High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / evaluation

Published · transcript-backed

Sander Schulhoff: evaluation

21 Dec 2025 Lenny's Podcast The coming AI security crisis (and what to do about it) | Sander Schulhoff

“If all you're doing is deploying chatbots that answer FAQs, help users to find stuff in your website, answer their questions with respect to some documents. It's not really an issue because your only concern there is a malicious user comes and, I don't know, maybe uses your chatbot to output hate speech or C-burn or say something bad, but they could go to ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini and do the exact same thing.”

— Sander Schulhoff

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Sander Schulhoff
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
evaluation
Recorded
21 Dec 2025
Publisher
Lenny's Podcast

Transcript context

…This episode is brought to you by GoFundMe Giving Funds, the zero-fee donor-advised fund. I want to tell you about a new DAF product that GoFundMe just launched that makes year-end giving easy. GoFundMe Giving Funds is the DAF or Donor Advised Fund, supported by the world's number one giving platform and trusted by over 200 million people. It's basically your own mini foundation without the lawyers or admin costs. You contribute money or appreciated assets like stocks, get the tax deduction right away, potentially reduce capital gains, and then decide later where you want to donate. There are zero admin or asset fees, and you can lock in your deductions now and decide where to give later, which is perfect for year-end giving. Join the GoFundMe community of over 200 million people and start saving money on your tax bill, all while helping the causes that you care about most. Start your giving fund today at gofundme.com/lenny. If you transfer your existing DAF over, they'll even cover the DAF pay fees. That's gofundme.com/lenny to get started. Okay. I think we've done an excellent job helping people see the problem, get a little scared, see that there's not a silver bullet solution, that this is something that we really have to take seriously, and we're just lucky this hasn't been a huge problem yet. Let's talk about what people can do. So say you're a CISO at a company hearing this and just like, "Oh man, I've got a problem." What can they do? What are some things you recommend? Yeah. I think I've been pretty negative in the past when asked this question in terms of like, "Oh, there's nothing you can do, but I actually have a number of items here that can quite possibly be helpful." And the first one is that this might not be a problem for you. If all you're doing is deploying chatbots that answer FAQs, help users to find stuff in your website, answer their questions with respect to some documents. It's not really an issue because your only concern there is a malicious user comes and, I don't know, maybe uses your chatbot to output hate speech or C-burn or say something bad, but they could go to ChatGPT or Claude or Gemini and do the exact same thing. I mean, you're probably running one of these models anyways. And so. Putting up a guardrail, it's not going to do anything in terms of preventing that user from doing that because I mean, first of all, if the user's like, "Ugh, guardrailing, too much work," they'll just go to one of these websites and get that information. But also, if they want to, they'll just defeat your guardrail and it just doesn't provide much of any defensive protection. So if you're just deploying chatbots and simple things that they don't really take actions or search the internet and they only have access to the user who's interacting with them's data, you're kind of fine. I would recommend nothing in terms of defense there. Now, you do want to make sure that that chatbot is just a chatbot because you have to realize that if it can take actions, a user can make it take any of those actions in any order they want. So if there is some possible way for it to chain actions together in a way that becomes malicious, a user can make that happen. But if it can't take actions or if its actions can only affect the user that's interacting with it, not a problem. The user can only hurt themself and you want to make sure you have no ability for the user to drop data and stuff like that, but if the user can only hurt themselves ... But if the user can only hurt themselves through their own malice, it's not really a problem. I think that's a really interesting point, even though it could... It's not great if you help support agents like Hitler is great, but your point is that that sucks. You don't want that. You want to try to avoid it, but the damage there is limited. If someone tweeting that, you could say, "Okay, you could do the same thing at ChatGPT."…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence