, so that kind of brought us up at least to the beginning of the trial. Skyler. Alex, any comments on all of that?

Speaker B: Seems like a fairly thorough description. Although one has to wonder, I mean, if you're the richest man on Earth, probably are pretty decent attorneys, if they may have kind of mentioned that the statute of limitations may have been an issue and choose to kind of bring that anyway just to kind of air out all these grievances in the open and make them public.

Speaker C: Yeah, it did seem like it was pretty, um, planned, this whole thing. Something tells me that they already knew about the statute of limitations. But like you said, Alex, I think it was more like we're doing this to bring things out to the public more than winning a suit.

Speaker A: Well, that's an interesting take. See, I guess I've been kind of watching this under the assumption that, you know, Elon was actually hoping to put his hands on one of the most valuable companies on Earth, but I'm sure he wanted to.

Speaker C: That would have been icing on the cake.

Speaker A: Okay. Okay. Yeah. I mean, maybe it is just, uh, for an airing of grievances, because one of the things that came out of this trial, I think we all learned that these men are not friends. Alex, maybe you want to share some of the better quotes from all that.

Speaker B: I, uh, would absolutely agree that they're not friends. I think the vitriol has been pretty, uh, out in the open there online on, uh, the various social media platforms. Uh, it's certainly Been, I think a story that everybody's been following just because it's AI is really the conversation that's all over the place. But it's really just been fascinating to watch. And I think it's one of those things where the right thing and the legal thing are, uh, oftentimes aligned, but not always. And so even if it may be legal for me to somehow steal your bicycle and kind of end up with it, it doesn't make it the right thing. So I think that's one of the interesting conversations as well, is, you know, you know, the legality versus the, you know, is it the right thing to do? Is it the ethical thing to do? And the honest thing to do certainly may be in convergence here.

Speaker A: Yeah. So, I mean, just to. Just to return to some of those quotes, some of the allegations that were actually in the lawsuit itself were that OpenAI betrayed its commitment to its nonprofit mission. The company abandoned the benefit of humanity promises. GPT4 became effectively a Microsoft proprietary technology. And of course, Altman and Brockman deceived Elon, uh, in the funding of OpenAI. Some of the other quotes that kind of came out of the trial is, you know, Elon was accused of having selective amnesia or selective memory. Sam Altman was, I believe, asked point blank if he's honest. I mean, this is about as close as you can get to, you know, pointing at somebody in open court and screaming liar in their face without the judge throwing you out of the room. So I thought that was just kind of very interesting. I mean, you could, you could just feel the sort of vitry all bubbling under it all.

Speaker C: I do. Like, one of the quotes was that OpenAI called this whole thing fake takeover bid designed to disrupt OpenAI's future. Like, that quote alone is kind of where I stood on the whole. This was not about taking over. This was about just measuring aspects, uh, between powerful rich men.

Speaker B: I do think, as an aside, it also gives any aspiring attorneys kind of a, um, an incorrect look into what the legal profession may be like, right? Where I think a lot of people imagine themselves in the open court, you know, arguing and yelling insults and having a good time like this, when most of it's probably pretty boring, contract review and things like that. So I was like to throw that out there, uh, especially. Cause you talk to kids about their careers and stuff, and they think law would be fascinating and so on and so forth. But I think it's important to know that most of it's not like this, right? Most of it's, uh, other types of conversations and reviewing a lot of documentation. So it's not necessarily always like, uh, um, you know, CSI and uh, Matlock.

Speaker C: Oh, no, I'm going. Yeah, well, okay, Matlock, I'm going. Southern time lawyer. You know, I say so.

Speaker A: Well, you know, there was a bit of that, you know, as they moved into discovery, you know, as this thing progressed. And I think that was probably in like, uh, you know, the earlier 2024 phase of this OpenAI did hit back and they produced some emails that, you know, showed, you know, Musk had once suggested Tesla could acquire OpenAI. Musk wanted majority control. I mean, essentially making the argument that, you know, he was always for commercialization as long as it was him doing the commercializing. And then of course, later that fall, that's when the, you know, lawsuit escalated and ended up with a whole new slew of defendants, including Microsoft, um, Reid Hoffman and some others. So I think there was kind of that, that Matlock element, you know, people bringing out the emails. But wait, there's more.

Speaker B: I think, I think I'd be pretty upset if we started a nonprofit and I funded it and some years later it became a very large for profit company. I can, I can certainly understand those feelings.

Speaker A: So, uh, you know, one of the interesting things and you know, is the way this ended, uh, one, like you mentioned, Alex, you, you would think that, you know, Elon can afford some decent attorneys that, you know, would have seen this and been able to tell him, you know, before the, this thing even went to court, what the likely outcome was going to be. But I don't even know that they have to be that good attorney attorneys is, you know, I'm not an attorney, but I have friends who are and kind of one of these really, really broad legal concepts and, you know, applies whether you're, you're talking about real estate or patents or anything like that is, you know, if there is some sort of infringement and you don't do anything about it for years, then it's much, much harder to go to court and seek any kind of relief and actually get it. And so it does kind of, kind of surprises me that, that, you know, no one said, hey, hey, maybe we should not do this, because you probably don't want all this dirty laundry aired in public either, and you're not going to win.

Speaker C: Yeah, but something tells me when you're on this level of the C suite, lawyers, advisements are, uh, taken into consideration, but are not always followed. Sometimes it's just like, I wanted to do this. Thanks for your input. I'M going to do it anyway.

Speaker B: I think that's true at our level too, though, right? I mean, because you always feel like a good attorney will tell you when it's not worth spending your money and kind of guide you that way, certainly just anecdotally. And knowing people, whether it's in family court or, you know, various, you know, land and property disputes, they may very well be told by an attorney that's a losing case, but they just want to go for it anyway.

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, there's definitely more motivations than just justice.

Speaker A: Yeah, well, and I mean, that's again, because I think in this particular case, you know, we really see that none of these people look good here. You know, I mean, some of Musk's arguments when he kind of escalated this whole thing in late 2024, especially after Microsoft became a dependent or, I mean, a co defendant was OpenAI was suppressing competitors, discharging investment in rivals like Xai or discouraging investment. So, you know, contract interference, coordinating market dominance. And of course, none of those questions actually got resolved, by the way this case ended up getting resolved. But I think you do come away from this and, you know, having read some of those things, yeah, you know, they probably did do that. So, I mean, to some extent, yes, Musk got that out and that is maybe to his benefit and maybe why he did it, you know, from the kind of just get justice perspective there. But at the same time, it's hard not to look at this and go, you know, Elon, this whole thing made you look a, like kind of an idiot. And I don't know why he would

Speaker C: want to do that without getting into, you know, unpopular opinions. But I think there is a level of maybe blindness when it comes to individuals like this where they have their sights set on a particular outcome and that's, that's going to be their charge until the final say is, or, uh, you know, let's say the final hammer drops one way or the other. So that it's, it's a mission. They're, they're out to either complete it or fail, but they're not going to pull out just because they look unpopular at the time. I think that's how I feel Elon is handling, uh, this right now.

Speaker B: Well, and Jeff, it's. My New Year's resolution was to stop using any kind of sarcasm. And I've made it till May 20 without using any sarcasm.

Speaker A: So, boy, oh, boy.

Speaker B: What I was, what I would have said, though, prior to my resolution is,

Speaker A: jeff, do you know, wait A minute.

Speaker B: Like, do you have access to the Internet, Jeff? Like, yeah, I mean, just. I mean, I think daily or weekly, you know, we see very famous people and, you know, certain people we may be talking about make, you know, kind of a, let's just say, interesting statements online. So I don't know if not wanting to look a certain way is, um, going to be a motivator for, uh, you know, not doing certain things.

Speaker A: All right, Alex, I'm just going to call it, you know, your New Year's resolution there is just completely baked. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: Disagree, disagree.

Speaker A: You can't, you can't say. I'm not going to use sarcasm, but

Speaker B: if I was, I qualified it. I'll speak in the third person then, if that helps. I was being facetious sarcastic. How about that?

Speaker A: That's about as solid as, uh, Elon's arguments in this case. But so. Well, okay, so, you know, OpenAI, of course, you know, framed this their way as, you know, him being jealous of their success, attempting to, you know, weaponize the courts against them. Um, you know, basically just trying to interfere in general, from what you guys saw of the news as this came out, who, who did win this one in the court of public opinion,

Speaker D: or

Speaker A: does just everybody look terrible?

Speaker B: Public opinion at this point, I honestly, without editorializing, I think people.

Speaker A: Well, Alex, you're here to editorialize.

Speaker B: Well, people will form their opinion based on the person. Right? Um, so the winner to anybody is whoever you preferred prior to hearing any of this evidence. That's kind of the way it is, right? I mean, do you really think anyone's mind was changed? Do we think that prior to this case, anybody, you know, felt a certain way and then saw this evidence and now, you know, took the other side? I would doubt it. Right. So I think, you know, if you're an Elon fan, you probably feel like Elon came out ahead, and if you're a Sam Altman fan, you probably feel like Sam Altman came out ahead, is my guess. I mean, it's, you know, not. Not unlike, uh, a lot of things you see in political debates and things like that.

Speaker A: So I guess I would just like to go on record then and saying, personally, you know, my feelings are we'd all be better off if both Sam Altman and Elon were placed on one of those SpaceX rockets and fired into the sun. I'll just leave it there. It's not fair to the sun.

Speaker C: It's not fair to the sun.

Speaker B: It's unfortunate, right? It's unfortunate when you see people arguing and not getting along and you know, obviously it's such a large part of the economy at this point. Who knows how long that will last. But you know, it's also, I was just kind of thinking earlier today, um, is. But look at the other things, right? If you kind of studied the history of like the oil industry in the United States, right? Or you study the history of the car industry and you know, it kind of, it's emerging and you see, you know, or the railroad industry.

Speaker A: Well, there's big personalities and all those, right?

Speaker B: You've got these big personalities that even a hundred plus years later we still, you know, hear about, we talk about. And you know, if you read about, you know, Standard Oil and kind of Rockefeller or whatever it is, right, Any of these new emergency, emergency, uh, emerging large industries tend to have these larger than life characters that are, you know, fighting and battling for control and so on and so forth. And even if, you know, you kind of, uh, change your legacy at the end, uh, to fund a bunch of libraries, you still, you know, if you look back at the history of how this stuff happens, you know, I remember my grandmother took me to see the Tucker movie right, when I was little and kind of just, you know, and whether that's completely historically accurate or not, just seeing how with any industry this large, you see people getting boxed out and you know, battles for control, it's not unusual, it's not new. History repeats itself. You know, it's not like they're. This didn't happen, you know, repeatedly throughout history with large, uh, lucrative new industries. Well, I've been. Probably my point, that's rare.

Speaker A: I can't argue with any of that because it's, it's, it's accurate. I mean, again, when you, when you think about these big personalities and how often it really was disputes and rivalries between some of these, these characters that, that really did kind of shape our reality. Um, I guess let's, let's then jump to maybe some exploration of alternate realities because that might be fun. You know, Elon was asking the court to do was, you know, to remove Altman and Brockman from the board, reversal of their corporate restructuring on the part of OpenAI and you know, obviously award massive financial damages and turn them into, uh, a nonprofit again. I think those are kind of, uh, the big things. So that could have been, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars. It would have been $100 billion, I think, just in damages that they were asking for. What would that have done to the current frontier model landscape? I mean, would the big winner have actually been anthropic. Maybe Google.

Speaker B: I think you need to back the train up, too, though, and talk about what is and isn't a nonprofit. Right. And, you know, calling your profit a surplus instead of a profit. And, you know, certainly a lot of nonprofits out there with incredibly highly paid executives and, you know, or have, you know, commercial products and things like that. So I think that's the other thing, too, that's probably kind of beyond the scope of our conversation here is, you know, when people nonprofit, you know, they think about somebody that's, you know, donating their time to save puppies. Right? It's. But a lot of nonprofits are really, except on paper, indistinguishable from large businesses.

Speaker A: I mean, I guess the piece of that, though, is a, uh, nonprofit is governed by some kind of charter that should be directing the decisions that. That the board is making now. I don't know, you know, that. That always occurs. And, you know, certainly you do see some of these big executive salaries at some of these nonprofits kind of left going, well, is it really a charity?

Speaker B: Then there's also the argument, why. I mean, if it's a $10 billion nonprofit and someone's running it, then, you know, commensurate with, you know, a $10 billion for profit. But I guess my point is, though, just that I think people hear nonprofit and, you know, they. They kind of assign their own preconceived notions to what that means. Right.

Speaker C: You know, they're kind of associated with just charity.

Speaker B: With charity. Right. Um, and so I. And I think that's certainly not the case. So I just think that's a point worth mentioning. Right. So if you're. When especially something that's kind of a foundational term of the whole argument and court case and argument or, you know, what have you, it's just important that people kind of think about what that means. Right. So what is a nonprofit? What are the restrictions? How do they. How are they structured and things like that? Is that. Is that the pause because I'm an idiot or a pause because it's. I made you think.

Speaker E: Both.

Speaker B: Thinking I'm an idiot because you've known me for.

Speaker C: What does that say? If the idiot made you think?

Speaker B: Right. You came in here with that. With that notion. You already knew.

Speaker A: That says that I'm an idiot, too.

Speaker B: I've been earning that reputation from you for 15 years now.

Speaker C: To kind of circle back to your question, Jeff, I think one of the things that could have been a, uh, I would think A major outcome would be kind of dissolving the public's trust in new coming AI companies. Uh, I, I think if getting to see a, a battle like this between, you know, CEO company titans, whatever you want to call them, um, if it resulted in something that would differ from public opinion, then, then yeah, anything that comes down the pipe, whether it be the public's trust in those new companies or the companies themselves not being able to trust the industry.

Speaker B: I mean, when I was a kid, I had a 300 piece chemistry set from Kmart, but I'm not a chemist, but I don't think you can dissolve something that wasn't there. So I, I, I don't know, I don't know that you were starting with a public perception of trusting these companies.

Speaker A: Well, this is an AI search answer because I was curious to Google this while you were talking about it. Here, here's AI talking about the public's trust in AI polling indicates that 77% of Americans do not trust companies to use AI responsibly.

Speaker B: So again, not, as I said, I just, you know, I mean my, I mean as I said, I'm not a chemist, but only you can dissolve. It doesn't exist. So if the trust wasn't there before, you know, I don't know if this, if this, you know, would have necessarily dissolved that trust.

Speaker C: Fair enough. And I think both of you just made the same point.

Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if I trust that statistic. It was AI generated.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker C: But no, I, I, we were talking the, the hypotheticals here. If, if that payout actually happened, or let's, let's do another hypothetical. Let's say they ruled in favor of Musk and they got to acquire OpenAI. What would the ramifications be of that? Not just public trust, but what, what do you think would come of that?

Speaker A: So the reason I was watching this one was because, and uh, and I think we may be seeing some of this anyway, the data centers, right? There has been this very circular flow of money where, you know, Nvidia is investing in OpenAI to spend on data centers to fill with Nvidia hardware. And you know, around and around she goes. And I was generally curious because, you know, X, uh, to some degree kind of does their own thing with, with some hardware and some other stuff that I was very curious to see what it was going to do to a lot of those contracts and when those dominoes start falling, what that was going to do to various commercial real estate contracts and lending and stuff around there. I Thought there was not exactly a, you know, 2008 type mortgage crisis or anything like that there, but it certainly had the potential to undo a lot of NASDAQ gains over the last, uh, six, six, eight months.

Speaker C: Sure.

Speaker A: And I think that would have been probably quite confident shattering for anybody who's watching their 401k and stuff like that. That may have had broader geo political effects too that get, get us way out of just AI land. That that's was kind of my, my take on the whole thing.

Speaker B: And why for anyone in a nonprofit, their 503B could be the non nonprofit equivalent. Yeah, no, no. Laughter I mean, what is this?

Speaker A: All good, good, good. Good to know.

Speaker C: Um, what great anecdotal data. Alex.

Speaker B: Yes. Is it right? Is it wrong? I don't know. I don't know.

Speaker A: Is it? I've never worked at a nonprofit, honestly,

Speaker B: uh, so I'm not either, believe it or not.

Speaker A: And yet you, you knew that obscure investment tax shelter fact.

Speaker B: I am a voracious consumer of printed media, Jeff.

Speaker A: That's why we have him on the show, folks. We need something more reliable than A.I. we brought you, Alex. Say what you will. Yeah, so I mean, as far as counterfactuals go, that, that's, that was my thought experiment there and I, I think the would have been interesting is it would have maybe taken a lot of what Microsoft is doing kind of out of play because clearly Microsoft has probably got OpenAI models wired pretty deeply into the services they're offering. Obviously you can run whatever models and stuff you want on Azure and certainly there are AI agnostic ways to or model agnostic ways to do that and protocol agnostic ways to do that. So it wouldn't have been, you know, completely upside downing things for customers that are building things on those platforms, but stuff like Copilot that has gotten wired into everything, you know, that partnership had been put in some sort of legal jeopardy or forced to dissolve. I think that would have probably had impacts that consumers felt on the desktop, if you will as well. And that would have been kind of interesting just to see how that played out. But now we don't get to so. And if you really like Copilot, then congratulations.

Speaker C: I so far I have not heard a single person be like, I really like Copilot. So I don't know.

Speaker A: Well, we should, we should caveat that with the fact that, you know, Microsoft has branded everything Copilot. And I'm with you, Skyler. I haven't heard anybody say anything positive about the desktop Copilot. Experience but you know, people do like some of the, you know, copilot studio layer stuff in Office365 and, and things like that that you know, are more targeted to corporate IT and stuff.

Speaker B: Uh, what happens if the FAA approves single pilot cockpits and there are no longer any copilots? And then the term copilot implies redundancy.

Speaker D: Ow.

Speaker B: Microsoft never changes names of stuff. Right?

Speaker A: Yeah, I uh, was going to say there's, there's etymological term for that. Obviously copilot, you could just say it becomes an anachronism but there is some other word there. It's just not coming to me.

Speaker C: Copilot's advancement into aviation, we'll just turn it into no pilot. We'll just have self flying commercial planes.

Speaker B: But isn't the pilot then the software or is that too philosophical for us here?

Speaker C: M. Yeah, I'll have to look uh, at the copilot code, get back to you on that.

Speaker A: I mean we have self driving cars. Why not self writing documents and word.

Speaker B: Well, there's a. So I read a thing and it's one of those facts that I want to be true so I'm not going to bother looking into it. But I read on one of the Airbus's Airbus model planes that the auto landing is so good they had to introduce randomness so that it wouldn't hit the exact place on the Runway every time because it was, you know, causing damage. So I don't know if that's true, but it's just, I think it's, you know, pilots are obviously essential and do great work and are, you know, highly necessary. But it does seem like in, you know, some large majority of cases, the, the plane probably could fly itself. I wouldn't get on one, but at least land itself. At least the auto land, yes. Which is right. I mean it's one of those things, right? It can do it in normal conditions but unfortunately normal conditions are I would

Speaker C: say if anything, landing would be one of the most important things it could do by itself.

Speaker B: That's true.

Speaker A: I mean I've never heard that either. But I also want it to be true and I mean I do kind of believe it because I mean if you've ever been in, you know, one of the Fords with self parallel parking or something, I mean it does way better than I can.

Speaker B: I. So I will say, not to get off topic, but I drove a car when I was a teenager, had a fiberglass front end and our school only had parallel parking because it was in a kind of a weird location. So I had to parallel park every day with a car with zero margin for error with the front end. So, um, I think I'm decent at parallel parking.

Speaker C: Nice. And that was before backup cameras. Well done.

Speaker B: That was before backup cameras. Although technology has gotten so amazing, my car has, like, a really cool feature where whenever you put it in reverse, it shows a video of a car backing over a shopping cart

Speaker C: as a warning

Speaker A: joke.

Speaker C: Didn't land with me.

Speaker A: My bad.

Speaker B: I'm fine. And I'm backing over a shopping cart. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry. Well, he wasn't.

Speaker C: Don't worry, I will.

Speaker B: It would have been.

Speaker A: It would have been better if you got a dog, but that's not.

Speaker B: I mean that. You can't say that. Um, what is on a podcast? Not a family podcast like this.

Speaker A: Is this a family show?

Speaker C: We're a family.

Speaker B: I think so. I believe the children are the future, and so we want them to, you know, watch these types of things and learn.

Speaker C: True, true. Kids, eat your vegetables.

Speaker A: Listen to your trusted tech podcast.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: All right, well, I think we've run

Speaker C: this topic into the ground.

Speaker A: Yeah, I, I think that was our AI soap opera for the week.

Speaker B: I'm sure it's only a record length podcast for one topic.

Speaker C: Maybe probably up there.

Speaker B: I mean, for us, I don't know.

Speaker C: I'm gonna have to find an episode where we just talked about one thing for like an hour.

Speaker B: I mean, I'll keep talking if this

Speaker A: will get the record, some of the, some of the red team episodes and stuff like that. We've, uh, waxed poetic longer than this, but I think we probably should save a few minutes here to, uh, say goodbye, uh, to this season with some of those clips and moments from the year so far.

Speaker C: All right, everybody bow your heads. We're going to do a clip show.

Speaker A: I blame Elsie.

Speaker C: So how long have you been training this LLM or working on it? Hang on.

Speaker A: Hey, Scott.

Speaker B: I didn't know I was joining the show today.

Speaker A: Yeah, so we obviously tried to catfish you there. Um, did it work?

Speaker B: Well, whatever it was, it was pretty bad.

Speaker D: The innovation that's happened over the past six months in AI has just been truly transformational. I mean, I use it for literally everything now. That thing scares the living heck out of me. And then created this, the signal bot that, um, I called Jarvis, obviously, because you have to call an AI Jarvis. But, uh, I can literally have it do anything for me from all the projects that I'm working on from a development perspective. Integrates into my sound system, camera uh, systems, my um, lights at my house so I could be like, Jarvis, it's time for bed and it'll automatically close my garage door, put my security system on, put my cameras into motion, uh, sensor detection and it turns off all my lights in my house, you know, just from a text message.

Speaker B: My goal is to automate every aspect of my job if I can. It'll never happen, but that's my goal.

Speaker C: It still sounds like you're light years ahead of majority of the rest of us.

Speaker B: I like automation. I love automation where appropriate. If you automate everything else, that gives you so much more time to focus on that and the newer attacks or the more complex attacks, you get all that little scruff stuff out of the way and now you can deal with everything else.

Speaker A: So overall, would you say it's a better experience than the past or you missed the casino atmosphere. How's it going? It's hard because it's so big now. Like I was running into people on the hallway still just trying to get by in the village area. Tripled in size, I guess. I'm so used to like my small conference in Grand Rapids. Like it's just, it feels uncomfortable.

Speaker C: It was a case study for one where we basically bypassed IVR voice recognition MHM for bank accounts. And so we were able to utilize AI voice cloning to trick the robots into letting us manage real people's bank accounts.

Speaker E: We're going to have the same situation that we had with offensive tools like uh, when Metasploit came out. I remember being a Metasploit developer writing a bunch of post exploitation modules and all of that stuff. And I remember there were companies that were improving their security, but those were the ones that had the money. And then for everybody else it was a blockback and it's still like that. We release a tool, we release a POC and I would say within 48 hours we can see mass exploitation. Same thing will happen with AI. There's going to be code bases that people will be able to implement those patches. They'll be able to understand what is going on and there's going to be a lot of pain for many others.

Speaker C: Everybody talks about AI and uh, how every product has AI, which makes their product perfect. Son of a thousand points for Chris.

Speaker B: I mean being on being in Black

Speaker C: Hat, I got to hear, I got to see that a lot.

Speaker B: Perfect.

Speaker C: Then I'm gonna do Sarah M. McLaughlin.

Speaker A: All right, well I hope everyone enjoyed uh, some of those moments. Uh, Security Noise is a production of Trusted Sec llc. If your organization has any questions about information security, you can Visit us at www.trustedsec.com. thanks for tuning in. We'll see you back a bit later in the year after our summer vacation. We probably haven't earned it, but we're going to take one anyway.

Speaker C: Heck yeah. Y' all enjoy your summer.

Speaker A: Ciao.