Hacker News Reader

"pursuing advanced exploitation" when explicitly given a sandbox in a VM and a benchmark problem involving a cyber exploit very clearly excludes hacking third parties. I think writing out the event in a 3 point list like that is disingenuous.

This is basic alignment, not even a tricky or ambiguous case.

I do very much agree with your take on culpability/military parallels, though.

View on HN

If I understand this correctly, you are referring to the 3 point list in the parent post, but then imply a much more complex ruleset being defined within the 1st point of that list.

Not sure how that's disingenuous, item #1 of the list should have been more exhaustive to represent the setup?

In my opinion it's not relevant how complex the setup was and which instructions were given to the product of their own creation, the result is that it wasn't enough.

They built this machine, were (and are) not able to properly control it, and still have the audacity to talk about it with childlike wonder and use it as an indirect marketing pitch on how powerful they are, instead of sitting in front of congress to explain themselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com