Codex exploited or you exploited? It's like saying a hammer drove a nail, without acknowledging the hand and the force it exerted and the human brain behind it.

Feels like the truth is somewhere in between. For example if it was a "smart" hammer and you could tell your hammer "go pound in those nails" and it pounded in the wrong ones, or did it too hard, or something, that feels more equivalent. You would still be blamed for your ambiguous prompt, and fault/liability is ultimately on you the hammer director, but it still wasn't you who chose the exact nails to hammer on.

I also think taking credit for writing an exploit that you didn't write and may not even have the knowledge to do yourself is a bit gray.

You could call the LLMs role "smart grep," and mean it to be derisive. But I would have gladly used a real smart grep.

Wrong questions.

Could a script kiddy stear an LLM? How much does this reduce the cost of attacks? Can this scale?

What does this mean for the future of cyber security?

If I just point to the wall and say "nail" then I would day the hammer drive the nail

Do you have a defense of why human-hammer-nail is a good analogy for human-chatgpt5.4-pwndsamsung?