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).
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.