3 ms·

AaronSw exfiltrated data without authorization. You can argue the morality of that, but I think you could make the argument for OpenAI as well. I'm not opining

AaronSw exfiltrated data without authorization. You can argue the morality of that, but I think you could make the argument for OpenAI as well. I'm not opining on either, just pointing out the marked similarity here. edit: It appears I'm wrong. Will someone correct me on what he did?

gessha 2y ago
Arguing for the morality of OpenAI is a little bit harder given their history and actions in the last few years.
- ibejoeb 2y ago
  One argument would be means to an end, with the end being the initial advancement of AI. Again, I'm not offering an opinion on it.
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    This is an argument, but isn't this where your scenario diverges completely? OpenAI's "means to an end" is further than you state; not initial advancement but the control and profit from AI.
    - ibejoeb 2y ago
      Yes, they intended for control and profit, but it's looking like they can't keep it under control and ultimately its advancements will be available more broadly. So, the argument goes that despite its intention, OpenAI has been one of the largest drivers of innovation in an emerging technology.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> edit: It appears I'm wrong. Will someone correct me on what he did? He didn't do it without authorization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz > Visitors to MIT's "open campus" were authorized to access JSTOR through its network.
- ibejoeb 2y ago
  At that same link is an account of the unlawful activity. He was not authorized to access a restricted area, set up a sieve on the network, and collect the contents of JSTOR for outside distribution.
- richardwhiuk 2y ago
  He wasn't authorised to access the wiring closet. There are many troubling things about the case, but it's fairly clear Aaron knew he was doing something he wasn't authorised to do.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > He wasn't authorised to access the wiring closet. For which MIT can certainly have a) locked the door and b) trespassed him, but that's a very different issue than having authorization to access JSTOR.

gessha 2y ago

Arguing for the morality of OpenAI is a little bit harder given their history and actions in the last few years.

ibejoeb 2y ago
One argument would be means to an end, with the end being the initial advancement of AI. Again, I'm not offering an opinion on it.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  This is an argument, but isn't this where your scenario diverges completely? OpenAI's "means to an end" is further than you state; not initial advancement but the control and profit from AI.
  - ibejoeb 2y ago
    Yes, they intended for control and profit, but it's looking like they can't keep it under control and ultimately its advancements will be available more broadly. So, the argument goes that despite its intention, OpenAI has been one of the largest drivers of innovation in an emerging technology.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> edit: It appears I'm wrong. Will someone correct me on what he did? He didn't do it without authorization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz > Visitors to MIT's "open campus" were authorized to access JSTOR through its network.

ibejoeb 2y ago
At that same link is an account of the unlawful activity. He was not authorized to access a restricted area, set up a sieve on the network, and collect the contents of JSTOR for outside distribution.
richardwhiuk 2y ago
He wasn't authorised to access the wiring closet. There are many troubling things about the case, but it's fairly clear Aaron knew he was doing something he wasn't authorised to do.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > He wasn't authorised to access the wiring closet. For which MIT can certainly have a) locked the door and b) trespassed him, but that's a very different issue than having authorization to access JSTOR.