The concept existed a year before Jev or so. See Laya

Laya came after Jev, the original post is clear about this much [0].

Moreover the specific prior art claim is absurd (self-plug) [1]. GLiClass[2] is at least a coherent precedent.

[0]: https://laya.convaiinnovations.com/

[1]: https://xtxinversexty.com/layas-prior-art-claim-is-absurd/

[2]: https://github.com/knowledgator/gliclass

I don't get it. What if the person doesn't want to sell at all? Self-value at +inf and pay 1% of that?

Society has already decided that we can compel people to sell their private property for fair compensation via eminent domain. Plus getting the assets in the hands of people who value them more certainly creates utility and presumably increases the tax base via further development.

This type of forced sale happens all the time with public companies. For example, only like 60% of Twitter shareholders approved the sale to Musk, but the other 40% were forced to go along with it regardless of their preference. If Musk can do that to other people, why should some hypothetically richer person not be able to do it to Musk?

And to repeat myself for a third time, we don't need to haggle over price. If we only want this to apply to billionaires, assets worth $50 million, or whatever, that's fine. If one of the people impacted truly doesn't want to sell, let them set the price as high as makes them feel safe. I'm not going to lose any sleep over taxing the emotional desires of billionaires.

> For example, only like 60% of Twitter shareholders approved the sale to Musk, but the other 40% were forced to go along with it regardless of their preference

They signed up to that, though. Tagalonpg/dragalong rights are priced into the share price. That's not the same thing.

I always enjoy when someone takes a quote out of context to refute something I said when the context it was said in completely answers them. Like why didn't you include the sentence before that bit you quoted? Is it because me saying "this type of sale" shows that I was saying they are similar rather than identical? Or why didn't you include my first paragraph? Is it because eminent domain is also priced into everything a billionaire owns?

$6 500 bounty for this is a joke. The black market price would be smth like $6 500 000 or more

There is probably no black market for this at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43025038

You and I have both been here on HN nearing 20 years and you’ve been making this comment to that comment about bug bounties and the supposed black market value of exploits for the whole time. I suspect you’ll never run out of threads to correct. Thank you for your service.

Okay, then first download all their sources (perhaps with model weights?) and sell that. Not the bug itself

Now you're not selling a vulnerability, you're planning a heist. That is a thing you can do!

> Valuations for server-side vulnerabilities are low, because vendors don't compete for them.

Why don't they?

Because as soon as they are patched, they are worthless.

People pay for vulnerabilities because they want to exploit them - if there’s a limited window, there’s limited demand.

Even if there’s something worth a lot behind the exploit, a potential criminal would be better off obtaining whatever that is and selling it instead.

curious, the bug allows dumping private repositories of openai, that sure has black market right?

What criminal enterprise does getting private OpenAI repos fit into?

Per the article, that's the price OpenAI is willing to pay for an exploit that covers any account or integration one connects to their OpenAI account. Let that sink in.

I don't think the other commenters mentioning how server-side vulnerabilities aren't as lucrative in the black market are making that connection.

Yes. And that's why, if you are in the bug bounty business it is important to focus on companies that understand security and pay well and not on wannabe slave owners like this one. No pay - no audit.

That's why people like doing bad things. It pays. Why do you think movies like using this single theme over and over again? It's always happening

I suspect you don’t really know what you are talking about. “It pays.” is not the only reason people like doing bad things. You’re right about the movies bit though, people tend to like black and white narratives as your naive “That’s why people like doing bad things. It pays.” comment perfectly demonstrates.

I also thought that's crazy. Why even bother for these kind of bounties.