Swimlane’s survey finds 88% of security pros report higher job satisfaction with AI, but 47% expect it to make entering cybersecurity harder

Artificial intelligence is making security operations centers (SOCs) a better place to work, according to new research from automation vendor Swimlane. But the same survey suggests the technology may be quietly dismantling the bottom rungs of the career ladder.

The report, The New SOC Career Ladder, was released recently on September 30 and is based on responses from 500 security professionals and leaders at U.S. and U.K. organizations that already use AI. It points to a tension: the people doing the work are happier, yet many expect the profession to become harder to join.

A satisfaction boom with an asterisk

Swimlane reports that 88% of respondents say AI has raised their job satisfaction, and 62% say it has improved their skill development. Yet 24% say AI has limited their ability to build security skills. Of that group, 91% still report higher job satisfaction, nearly the same as the 92% among those who say AI helped them grow.

That near-match deserves scrutiny. Satisfaction seems driven less by learning than by relief from tedious work, which does not necessarily mean analysts are becoming more capable. Swimlane CEO Cody Cornell makes a similar point, noting that routine tasks have long been how junior analysts learn fundamentals.

A steeper climb into the field

Looking ahead, 47% of respondents expect AI to make cybersecurity harder to enter. Within that group, 37% foresee higher requirements for entry-level roles, and 10% expect fewer chances for junior analysts to gain foundational experience. Another 41% expect new specialized roles built around AI oversight, validation and orchestration. Only 1% think the career path will stay largely unchanged.

The implication is that new analysts may be asked to supervise automated work and exercise judgment earlier in their careers, before they have spent years handling the alert triage that once built that judgment.

Leaders and practitioners see different realities

The survey also reveals a perception gap. Among leaders, 74% report extensive AI deployment across multiple security functions, compared with 49% of practitioners. Leaders are also more likely to say analyst roles have been formally redesigned around higher-value work (46% versus 28%).

The gap could mean executives are describing strategy while analysts describe daily experience, or that role changes are being announced faster than they are implemented. Either way, it suggests workforce planning may be running ahead of what staff actually see.

Human judgment as the safety net

On oversight, 92% of respondents say they are confident they could spot an incorrect or incomplete AI recommendation. When asked where they would lean on their own judgment, 48% pointed to cases where AI conflicts with available evidence or where acting could disrupt business operations or critical systems.

Swimlane CISO Mike Lyborg argues that analysts need visibility into how a recommendation was reached and what action will follow, with accountability remaining with people. Swimlane says organizations need governance defining where human approval is required, plus a complete record of AI-driven actions.

The takeaway

If the findings hold, the pressure falls on employers. Automation that removes entry-level work also removes the training ground for the judgment that human oversight depends on. Organizations adopting AI in the SOC may need deliberate training and apprenticeship paths to avoid hollowing out their future talent pipeline.