Consider that a detailed answer to this question might constitute an information hazard.
I don’t think this is dangerous to talk about. If anything, talking publicly about my preferred attack vectors helps the world better triage them and (if necessary) deploy countermeasures. It’s not like anybody is really going to throw away $1 billion for the sake of evil.
I agree; open discussion and red-teaming are valuable and I’m not concerned by your proposed (anti-?) financial attack vector. To quote Bostrom:
There are many ways of responding to information hazards. In many cases, the best response is no response, i.e., to proceed as though no such hazard existed. The benefits of information may so far outweigh its costs that even when information hazards are fully accounted for, we still under-invest in the gathering and dissemination of information. Moreover, ignorance carries its own dangers which are oftentimes greater than those of knowledge.
I don’t think this is dangerous to talk about. If anything, talking publicly about my preferred attack vectors helps the world better triage them and (if necessary) deploy countermeasures. It’s not like anybody is really going to throw away $1 billion for the sake of evil.
I agree; open discussion and red-teaming are valuable and I’m not concerned by your proposed (anti-?) financial attack vector. To quote Bostrom: