Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 499 posts

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#381

Post by Kon-Peki »

Fnoord wrote: post #297
zelphirkalt wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't your family want your believes followed through at least?

True, which is what a notary is for. You could encrypt the data to be leaked at a notary, with the private key split using shamir's shared secret among your beloved ones (usually relatives). If all agree, they can review and decide to release the whistleblower's data.

This statement confused me, but according to Wikipedia the job description of a notary is different in different parts of the world. If you live in a “common law” system (IE at one point it was part of the British Empire), it is unlikely that a notary would do anything like what you are saying.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#382

Post by s1artibartfast »

draugadrotten wrote: post #276
kremi wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’d be hard to draw any conclusion. A whistleblower must be under extreme stress and pressure which in itself in some way or other will increase the risk of death — so that has to be taken account before saying the plausible cause for the excess deaths is assassination.

Let's start with keeping the whistleblowers alive and we have more time to figure out the cause and effect later.

How? do we lock them up?

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#383

Post by DennisP »

lxgr wrote: post #378
DennisP wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you should also slash the stake if they submit the key in spite of the liveness function getting called. If the contract doesn't require the depositor to be the one to submit the key, then there's an incentive to avoid revealing the secret anywhere. A well-funded journalist could pay the bonds plus extra. I think the only defense would be to have a large number of such contracts, many of them without journali…

Yeah, that's what I meant by allowing anyone to claim the stake upon premature/unjustified release. That would incentivize some to pose as "collusion coordinators" ("let's all get together and see what's inside") and then just claim the stake of everybody agreeing. But if somebody could establish a reputation for not doing that and paying defectors well in an iterated game... > Distributing the key among trusted frie…

Well the blockchain still helps with friends, just because it's a convenient and very censorship-resistant public place to post the keys without having to know each other. But there are plenty of other ways to do it.

For the friendless option, don't return all the stake if secrets are submitted despite proof of life. Instead, return a small portion to incentivize reporting, and burn the rest.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#385

Post by bmacho »

NeutralCrane wrote: post #367
underbiding wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love this argument. "Seems like only difference between me and ChatGPT is absolutely everything". You can't be flippant about scale not being a factor here. It absolutely is a factor. Pretending that ChatGPT is like a person synthesizing knowledge is an absurd legal argument, it is absolutely nothing like a person, its a machine at the end of the day. Scale absolutely matters in debates like this.

Why?

Why not? A fast piece of metal is different from a slow piece of metal, from a legal perspective.

You can't just say that "this really bad thing that causes a lot of problems is just like this not so bad thing that haven't caused any problem, only more so". Or at least it's not a correct argument.

When it is the scale that causes the harm, stating that the harmful thing is the same as the harmless except the scale, is like.. weird.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#386

Post by lxgr »

DennisP wrote: post #383
lxgr wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's what I meant by allowing anyone to claim the stake upon premature/unjustified release. That would incentivize some to pose as "collusion coordinators" ("let's all get together and see what's inside") and then just claim the stake of everybody agreeing. But if somebody could establish a reputation for not doing that and paying defectors well in an iterated game... > Distributing the key among trusted frie…

Well the blockchain still helps with friends, just because it's a convenient and very censorship-resistant public place to post the keys without having to know each other. But there are plenty of other ways to do it. For the friendless option, don't return all the stake if secrets are submitted despite proof of life. Instead, return a small portion to incentivize reporting, and burn the rest.

Wouldn't you want the incentive for false coordinators to be as strong as possible?

Otherwise, the coordinator has more to gain by actually coordinating collusion (i.e. secretly pay off shardholders, reassemble the key, monetize what's in it, don't do anything on-chain) than by revealing the collusion in non-iterated games.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#387

Post by krick »

0x41head wrote: post #343
ajdude wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use deadmansswitch.net - it sends you an email to verify that you are still alive, but you can also use a Telegram bot. In this case I have it set to send a passphrase to an encrypted file with all of my information to trusted individuals.

I made something similar with https://github.com/0x41head/posthumous-automation It's completely open-source and you can self host it.

All that stuff looks fun, but I'm utterly terrified at the idea of it malfunctioning. Like, in a false-positive way. And, as a professional deformation, I guess, it is basically an axiom for me that any automation will malfunction at some point for some ridiculously stupid and obvious-in-the-hindsight reason I absolutely cannot predict right now.

I mean, seriously, it isn't a laughable idea that a bomb that will explode unless you poke some button every 24 h might eventually explode even though you weren't incapacitated and dutifully pressed that button. I'm not even considering the case that you might have been temporarily incapacitated. People wouldn't call you paranoid if you say that carrying such bomb is a stupid idea.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#388

Post by jjulius »

OutOfHere wrote: post #380
jjulius wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Reference: merriam-Webster thesaurus Oof, are you using a thesaurus to determine the definition of a word? That's what a dictionary is for; a thesaurus is a list of words that have similar or opposite meanings. But within that, there are varying degrees of how similar/different words can be. In point of fact, Merriam-Webster doesn't mark "solicitous" as having the strongest degree of similarity to the word, which me…

Meditative (he was) vs heedful (he wasn't for AI) (from the dictionary link)

>... heedful (he wasn't for AI)

Preceding the use of that word as an example, it clearly says "having thoughts" as the definition. Between the blog he posted, the interview he gave, and the fact that he was assisting an active investigation, I'd say that he both "had some thoughts" and "heeded AI".

Again, we're back to the fact that you're suggesting that it's cool to flag a simple "condolences" comment just because you disagree with how the decedent viewed the world.

Hope you have a pleasant weekend.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#389

Post by exceptione »

Amezarak wrote: post #374
exceptione wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is better to be precise here. Validity could be a different measure than correct. It might very well be like you reserve the latter for some ethereal mathematical property, free of axioms, to which type you want to cast "validity in the domain of morality", which then has to pass the type checker for mathematical expressions. In Philosophy and Ethics you strive to improve your understanding, in this case in the do…

All that is fine and good, but it comes down to your personal and non-universal moral intuition that suffering, abuse , etc. are bad. You make that an axiom and then judge moral systems based on that, using that axiom to build beautiful towers of “reasoning” (rationalization). We both feel that way because of the time and place we grew up, not because it is correct compared to the Ancient Greek or Piraha moral system…

> non-universal moral intuition that suffering, abuse , etc. are bad.

You say it perhaps a bit weird, but imho you are stating that there do not exist universal moral values, which is a very non-universal stance.

> not because it is correct compared to the Ancient Greek or Piraha moral systems

- Well, the beauty is that we can make progress.

- If X can only register that system A an B are morally equal, because both systems are a system, then X misses some fundamental human abilities. That X is dangerous, because for X there is nothing wrong with Auschwitz.

- Also, a good question would be if one would like to exchange their moral beliefs for the Greek moral system. If not, why have a preference for a moral belief if they are all equal.

Not saying this is you, but I think the main fallacy people run into is that they are aware of shortcomings in their moral acting. Some might excuse themself with relativism -> nihilism, but that is not what a strong person does. Most of us are hypocrite some of the time, but it doesn't mean you have to blame your moral intuition.

Re: OpenAI whistleblower found dead in San Francisco apartment

#390

Post by hilux »

krisoft wrote: post #353
hilux wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly is post-death gossip going to dissuade other whistleblowers?

I’m not sure what you are asking. There is someone who knows some ugly secret and is considering if they want to publicly release it. If they can recall many dead whistleblowers who were rumoured to have been assasinatend over that kind of action then they are more likely to stay silent. Because they don’t want to die the same way. And the key here is that the future would be whistleblowers hear about it. That is whe…

You seem to be arguing for complete secrecy [about deaths].

Nowhere in history has a culture of secrecy resulted in a more open and honest government.

Post reply on HN