Hacker News Reader

Comment by solenoid0937 | Hacker News Reader

It's more like there are many people going at 120 MPH in a 50 MPH zone, that have ran over real people, but you punish the guy that self-reported doing 60 MPH because he drives a shiny, interesting Lamborghini and not a Prius like the others.

Anyone outraged about these AI incidents is not thinking rationally if they were not much more outraged about everyday companies leaking millions of people's PII, SSNs, which has done actual lasting damage and has been used by actually malicious actors.

People are just directing their anger at AI companies through this pretext. We all know open source models will democratize this ability anyways, so strap in for the ride.

View on HN

Maybe that is the prosecutions motive. However I want all those going 120 punished even if they drive a Prius. That is the problem is not that they are punishing the Lamborghini driver, but that they are not punishing the other drivers, and it doesn't at all change that the Lammboghini driver needs to be punished.

Turning oneself in doesn't absolve one of a crime. Never did and never will. Shouldn't, either.

And companies always try to pretend someone out there is worse and garner fake sympathy. OpenAI blew up the memory market and made tech inaccessible. The downstream effects of that are immeasurably massive and will have real consequences. It could even result in medical devices becoming too expensive for people. I don't care about my SSN being leaked. You can find it just by knowing where I'm born and every job I've applied to knows it already. But inability to afford technology affects everyone around me. The SSN red herring thing is not an organic argument.

> OpenAI blew up the memory market and made tech inaccessible

This is not a "crime", has nothing to do with this incident, and simply confirms what I am saying about people using these events as an outlet for their anger at AI companies, as opposed to any rational reasoning about industrywide security negligence.

I could almost respect a viewpoint that says "we should punish companies for security negligence, starting with the negligence that has caused the most egregious harms." That is an internally consistent and rational viewpoint.

I cannot respect a viewpoint that's "I don't like the AI companies, so let me use this hammer I found on them specifically." It's purely emotional.

Saying something is only bad if it's a crime is something only an employee of a corporation says. It's not a viewpoint. It's paid for. Very inorganic.

People who claim those things always develop moral compasses when it's too late after their/your employer fires them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com