I know you a bit by reputation so that was my assumption. I assume you mean responsible disclosure? I thought your statement was implying otherwise, maybe the unsaid implication was against the "extortion" argument?

In any case, what I want to say is this: All technology has tradeoffs but this has shown we are locked in a game theory mechanic not dissimilar to extortion AND the security implications are part of that.

- We have to build AI or someone else will.

- You need our tools to protect yourself from our tools or similar ones

- You need to use AI or someone using AI will take your job.

Many examples but it is very "i created the disease to sell you the cure". If this were any other technology, we would expect more reasonable mitigations, extraneous factors like software bugs existing aside. It speaks to a fundamental lack of control on the part of the labs that we take for granted: they simply don't have control of the PRODUCT, much less how it is even used.

Absolutely not. "Responsible disclosure" is a coercive Orwellian term coined by vendors, most importantly Microsoft, in the early aughts in order to set a norm that vulnerability researchers should work on vendor timelines and with vendor disclosure constraints.

Finding vulnerabilities that already exist in code can't be "creating the disease", for obvious reasons.