Certified: The GIAC GSLC Audio Course

In this episode, we step into a topic that leaders are forced to make decisions about whether they want to or not: artificial intelligence. The challenge is that many decisions get made in the fog of hype, vendor promises, and fear of missing out, which is a terrible environment for risk governance. Leaders do not need to become data scientists, but they do need a grounded understanding of AI types and capabilities so they can ask the right questions, set reasonable expectations, and build governance that matches real risk. When leaders lack that grounding, they either overtrust outputs and automate decisions that should stay human, or they avoid useful tools entirely because the space feels too uncertain. Both mistakes can be costly. A practical understanding of AI also helps leaders evaluate where AI is already present in the organization, often embedded in products and services without being labeled as such. The goal is to make AI decisions boring in the best way: informed, measured, and tied to outcomes rather than novelty. When governance is grounded, teams can use AI for real value while reducing the risk of harmful or embarrassing failures.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A good starting point is defining a few AI categories in simple terms, because leaders often hear the words used interchangeably even though they imply different capabilities and risks. Machine Learning (M L) is a broad approach where systems learn patterns from data to make predictions or classifications, such as predicting whether an email is spam or classifying network traffic as suspicious. Deep Learning (D L) is a subset of M L that uses many-layered neural networks to learn complex patterns, often performing well in areas like image recognition, speech, and high-dimensional pattern detection. Generative models are systems designed to produce new content, such as text, images, or code, based on patterns learned from training data, and they are the foundation for many modern assistants and content generators. These categories overlap in real products, but the distinctions matter because the failure modes and governance needs differ. A classification model that labels events as benign or malicious creates one kind of risk, while a generative model that writes an explanation or suggests a remediation creates another. Leaders should understand that AI is not a single capability; it is a set of approaches that vary in predictability and controllability. When you define these types clearly, you reduce confusion and improve decision quality.

Machine learning in practical organizational terms is often about ranking, scoring, and classification, which means it is usually used to support decisions rather than to make final decisions. It can be very useful for triage, such as ranking alerts by likelihood of being meaningful, or prioritizing cases for human review. Deep learning often appears when signals are complex and difficult to represent with simpler models, such as analyzing large volumes of telemetry for subtle anomalies or recognizing patterns in unstructured data. Generative models are different because they produce outputs that look coherent even when the underlying reasoning is wrong, which creates a unique governance problem: persuasive but incorrect content. Leaders should understand that generative models do not guarantee correctness, and that confidence in tone should not be mistaken for confidence in truth. Another useful distinction is between predictive models that output a score and generative models that output a narrative, because narratives can influence people strongly even when they are speculative. This is why governance needs to match the model type and the decision context. When leaders understand what kind of output they are dealing with, they can choose the right safeguards.

Training versus inference is a core concept leaders should grasp, because it clarifies what it means for a model to learn and what it means for a model to act. Training is the process of building the model by feeding it data so it can learn patterns and relationships, which is typically expensive and time-consuming. Inference is the process of using the trained model to produce an output for a new input, such as generating an answer, scoring an event, or classifying a record, which is typically faster and happens during normal operations. An everyday analogy is learning to drive versus driving a car on a specific trip. Training is like the long period of practice, instruction, and experience where you learn rules and patterns, while inference is like making real-time decisions on the road based on what you see in front of you. The analogy helps leaders see that a model’s behavior during inference is constrained by what it learned during training, and it cannot magically become competent in areas it never practiced. It also highlights that changes to training data or training methods can fundamentally change model behavior, which is relevant to governance. Inference can also be influenced by context, such as prompts, configurations, and the data provided at runtime, which makes governance a matter of both model and usage.

Once leaders understand these concepts, the next practical step is identifying where AI is used in the organization, because AI adoption is often uneven and partially hidden. AI can show up in security tools, such as alert triage, user behavior analytics, and phishing detection, and it can also show up in business systems, such as customer support chat, marketing content generation, and automated decisioning in finance or human resources. It can also show up indirectly through cloud services that include AI features by default, such as automated recommendations, anomaly detection, and intelligent search. The identification exercise should include both internally built systems and vendor products, because governance must cover both. Leaders should also distinguish between AI that provides recommendations and AI that executes actions, because execution changes risk significantly. A recommendation can be reviewed and corrected, while an action can cause immediate harm if wrong. This is why a simple inventory of AI use cases is a valuable governance artifact, because you cannot govern what you do not see. When organizations identify AI usage clearly, they can prioritize governance effort where the risk is highest.

A persistent pitfall is assuming AI outputs are always correct or unbiased, which is a governance failure that can lead to real harm. AI systems can be wrong for many reasons, including poor data quality, misaligned objectives, unseen edge cases, and changes in the environment that make past patterns unreliable. Bias can enter through training data that reflects historical inequities, through labeling decisions that encode subjective judgments, or through feedback loops where the system influences the data it later learns from. Generative systems can also produce hallucinations, meaning confident-sounding statements that are not grounded in facts, which is especially risky when outputs are used to justify decisions. Leaders should understand that AI is a pattern-based system, not a truth engine, and that it can fail silently by producing plausible outputs that are still incorrect. This pitfall is often amplified by automation bias, where humans defer to machine output even when their own judgment suggests caution. Governance must anticipate these realities and build checks that prevent blind reliance. When leaders treat AI as a tool that needs oversight, rather than as an authority, risk becomes manageable.

A quick win that reduces risk immediately is requiring human oversight for high-impact decisions, meaning decisions that affect access, money, safety, employment, or legal obligations. Human oversight should not be a rubber stamp, because rubber stamping recreates the risk under a different label. Oversight should include a requirement that reviewers understand what the model did, what data it relied on, and what uncertainty exists, so the human can make an informed decision. For some uses, oversight can be structured as a second-person review for certain thresholds, such as when the model’s confidence is low or when the decision is unusual. For other uses, oversight can be a requirement that AI outputs are treated as advisory and that final decisions follow established approval processes. This approach keeps the benefits of AI assistance while preventing automation from creating irreversible harm. It also creates a natural feedback loop, because human reviewers can flag model errors and help improve the system over time. Oversight is especially important when outputs are used to justify decisions to stakeholders, because unjustified decisions damage trust. A governance policy that clearly defines when human oversight is mandatory is one of the most effective ways to prevent high-impact AI failures.

Now consider a scenario where a team wants AI to approve access requests, which is a tempting idea because access approvals are frequent and can be time-consuming. The risk is that access decisions are security decisions with direct blast radius, and errors can create immediate exposure. An AI model might infer that a user likely needs access based on role patterns or past approvals, but inference is not authorization, and subtle context matters, such as whether the request is urgent, whether the user’s manager approved, whether the request matches least privilege, and whether the user’s account shows signs of compromise. The model could also be manipulated, for example through crafted requests or through poisoned historical patterns that reflect overly permissive past behavior. In this scenario, a safer approach is to use AI for recommendation and routing, not for final approval. AI can help classify requests, suggest appropriate access based on role templates, detect unusual requests for escalation, and summarize relevant context for a human approver. The final decision should remain with an accountable human, especially for privileged access, and the system should log rationale and evidence. This scenario is a useful rehearsal because it clarifies a general rule: AI can accelerate decisions, but it should not replace accountability when consequences are high.

Data quality is the fuel that shapes outcomes, and leaders should understand that a model’s performance cannot exceed the quality and relevance of the data it learns from and operates on. Poor data quality can mean missing values, inconsistent labeling, biased sampling, outdated records, or data that does not reflect the current environment. In security contexts, data can be noisy or incomplete, and labeling can be inconsistent, which means models can learn patterns that reflect logging quirks rather than real threat behavior. In business contexts, data can reflect past practices that were not ideal, leading models to replicate undesirable patterns. Data quality also includes the context provided during inference, such as whether the system has access to up-to-date identity information, asset criticality, or recent changes that explain anomalies. Without good data, even advanced models will produce unreliable outputs, and the organization may blame the model when the real issue is the underlying data pipeline. Leaders should treat data governance as part of AI governance, because the model is only one part of the system. Investing in data quality often yields better outcomes than switching models, because better data improves both accuracy and explainability. When leaders ask about data sources and labeling quality, they are governing effectively.

Model drift is another concept leaders must grasp because it explains why performance changes over time, even when the model itself has not been changed. Drift occurs when the environment changes, such as new user behavior patterns, new products, new attacker techniques, or new data sources that shift distributions. A model that was trained on last year’s patterns can become less accurate as reality evolves, which means false positives can increase or true positives can decrease. In security, drift can be especially pronounced because defenders change controls, attackers adapt tactics, and systems change through deployments, all of which shift the data the model sees. Drift also matters in business decisioning, because customer behavior, market conditions, and processes evolve. Leaders should understand that AI systems require ongoing monitoring and periodic recalibration, because performance is not a set-and-forget property. This is part of why governance must include model performance tracking, not just initial approval. Drift also supports the case for human oversight, because humans can notice when outputs no longer match reality and can trigger review. When leaders understand drift, they stop treating model deployment as an endpoint and start treating it as a lifecycle.

AI capabilities can provide meaningful security benefits when used appropriately, particularly as decision support rather than autonomous control. AI can help with detection support by prioritizing alerts, clustering similar events, and highlighting anomalies that warrant human attention. It can assist analysts by summarizing incident timelines, extracting key entities from logs, and suggesting investigation paths that save time, especially in high-volume environments. Generative systems can also help draft communications, produce structured case notes, and convert technical evidence into plain-language explanations, as long as outputs are reviewed and grounded in verified facts. AI can improve efficiency, but it should be paired with strong evidence standards, because a polished narrative is not the same as a correct narrative. AI can also be useful for identifying gaps, such as pointing out missing logs or inconsistent data that reduce investigation quality. The security benefit comes from augmenting human capability, not from replacing human accountability. Leaders should view AI as a force multiplier for skilled teams, not as a shortcut to eliminate expertise. When governance reinforces that framing, AI adoption is more likely to be both effective and safe.

A memory anchor that leaders can keep is data, model, context, oversight determine reliability, because it captures the factors that shape whether AI outputs can be trusted. Data determines what the system learns and what it can see, and poor data undermines everything. Model determines the type of output and the failure modes, such as whether it produces a score, a classification, or a narrative. Context determines whether the model is operating with the right information at inference time, which affects whether outputs are relevant and accurate. Oversight determines whether humans catch mistakes, manage exceptions, and maintain accountability for high-impact decisions. This anchor is useful because it prevents simplistic thinking, such as blaming the model for everything or assuming a model upgrade solves governance problems. It also helps leaders ask better questions, such as what data is being used, what context is provided, and who is accountable for decisions influenced by AI. When leaders use this anchor, governance discussions become more concrete. Over time, it becomes a shared language that reduces confusion and speeds decision-making. The anchor is also a reminder that reliability is a property of the entire system, not just the algorithm.

Briefing executives requires plain language and careful framing, because jargon overload causes either disengagement or misplaced confidence. The goal is to explain what the AI system does, what it does not do, and what risks and safeguards exist, using terms tied to outcomes. Instead of describing model architectures, you describe what decisions the system influences, what data it relies on, and what happens when it is wrong. You also describe how oversight is implemented, such as which decisions require human approval and how exceptions are handled. It helps to frame AI as a decision support tool with known limitations, because that keeps expectations realistic. Executives also need clarity on accountability, meaning who owns the model’s performance, who owns data quality, and who owns the operational process for monitoring and drift management. When executives understand these elements, they can govern AI usage like any other risk-bearing system, with controls, audits, and lifecycle management. Plain language also helps avoid the trap of treating AI as magic, which leads to underinvestment in fundamentals like data governance and operational monitoring. A good executive brief makes AI feel like an engineering system, not like a mystery.

As a mini-review, keep three AI types and one use for each in mind so the distinctions remain practical. M L can be used to score and prioritize security alerts so analysts focus on the most likely true positives first. D L can be used to identify complex patterns in high-dimensional telemetry, such as subtle anomaly detection that is hard to encode as simple rules. Generative models can be used to draft incident summaries or assist with investigation notes, provided humans verify accuracy and ensure outputs are grounded in evidence. These examples show how the same organization can use different AI types for different tasks, and why governance cannot be one-size-fits-all. They also reinforce that AI is most safely used to support humans, especially in security contexts where mistakes carry high cost. When leaders can connect a model type to a concrete use, discussions become clearer and less abstract. This clarity is what prevents overreach, where teams apply a tool in a role it is not suited for. The mini-review is a simple way to keep the taxonomy tied to operational reality.

To conclude, identify one AI use in your organization that needs clearer governance and use it as a starting point for practical oversight. Look for a use that influences high-impact decisions, such as access, fraud actions, customer outcomes, or security response, because these are the areas where failures create the most harm. Then apply the anchor of data, model, context, oversight to assess whether reliability is being managed, meaning whether data quality is understood, whether performance is monitored for drift, and whether accountable humans remain in the loop. If safeguards are unclear, define them in operational terms, such as which outputs are advisory, which decisions require human approval, and what evidence must be recorded for accountability. Also define what happens when the model is wrong, including how issues are detected, how the model is retrained or retuned, and who decides when it can be used again after a failure. This approach keeps the work grounded and prevents governance from becoming abstract policy. When leaders can identify and govern one concrete AI use effectively, they can scale the pattern to other uses with confidence. That is how you move from hype-driven decisions to grounded governance that enables value while controlling risk.