2026 Prediction: SOCs Embrace Risk for AI Returns

Is there such a thing as being too responsible? Security leaders often pride themselves on diligent risk management, but in today’s environment, excessive caution can quietly become a competitive liability.

In 2026, security teams will embrace risk with arms wide open, because as AI continues to transform the world, the same play-it-safe instinct that makes them great at their jobs is now leaving them dangerously exposed.

Recently, Anthropic revealed that a Chinese state-sponsored group orchestrated a cyber espionage campaign where AI performed 80 to 90% of the operation autonomously. Tasks like reconnaissance, exploit development, credential harvesting, and data exfiltration were all executed at machine speed, volumes and velocities no human team could match.

Meanwhile, as attackers move at this new pace, many security organizations are still bogged down in lengthy deliberations—debating upgrades, hesitating to deploy new technologies, and relying on legacy tools out of a sense of prudence.

In a world where attackers are innovating faster than ever, the real risk may be waiting too long to adapt.

The paradox of prudence for cybersecurity

Security professionals are trained to be risk-averse. It's in their job description. You don't get promoted for being first, only for being right. So, when a new platform version drops, the instinct is to wait and let someone else test it, only moving once the coast is clear.

That instinct made sense when threats moved at human speed. But as AI compresses years of innovation into weeks, that instinct could spell demise for cybersecurity teams in 2026.

The Anthropic disclosure isn't a preview of what’s coming; it’s a snapshot of what’s already here. The AI didn't work perfectly. It hallucinated credentials and mistook public information for secrets. But it didn't matter. Volume and velocity compensated for imperfection.

Every quarter we delay adopting new capabilities; we’re slowing our response to the market and risking regulatory non-compliance. The gap in risk tolerance is now the asymmetry between defenders and attackers, and it should be a wake-up call for every CISO.

The AI adoption gap is creating a new attack surface

MIT's Project NANDA released research showing that 95% of organizations investing in generative AI are getting zero returns. Not poor returns — zero. The culprit isn't the technology itself. It's that most systems don't learn, adapt, or integrate with real-life workflows.

But that statistic obscures a significant takeaway. The 5% who've crossed what MIT calls the "GenAI Divide" aren't just seeing productivity gains.

Those who’ve crossed the divide are:

• Building adaptive defenses that evolve with threats
• Deploying detection as code
• Creating systems that get smarter every time they're attacked

The massive gap between 5% and 95% isn't a result of resources or talent. It's a willingness to iterate, experiment, and ship something that isn’t perfect on day one. The leading organizations treat security technology like a product that improves, not a one-off project to complete and finish.

When you delay adoption and wait for the next version, you're not reducing risk. You're compounding it. Every month using legacy systems is another month your adversaries spend probing, learning, and exploiting your defenses. Instead of a moving target, your organization becomes a fish barely treading water in a barrel.

Why calculated risk isn't reckless

I'm not suggesting you eschew due diligence and push untested code to production on a Friday afternoon. There's a massive difference between recklessness and calculated risk-taking. The organizations I see winning are building internal incubators. Sandboxed environments where new capabilities get stress-tested against real workloads before broad deployment. They're treating security innovation like an engineering discipline, not a procurement exercise.

Think of it like an F1 team between races. McLaren doesn't wait until the Monaco Grand Prix to test a new aerodynamics package. They run simulations, testing in the wind tunnel; controlled environments where failure is cheap and learning is fast. Then they proceed with confidence.

Speed is the new security posture

Splunk's State of Security 2025 research found that 46% of SOC teams spend more time maintaining their existing tools than actually defending their organizations. That approach doesn’t lead to effective SecOps, but a maintenance crew with threat-intel subscriptions.

The teams pulling ahead have flipped that ratio. By consolidated tooling and automating the undifferentiated heavy lifting, they've freed up capacity to stay ahead of adversaries who are accelerating every quarter.

Attackers aren't waiting for you to get comfortable. They're not filing change requests or scheduling deployment windows. Attackers are iterating in real time, and they're using AI to do it.

The hard question for security leaders

Every security leader I know believes they're managing risk responsibly. But I'd challenge you to ask yourself: Has caution quietly become your organization’s greatest vulnerability?

Here's the uncomfortable calculus.

It’s far better to feel the aches and pains of moving fast and shipping less-than-perfect iterations than suffer the mammoth pain of a devastating cyber attack. The organizations that will define resilience over the next decade won’t be the ones who waited to see how things played out. They're the ones already building the muscle to test, learn, and deploy rapidly, without sacrificing rigor.

Waiting isn't a strategy. It's a risk posture you didn't choose consciously.

Choose differently.

Explore more from Splunk’s 2026 Predictions series, where we look ahead at what’s next for security, observability , and AI. In this series, we also cover generative UI interfaces, the convergence of NOC and SOC operations, and the rise of adaptive AI. For more executive insights and strategic perspectives delivered monthly, subscribe to the Perspectives by Splunk newsletter.