4 ms·

Charcoal Typhoon used our services to research various companies and cybersecurity tools, debug code and generate scripts, and create content likely for use in

Charcoal Typhoon used our services to research various companies and cybersecurity tools, debug code and generate scripts, and create content likely for use in phishing campaigns. Also known as totally legal things. When did a supermarket conducted research into who is using the knives they sold for murder and selectively blocking them from buying knives as well as other goods?

idontpost 3y ago
[dead]
nozzlegear 3y ago
It’s a combination of what’s being researched and who is doing the researching. They’re known state actors according to OpenAI (and by extension, most likely Microsoft and the US Intelligence agencies). It’d be like if you knew Al Capone was up to something shady, and then he comes into your store to buy books like “How to run a Crime Syndicate”, “Selling Booze During the Prohibition for Dummies” and “Tax Evasion 101”. It’s kind of suspicious.
- ithkuil 3y ago
  That's the crux of the problem: if you can prove Al Capone is doing something illegal you can arrest him. Otherwise you shouldn't forbid him to buy a book about "prohibition for dummies" if that's not illegal for anybody else. On what grounds would that book be illegal for Al Capone?
  - nozzlegear 3y ago
    In this case, if we're the store owner, we can just say "I don't like what you're doing in my store" and ban them. We don't have to play games where the person in our store gets to stay because they're not technically doing anything illegal. We just kick them out, it's our store. Although with Capone, your results probably would've varied. =P Anyway, to do away with the analogy, OpenAI isn't obligated to let these groups continue using their services just because they aren't doing something that isn't illegal. The groups are "enemies of the West", and at the very least they don't want the bad publicity of some news org finding out they were complicit.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      So you can kick out anybody because you don't like them (e.g. a minority you don't like the color of)? Or does it work only when somebody is "famously an universally bad" person (al Capone, Hitler etc)?"
      - nozzlegear 3y ago
        I'm not interested in having bad faith arguments.
      - Natfan 3y ago
        As long as you're not kicking them out for reasons surrounding a protected class (race, religious, sexuality etc), and you own the property, then yes? It's your land, you can ask them to leave and if they refuse then they're trespassing.
        ithkuil 3y ago
        My point was that just that you shouldn't punish people because you _suspect_ they committed crimes. They either have committed crimes or they didn't. This whole thing about protected classes is just a workaround to mitigate the excesses of this attitude where you can dispense your own justice in the first place. Imagine if Al Capone was a black trans woman. Are you suddenly not allowed to not sell her a book about how to run a mob just because she's a protected class (all other things being equal)? Wouldn't it be simpler if one could just say that we're all equal and it's simply illegal to discriminate in the first place (presumption of innocence etc etc). This is going to be more and more relevant as people's reputation can be destroyed with a tweet without any proof.

idontpost 3y ago

[dead]

nozzlegear 3y ago

It’s a combination of what’s being researched and who is doing the researching. They’re known state actors according to OpenAI (and by extension, most likely Microsoft and the US Intelligence agencies). It’d be like if you knew Al Capone was up to something shady, and then he comes into your store to buy books like “How to run a Crime Syndicate”, “Selling Booze During the Prohibition for Dummies” and “Tax Evasion 101”. It’s kind of suspicious.

ithkuil 3y ago
That's the crux of the problem: if you can prove Al Capone is doing something illegal you can arrest him. Otherwise you shouldn't forbid him to buy a book about "prohibition for dummies" if that's not illegal for anybody else. On what grounds would that book be illegal for Al Capone?
- nozzlegear 3y ago
  In this case, if we're the store owner, we can just say "I don't like what you're doing in my store" and ban them. We don't have to play games where the person in our store gets to stay because they're not technically doing anything illegal. We just kick them out, it's our store. Although with Capone, your results probably would've varied. =P Anyway, to do away with the analogy, OpenAI isn't obligated to let these groups continue using their services just because they aren't doing something that isn't illegal. The groups are "enemies of the West", and at the very least they don't want the bad publicity of some news org finding out they were complicit.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    So you can kick out anybody because you don't like them (e.g. a minority you don't like the color of)? Or does it work only when somebody is "famously an universally bad" person (al Capone, Hitler etc)?"
    - nozzlegear 3y ago
      I'm not interested in having bad faith arguments.
    - Natfan 3y ago
      As long as you're not kicking them out for reasons surrounding a protected class (race, religious, sexuality etc), and you own the property, then yes? It's your land, you can ask them to leave and if they refuse then they're trespassing.
      - ithkuil 3y ago
        My point was that just that you shouldn't punish people because you _suspect_ they committed crimes. They either have committed crimes or they didn't. This whole thing about protected classes is just a workaround to mitigate the excesses of this attitude where you can dispense your own justice in the first place. Imagine if Al Capone was a black trans woman. Are you suddenly not allowed to not sell her a book about how to run a mob just because she's a protected class (all other things being equal)? Wouldn't it be simpler if one could just say that we're all equal and it's simply illegal to discriminate in the first place (presumption of innocence etc etc). This is going to be more and more relevant as people's reputation can be destroyed with a tweet without any proof.