True, however:
replyEthics 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.
Yes, you have a moral obligation to Sam Altman’s trillion dollar business.
replyOn 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).
replyCiting a fantasy novel to prove your point doesn't add anything to the discussion.
replyBut 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.
replyCiting Leviticus for moral guidance is rich. Should we also kill people having affairs? (Leviticus 20:10).
replyI'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.
replyUnfortunately 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.
replyNo, we have a moral obligation to make sure Sam Altman's trillion dollar business does ethical shit.
replyIf 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.
This isn’t one of those times.
replyOnly if you don't believe the means justify the ends. Not saying I believe that myself
replyIs it criminal to sell an exploit?
replyFacilitation 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.
replyPretty sure you need actual knowledge of a planned crime for that to stick. But I'm also sure the defense will be expensive.
replyI'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).
replyThey 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.
replydeleted
replyI 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.
replydeleted
replydeleted
replyYeah, 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.
replyIf only poverty were so simple
replyThis 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.
replyTreating 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.
replyBut, 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.
Ah yes, OpenAI, the poster child for ethics
reply[dead]
reply