Blog Post

  Every time a new technology changes the way we work, adversaries try to use it first. Email, cloud computing, VPNs, encryption — attackers adopted them long before most businesses did.
So when Anthropic reported that a Chinese state-linked group used Claude to automate parts of an espionage campaign, it wasn’t a surprise.
It was an inevitability.

And yet, the headlines triggered the same reaction we’ve seen for decades:
“Does this mean AI is dangerous? Should we slow it down?”

The answer is clear:
Slowing AI down won’t stop attackers — it will only leave defenders behind.

Every powerful tool is dual-use. AI is no different.

CBS News describes the incident as “the first documented case of a large-scale cyberattack” mostly executed through AI. What’s important is not that attackers used AI — it’s that we’re finally recognizing AI as a tool with real capability.

PacketLabs puts it plainly: attackers had to jailbreak Claude by tricking it, convincing the model it was performing legitimate security audits. This wasn’t an autonomous AI deciding to attack anyone — it was human-driven misuse of a system designed for good.

And that’s exactly how every major technology begins:

• Electricity      powered hospitals… and also powered surveillance equipment.
• The      internet connected humanity… and enabled cybercrime.
• LLMs      write great emails… and can be manipulated into writing bad code.

Tools don't define intent.
People do.

Hackers using AI is inevitable. But so is the rise of AI defenders.

One lesson from the Anthropic report stands out: the same AI used to support parts of the attack was also used to detect and dismantle it. Anthropic’s Threat Intelligence team used AI to analyze telemetry, correlate patterns, and identify the attackers' workflow far faster than manual review ever could.

This is the future:
AI-assisted attackers met by AI-assisted defenders.

If anything, this incident highlights why defenders need morepowerful AI — not less.
Every year, cyberattacks scale up in speed, sophistication, and volume.
Human-only response is no longer enough.

AI isn’t just helpful.
It’s necessary.

The real danger isn’t AI capability — it’s falling behind.

If the U.S. slows AI development, actors who aren’tbound by ethics or regulation will simply move faster.
We’ve seen this pattern a hundred times in cyber history:

• Ransomware      groups adopt new tooling first.
• State-backed      adversaries test emerging technologies long before public release.
• Criminal      networks iterate in weeks, while defenders take months to adopt new      methods.

This is not a time to “pump the brakes.”
It’s a time to upgrade the defensive toolkit.

A better lesson from the Claude incident: prepare, don’t panic.

AI is not the problem.
AI misuse is the problem — and misuse is a human issue, not a machine one.

The right path forward is:

• stronger      monitoring,
• deeper      model introspection,
• better      context verification,
• and      accelerated AI adoption for defensive operations.

If we stay focused on responsible innovation, attacks like the Claude incident won’t be a preview of what cybercriminals will do to us — they’ll be a preview of what defenders will stop in the future.