The article argues that much of the fear around “AI‑powered cybercrime” is exaggerated. While reports and headlines often suggest attackers are already conducting large‑scale, autonomous campaigns driven by AI, the reality is more mundane: most cyberattacks still rely on traditional methods, and the use of AI by criminals tends to be limited to support tasks (like code refinement, reconnaissance or phishing messaging), not full‑blown automated attacks.
That said, the article acknowledges that AI is being used in some cases — for example, to assist in generating malicious scripts, perhaps tailoring phishing attempts or social‑engineering messages more convincingly. But such examples remain rare, not evidence of a broad trend. The challenge for defenders remains the same: many cybercriminal groups already have sophisticated pipelines of their own, and for now human expertise still outperforms what AI can deliver in real‑world attacks.
The bigger risk from AI, according to the piece, isn’t necessarily a sudden flood of futuristic “AI hackers,” but a gradual shift: AI can enable cybercrime to scale, become more efficient, or support more convincing social‑engineering. For defenders, the focus should be on strengthening visibility, reducing exposure, and using evidence-based strategies rather than responding to sensational or speculative claims about “AI‑powered armies of hackers.”
In short, while AI does add new capabilities to the cyber‑threat landscape, the article urges caution against overstating its current role — advocating for a realistic, measured response rather than alarmism.
