Codex exploited or you exploited? It's like saying a hammer drove a nail, without acknowledging the hand and the force it exerted and the human brain behind it.
Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
11–20 of 143 posts
Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#12[flagged]
I use Codex a lot, it does not talk that way like "wait, actually".
Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#13The trick here was providing the firmware source code so it could see your vulnerabilities.
What would be the difficulty level for it to just read the machine code; are these models heavily relying on human language for clues?
Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#14Codex exploited or you exploited? It's like saying a hammer drove a nail, without acknowledging the hand and the force it exerted and the human brain behind it.
Do you have a defense of why human-hammer-nail is a good analogy for human-chatgpt5.4-pwndsamsung?
Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#15The trick here was providing the firmware source code so it could see your vulnerabilities.
What would be the difficulty level for it to just read the machine code; are these models heavily relying on human language for clues?
Reasoning on pure machine code or disassembly is still hit and miss. For better results you can run the binary through a disassembler, then ask an llm to turn that into an equivalent c program, then ask it to work on that. But some of the subtleties might get lost in translation
Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#16[flagged]
Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#17Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#18Codex exploited or you exploited? It's like saying a hammer drove a nail, without acknowledging the hand and the force it exerted and the human brain behind it.
If I just point to the wall and say "nail" then I would day the hammer drive the nail
Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#19Codex exploited or you exploited? It's like saying a hammer drove a nail, without acknowledging the hand and the force it exerted and the human brain behind it.
Feels like the truth is somewhere in between. For example if it was a "smart" hammer and you could tell your hammer "go pound in those nails" and it pounded in the wrong ones, or did it too hard, or something, that feels more equivalent. You would still be blamed for your ambiguous prompt, and fault/liability is ultimately on you the hammer director, but it still wasn't you who chose the exact nails to hammer on.
I also think taking credit for writing an exploit that you didn't write and may not even have the knowledge to do yourself is a bit gray.
Re: Codex Hacked a Samsung TV
#20Even with all the constraints that others criticize here it is pretty amazing.
Give an experienced human this tool at hand he can achieve exploitation with only a few steering inputs.
Cool stuff