In the race to build fully autonomous vehicles, two fundamentally different approaches have emerged: Tesla vs. Waymo. This same divide is playing out in cybersecurity, where the battle between adaptive, AI-driven systems and more structured approaches mirrors the autonomous vehicle debate. The trade-offs in each path (speed vs safety, scale vs control) offer striking parallels, and the lessons learned from Tesla and Waymo apply directly to how we think about AI-driven security operations.

The Great Autonomous Divide

Tesla’s approach is singularly focused: it relies on camera feeds interpreted by neural networks to make driving decisions. It's purely AI-driven: when the system detects a car or person on the road, it stops. The approach is highly scalable because cameras are cheap and the same model works everywhere.

But here's the catch: you can't really control it. When something goes wrong, engineers face explainability gaps; understanding why the system acted a certain way often requires reverse-engineering complex, opaque model outputs.

Waymo's approach is more complex but fundamentally different. They combine laser sensors with physics models, detailed mapping, and rule-based systems alongside AI. It requires more upfront R&D investment and isn't as immediately scalable, but it's more predictable, safer, and when issues arise, you can actually debug what went wrong.

The trade-offs are clear: Tesla prioritizes scale and speed.

Waymo prioritizes reliability and control.

The Same Battle Is Happening in Cybersecurity

In SOCs, we're seeing an identical philosophical split emerge.

The "Tesla" approach in cybersecurity looks like this: take security alerts, feed them to LLMs, and let AI figure out what to investigate. We’ve seen solutions on the market that send alerts directly to general-purpose LLMs like GPT-4, effectively asking the AI to play analyst without guardrails.

The "Waymo" approach recognizes that security operations require a different architecture: one that combines AI capabilities with statistical learning systems that guarantee coverage and provide explainable decision-making.

Why Pure LLM Approaches Hit a Wall

Here's the fundamental issue with the "Tesla approach" to cybersecurity: LLMs generate responses by sampling from probability distributions. Every decision about what to check next is probabilistic, not statistical learning.

When investigating a security alert, an analyst might have 30 possible actions they could take. Hidden within those options are typically 10 critical checks that absolutely must be performed for a thorough investigation. The other 20 are valid but non-critical paths.

LLMs cannot guarantee that all critical checks are performed consistently:  they choose actions that seem contextually relevant but may skip essential investigative steps.

When a security analyst closes a case with "no compromise found," that conclusion must rest on exhaustive analysis, not an educated guess or smart shortcut. And that is the main issue with the inconsistency.

Qevlar’s Approach: Combining the Best of Both Worlds

At Qevlar, we've taken the Waymo approach to security operations. Instead of asking LLMs to orchestrate investigations, we built a system that ensures every mandatory investigative step is executed, every time, without omission, while leveraging AI where it excels.

Our graph-based AI architecture separates two fundamentally different tasks:

1. Reasoning and interpretation - where LLMs shine in understanding context, analyzing evidence, and explaining what's happening
2. Systematic coverage - where statistical learning systems ensure every critical check is performed, every time

This requires higher upfront engineering investment, but delivers the long-term reliability and auditability enterprises demand. But the result is a system that provides the reliability and explainability that enterprise security demands.

Speed without certainty is risk by another name

The most successful autonomous vehicle companies aren't betting everything on either pure AI or pure rules. They're building hybrid systems that use each approach where it's strongest.

In security, speed without certainty is risk by another name. The winning model will be the one that pairs AI’s interpretive power with the guaranteed completeness enterprises need to defend against today’s threats.

LLMs will transform how we understand and explain security events. But ensuring we've looked in all the right places, every single time? That requires a different kind of intelligence: one built for certainty.

‍