Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E Pur Si Muove

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#121

Post by tclancy »

hprotagonist wrote: post #3

Randy was forever telling people, without rancor, that they were full of shit. That was the only way to get anything done in hacking. No one took it personally. Charlene's crowd most definitely did take it personally. It wasn't being told that they were wrong that offended them, though. It was the underlying assumption that a person could be right or wrong about _anything_. So on the Night in Question the night-- of…

The problem is everyone sees themselves as dwarves. Very few people decide to be orcs (or whatever). It's some kind of Elvish version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#122

Post by nilkn »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #7

Isn't this just asking for your ideas to not be criticized? Me: let's extend life Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical Isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work? Why would Sam complain about an encounter like this?

An example that comes to mind is that Apple's chief of diversity (a black woman) was recently fired and replaced by a white woman for the following comment:

> "There can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation."

I find this to be a pretty mundane statement, and it's fairly spectacular to me that a 20 year veteran of the company was fired for saying it. I also think there's a lot of irony in the fact that Apple removed a black woman from a position of power just because she suggested that diversity as a concept should not be reduced completely to skin color and gender.

---

So the problem is not with the criticism of ideas. It's that folks are being fired or completely ostracized for ideas that deviate even slightly from established consensus.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#123

Post by olympus »

CPLX wrote: post #29

California has been ridiculous for as long as I can remember. Come to New York, we have 20 million or so people who don't give a fuck about you and what you do all day as long as you don't clog up the subway stairs. It's quite lovely.

This is a pretty good point. People complain about Californian culture being too sensitive but choose to stay there. If your startup can't survive unless it's right next to Silicon Valley then it probably deserves to die anyway.

NYC has plenty of tech talent to work with. Altman is not staying in SV because he can't afford to move. He's staying in the area because he actually prefers working with the people he's complaining about.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#124

Post by alehul »

jonny_eh wrote: post #70

Uh oh, Sam has been "red pilled". Without providing more examples/specifics, it just reads as a tirade against the boogeyman of "political correctness". Is he upset that the SF crowd rejected Peter Thiel for endorsing Trump? Or is he upset that Brendan Eich was forced out of Mozilla? Who knows? He's being so coy.

He provided examples, and judging by the response on HN, it's a common issue people feel.

You should take the strongest form of the argument to debate, not the weakest.

It would contribute more if you gave your response to why you disagree with the necessity of fully dispelling bad ideas through reasoned debate, or why you disagree that we have to accept the existence of bad or 'wacky' ideas without ostracizing the person altogether in order to have the good ideas.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#125

Post by InTheArena »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #13
InTheArena wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or conversely, maybe we should listen to people who are pointing out that we arn't as free as we think we are, and people who we think are more constrained may not be. It's a good thesis to try and prove.

It would be a funny assertion to say that you're less free to speak in SV where the worst you'll get is a tongue-lashing vs China where the worst you'll get is quite a lot worse. How would you even fix this freedom? Somehow constrain people to not speak their mind when they disagree with you? Constraining them through government would obviously make us less free so that's out. Constraining them through culture is no…

Here's a difference - in the US, this is a power that corporations have over you that they can exercise randomly, and outside of general visibility. In China, iut's a power that the government has, which they can exercise randomly (but less so recently) but very visibly.

In the US, there is a long history of self-appointed leaders in moral and political panics shutting down dissent via social norms and pressure, with or without the blessing of a government institution.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#126

Post by cryptoz »

ianai wrote: post #62
cryptoz wrote: post #42

> [1] I am not worried that letting some people on the internet say things like “gay people are evil” is going to convince any reasonable people that such a statement is true. Wait, but why not? Isn't this the crux issue of our time? The Russians and the RNC have spouted fake propaganda so loudly that ~40% of the US believe falsehoods already. And the main reason they believe things that aren't true is because they a…

I think the lies on the internet thing will have to defeat itself. I remember being led astray by internet “wisdom” back in the first dot com bubble. Then I went and tried to apply that knowledge IRL. I don’t remember any single particular example, but I remember feeling downright embarrassed for believing something off the internet. I then learned to always take anything from the internet with hefty doses of salt ro…

Of course - we are all responsible for ourselves. The problem is that critical thinking is not taught in schools, and children grow up without it by the millions. A problem doesn't "defeat itself" and people who have trouble thinking critically cause problems for those who can do it naturally. Saying that there is nothing to worry about from having tens of millions of people believe lies, or saying "that problem will not receive a solution from ME or ANYONE I know!" (basically, "will have to defeat itself") is going backwards.

The world, the whole world, has a problem with fake information on the internet right now. The answer is not "oh well, too bad" and the answer is not "I'm not worried".

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#127

Post by addicted »

---It is bad for all of us when people can’t say that the world is a sphere, that evolution is real, or that the sun is at the center of the solar system.

Wait can people not say these things in SF?

If not then what's the point of this post.

If so, then wow SF, Thats messed up.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#128

Post by amsheehan »

CharlesMerriam2 wrote: post #92
throwaway8766 wrote: post #64

I'm extremely aware of this as someone who is socially conservative in terms of abortion, gay marriage, trans issues, etc (seriously not trying to start a flame war). It's weird knowing that a large portion of the country has similar values to me, but in a major city I can never mention these things or I'll immediately become unemployable. It doesn't matter that these things have zero impact on my behavior at work; y…

One of things no one talks about: correlations. I have seen several of people lose their careers after become right wing spokespeople. These people work in difficult, ambiguous fields including patent prosecution (IP Law) and network security analysis. The fields are all about considering probable outcomes from ambiguous or untrustworthy data. They weren't pushed from their jobs; they stopped being able to juggle the…

Can you elaborate? I don't think I understand what you mean.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#129

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

slededit wrote: post #114
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fearing damage to your reputation if your ideas are unpopular is literally how society works. Unethical ideas aren't just unethical out of the ether, they usually involve harming someone or some group. Putting those ideas forward should come with risk to yourself because it definitely comes with risks to others.

In the old days it was thought that only the implementation of an idea could cause harm. The only evidence I've seen presented that the idea itself is harmful rests upon an assumption it will obviously be implemented or you wouldn't be thinking about it. It's aenthema to a free thinker.

Fair fair but to be clear the one example in this article is calling someone unethical who is working to implement an idea.

"people working on this must be really unethical"

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#130

Post by cjbprime »

alien_at_work wrote: post #104
cjbprime wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This distinction seems very fragile. I notice you've switched the act from "working on" in the original quote to "presenting". I don't think your distinction works anymore if you remove that change you made. Why would it be wrong to regard someone dedicating most of their time to actively accomplishing ("working on") an unethical thing as an unethical person? What else could "unethical person" possibly mean?

The issue is that what we're discussing is not objectively unethical. If we were discussing disecting live babies, then no one would disagree that anyone for that is unethical and even evil. But extending human life? We don't know exactly what would happen if we did that. Some people think it would be the end of the world, others (like me) think it would actually bring about positive change. Given that it's controver…

I think that life extension is dangerous and wrong and therefore people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people.

I haven't censored anyone or shut down any argument by saying this, and neither was I attempting to, so your point seems to be confused.

Post reply on HN