Those are exploits. They are different from vulnerabilities.

Yeah, I know, and we've had a deluge of both lately. I'm not sure what constructive point you're making.

[delayed]

Assume the original message said "exploits" in place of "vulnerabilities". The point stands, independent of pedantic terminology corrections.

The correction is valid. It would be better if people used the right term. It's ok to correct. But it would be better if it were in addition to discussion of the actual point, not instead of it.

(And the phrase "catastrophic vulnerabilities" is pretty obviously talking about exploits anyway.)

> The point stands, independent of pedantic terminology corrections

the "pedantic" difference is between something being exploited and not being exploited

> Assume the original message said "exploits" in place of "vulnerabilities".

if the original message said something else, then it would mean something else.

But we've had both. Soooo?

Industrial coolers and boilers and so forth being publicly exposed isn't a new thing though, people just used to avoid targeting civilian infrastructure in cyberwarfare... That's not like a new AI thing that's just human stupidity on display...