I find myself in major disagreement here. The nice thing about humans is we always have context and ongoing internal conversations including about ethics. If you recruit a bunch of hackers to take down a country, not only is the pay an order of magnitude higher, you have to worry about them backstabbing you, leaking your intent to the government, whistleblowing to the press, and so on. It’s not trivial to do that with a group of (especially capable) humans. They will also have differences of opinion with you and coworkers with some regularity.

I try to recruit a bunch of people to attack a country and it’s going to be hard to get people to say yes, and they will definitely ask or find out which country, and wonder about potential retribution. You see this dynamic show up even to some extent among cybergangs, not all targets are equal.

A single private individual wielding a compliant and hyper capable LLM is an entirely different paradigm. They are accountable to nearly no one and often have few brakes. Frequently they may not care about avoiding detection. And the AI itself may be incapable of the same scale of self reflection and brake behavior a human team will.

We may potentially be entering the age of lone wolf cyberterrorism, and some of the same principles and problems apply. When it is easier for single people to plot and carry out high-impact, destructive acts they happen more often. Doubly so if there’s a social contagion. Gun violence isn’t actually a bad analogy here. And do you remember how many corporate sites got defaced in the prime Anon era?