I think your read of Habryka’s reply is mistaking a for-all quantifier and a there-exists quantifier. Insofar as you’re saying “never use this information to harm the interests of the third party” Habryka is saying “no; here is an instance I would want to share it that seems reasonable to me that does involve something the third party might find harmful”. This is distinct from “no; if I ever find a situation where I can use this info to harm the third-party, I will use the info to do that”.
Perhaps you’re right; I would love for that to be the case, and to have been wrong about all this. But this model- that it’s a there exists quantifier- is very surprised by a bunch of things from “lol, no, […]” to “I might use it that way. Like, I might tell someone who is worried about [third party] that they are planning to move into the space if it seems relevant. Or I might myself come to realize it’s important and then actively tell people to maybe do something about it.”
And, like, he didn’t give any examples of when he would not use the information.
His position was pretty clear to me: he thought that the fact the third party is moving into that space is bad, and if there is a way to use the information to prevent them from doing it, he would do so (but he didn’t see any ways of doing that and didn’t find it very important overall).
Like, there’s nothing in the messages to suggest otherwise.
He didn’t give an isolated example of when he’d want to share information for different reasons, where it would have a side-effect of hurting the interests of the third party. Instead, it was an example where the reason to share information was specifically that it would lead to hurting the interests of the third party.
He did call the information “strategically relevant”. He did say that he would continue to share the information basically at his sole discretion. He did say he might use it if he realizes it’s strategically important.
I really don’t have a coherent model of an alternative explanation you’re trying to point at.
(If you- or someone else- is available for that, I would love to jump on a call with someone who has a good model of Oliver and can explain to me the alternative explanation for what generated the messages.)
I think your read of Habryka’s reply is mistaking a for-all quantifier and a there-exists quantifier. Insofar as you’re saying “never use this information to harm the interests of the third party” Habryka is saying “no; here is an instance I would want to share it that seems reasonable to me that does involve something the third party might find harmful”. This is distinct from “no; if I ever find a situation where I can use this info to harm the third-party, I will use the info to do that”.
Perhaps you’re right; I would love for that to be the case, and to have been wrong about all this. But this model- that it’s a there exists quantifier- is very surprised by a bunch of things from “lol, no, […]” to “I might use it that way. Like, I might tell someone who is worried about [third party] that they are planning to move into the space if it seems relevant. Or I might myself come to realize it’s important and then actively tell people to maybe do something about it.”
And, like, he didn’t give any examples of when he would not use the information.
His position was pretty clear to me: he thought that the fact the third party is moving into that space is bad, and if there is a way to use the information to prevent them from doing it, he would do so (but he didn’t see any ways of doing that and didn’t find it very important overall).
Like, there’s nothing in the messages to suggest otherwise.
He didn’t give an isolated example of when he’d want to share information for different reasons, where it would have a side-effect of hurting the interests of the third party. Instead, it was an example where the reason to share information was specifically that it would lead to hurting the interests of the third party.
He did call the information “strategically relevant”. He did say that he would continue to share the information basically at his sole discretion. He did say he might use it if he realizes it’s strategically important.
I really don’t have a coherent model of an alternative explanation you’re trying to point at.
(If you- or someone else- is available for that, I would love to jump on a call with someone who has a good model of Oliver and can explain to me the alternative explanation for what generated the messages.)