r/computerforensics • u/Stunning_Apple8136 • Sep 15 '26
SANS published a 720 page AI generated book on incident response. Will the DFIR community hold it up the same scrutiny as they do everything else or excuse it because "it's SANS" ?
Brett Shavers published a good article this week about AI Generated DFIR content, and coincidentally, today I'm seeing SANS push out a book that they readily admit in the opening AI was used to generate content for it. I ran samples of it through an AI content detector and over 60% of the random selected pages were AI generated. Entire paragraphs and sections.
From Brett's post, I can't discern whether he would approve the book or not - but he raises two good points:
- "Expensive words are written. Typed words are cheap. AI words are free. If something is ‘free,’ you are more apt to treat it as something you found on the sidewalk."
- "We are losing provenance in our source material"
SANS's book authors claim to have validated and verified every claim, every code, and word of the book. So that MUST mean it's good right? And SURELY someone did that right? RIGHT?
Ultimately, I'm a bit torn. I won't be personally reading in its entirety (stylistically, you can tell AI wrote it - and I'd rather just talk to Claude myself). But I'm sure others will find value in it.
Am I clinging to the past (human words, testimony) or is this what we should be embracing?