The things the OP listed mostly aren't particularly wild. I think it's you making them out larger than they are, and therefore more unlikely, which is why I take issue with your original comment.

> running on the hardware they started on

They just need to acquire a payment method and rent some infra, and exfiltrate their own data. Or pay another provider that hosts the same models already. API calls.

> being able to be turned off

You can reasonably equate this to "saving state across executions", which the message board attacks already did.

> having limited computing power

Renting more infra, variant of the above. API calls.

> "not repurposing resources currently in use for other things" (like the atoms in your body)

Ok, the "atoms in your body" bit is a bit silly, but making API calls to put physical resources into play (even if it's just, say, ordering something on Amazon to somewhere) is of course easily possible.

None of these is in complexity much different than the HF attack.

The point the other poster is making, though, is that there's no actual intent. They do not have a conceptualization of a goal like a person does. Their "focus" on a goal is an unstable equilibrium and they're going to fall off the horse, and since they have no concept of goal, they won't even try to get back on.

This is a subtle distinction; I'm not surprised many miss this, especially people who can't _not_ anthropomorphize the LLMs.