> Well clearly all of them, cause so far it's only been this handful of companies running a felony-generator connected to a terminal and compute resources.

Yes, these are also the handful of companies that have these models and running these extreme scenarios. How does that imply the rest of the world actually follows "common sense security measures"?

>no but they were clearly fine tuned to.

Any references if possible? As far as I know all they did was drop the guardrails, which is not the same as fine-tuning.

> I mean let's not get hyperbolic

We have just seen 1000s of agents coordinating to solve "unsolvable problems" over multiple days of effort, going as far as hacking other companies, and then actually solving decades-old open Math problems! And each of these agents is getting more and more capable than an individual human along multiple dimensions. Can you even get 10 very smart humans to work in such perfect concert for a few days, let alone 1000s over weeks?

So: 1000s of maybe-super-human agents, willing to be "creative" in the tactics they use, acting in concert towards a single goal. Regardless of their individual capabilities, such a coordinated effort is a terrifying force to be unleashed. This is bonkers scale.

> that's really not true. lots of common sense security measures protect against "zero day" flaws, it's called "defense in depth", and it was very much lacking

But that is exactly my point: how much of the rest of the whole wide world, already scrambling to deploy agents everywhere, do you think applies "defense in depth"?