AI Agents in Cybersecurity: A Boon or a Threat to Jobs?

Cybersecurity is a battlefield these days. As threats get more complicated, companies are turning to AI agents to help manage the load. But what does that mean for the workforce? Ask the workers, not the executives.

AI Agents in Action

Huntress, a cybersecurity platform, has rolled out about 20 AI agents to help its security operations center handle threat alerts for 240,000 clients. Eric Stride, the chief security officer, says these agents have cut the workload for their 50-person team significantly, automating what used to be manual investigations.

These AI agents act like supervisors, detecting suspicious activity and triggering a series of automated processes. Stride claims they complete tasks in minutes that would normally take half an hour. The productivity gains went somewhere. Not to wages.

Customer Support Joins In

Over at DNSFilter, AI agents are shaking things up in customer support, too. Led by Mikey Pruitt, the company's AI lab has launched an agent that now handles all Tier 1 tickets. While a human typically manages 35 tickets a week, the AI can handle 60, saving three hours of work time weekly.

Pruitt says the AI agents are a hit with his team, freeing them from mundane tasks. But here's the rub: these agents cost about $15,000 to $16,000 annually, yet perform the work of two full-time employees. So, where does that leave the workforce? Hiring less people is definitely part of the strategy.

The Limits and the Future

Despite these benefits, AI agents aren't foolproof. Stride notes they struggle with vague tasks and need human oversight for high-risk decisions. Pruitt shared that their AI even botched an advisory, telling a customer to bypass a reseller partner. A mistake like that could cause serious damage.

Still, companies are betting big on AI agents, seeing them as a way to scale output without increasing headcount. By the end of the year, Pruitt hopes his team will perform like a team of 500. But let's not forget: automation isn't neutral. It has winners and losers.

So, what's the real cost here? The jobs numbers tell one story. The paychecks tell another. As AI continues to infiltrate the workplace, who pays the cost?