Hacker News Reader

Comment by windexh8er | Hacker News Reader

I find Sam Altman recent comments very "low" as well, neither matters. So in that case I think bounty hunters should just cold shoulder idiocracy and sell these to the underground. Let their customers be abused and complain about how OAI isn't protecting them. Each one of these types of events could cost them thousands of dollars in lost revenue and/or internal support.

View on HN

2 trillion $ companies should have the money to pay for these exploits. If they don’t, go tucking exploit them. If they don’t give a fuck about stealing knowledge from copyrighted material and private git repos, light em up.

some people don’t want to be criminals as a matter of ethics

but hey you do you

Yeah, and some people just want the multi-billion dollar company that is currently destroying the planet while also permanently crippling social connections to just stop.

True, however:

Ethics and legal requirements shouldn’t be conflated.

There are times when ethics are a higher standard than what the law requires, and in that case the ethics are no less important.

This isn’t one of those times.

Only if you don't believe the means justify the ends. Not saying I believe that myself

Yes, you have a moral obligation to Sam Altman’s trillion dollar business.

On the contrary, many (including myself) would argue that "the victim's amount of money/power" has absolutely no ethical relevance: "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly" (Leviticus 19:15).

Citing a fantasy novel to prove your point doesn't add anything to the discussion.

But some would argue that reducing the amount of resources and power available to someone who has immense amounts of both and is causing great harm to society as a whole - is ethical.

Citing Leviticus for moral guidance is rich. Should we also kill people having affairs? (Leviticus 20:10).

I'd argue that the moral principles of the Levitical law (e.g. "adultery is wrong") are not inherently bound to the specific punishments (e.g. "adultery is a capital crime") prescribed for ancient Israel.

Oh, pick and choose your own crime and punishment interpretation of the Bible. How convenient.

To defend against the accusation of cherrypicking: I don't actually think the original punishments were objectively morally wrong (even though they certainly feel harsh to my modern sensibilities)—sin is no joke. At the same time, I also don't believe that the punishments (or even all of the crimes, i.e. the liturgical ones) were intended to apply to all polities throughout history. Admittedly, my argument would be primarily theological in nature[1], so I don't expect it to be convincing... we may have to agree to disagree :-P

[1] Namely, "ancient Israel is the only divinely instituted theocracy in history, so many things just won't generalize to more 'normal' polities". And/or, see Jesus' treatment of the Mosaic Law in the gospels (and the New Testament more generally).

Unfortunately my details (address, bank details, government IDs) have been leaked a handful of times now because companies that I do business with have been hacked. Each time the company involved has faced practically no real penalty aside from a minor hit to their reputation. Your moral obligation isn't to Sam Altman, it's to his customers, who are real people.

No, we have a moral obligation to make sure Sam Altman's trillion dollar business does ethical shit.

If that means taking chunks of it because he can't be a responsible steward, so be it. It would behoove him to get on board before that is necessary.

Is it criminal to sell an exploit?

I don't think so, businesses like Zerodium bought zero days in plain sight and I don't think they faced legal consequences. They don't operate anymore though. So basically I'd say it depends who you sell it to and how.

It's my understanding that those groups buying exploits in plain view sold exclusively to government agencies which is why their business model was tolerated.

Facilitation of a crime is a crime too. So I think in the US and most western countries, yes. At least if it gets used illegally later.

Pretty sure you need actual knowledge of a planned crime for that to stick. But I'm also sure the defense will be expensive.

I'm not sure but if negligence is punishable too for facilitation, it should stick, right? I think it's reasonable to expect that most buyers of exploits try to use them in illegal ways (or are feds acting like that to catch you).

They won't have to get you for facilitating the later crime, they can get you for testing the exploit on your own account, which is also a crime since OpenAI's computer system is involved.

If only poverty were so simple

This isn't like stealing from a business. These are individuals most private conversations, potentially including their bank accounts etc. Poverty is no defence - and yes, I've spent a great deal of my life barely scraping by. You'll find poor people are significantly less tolerant of theft, especially from individuals, than rich. Whether that evidences the theft inherent in most forms of wealth generation I'll leave up to the reader.

Ah yes, OpenAI, the poster child for ethics

Treating people and businesses ethically that don't reciprocate doesn't work, clearly. Those people and businesses cry in their milk while they do exactly the same thing. There are no ethics in play here.

But, hey if you want to defend billionaire narcissists that are destroying our planet and trying to take computing freedoms then I guess: you do you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com