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

161–170 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#161

Post by [deleted] »

SamBam wrote: post #47
jstanley wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an ethical outlook is a great idea. And it's good to criticise ideas you think are unethical. The point of the post is that just because a person presents an unethical idea doesn't make that person universally unethical. The point is to separate the ideas from the person presenting them, so that people can feel free to present novel ideas without fearing damage to their reputation if the ideas are unpopular.

> The entire point of the post is to separate the ideas from the person presenting them. But that wasn't the entire point of the post. The post also didn't like people criticizing life-extending research, when the examples were people criticizing the direction of the research itself. The post was hazy about what, exactly, it wanted people to stop doing, but it seemed to dislike any criticism. Whether the "life extens…

[deleted]

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#162

Post by beaconstudios »

igor47 wrote: post #131
psyc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be fired and ousted from the industry.

Ah, we come to the heart of it. If Sam had said, "Twitter is a problem because it enables dangerous groupthink, promotes overreaction, and stifles meaningful discourse" then (a) his argument would have been a lot more clear and (b) I would have been 100% onboard

I'm not sure twitter is the cause, more the primary avenue. People can be dangerously groupthink-y and overreacting in person or on social media, and our culture certainly seems to be moving more in the direction of instant reactions and emotional self-satisfaction over engaging in nuanced debates.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#163

Post by jedharris »

ealexhudson wrote: post #6

I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…

The criticism quoted wasn't about ethical problems in genetic engineering research. It was about life extension as a goal.

I can imagine a debate about that, but I can't see how it is appropriate to create a toxic environment for life extension advocates.

Apparently these researchers / advocates found the environment so toxic they were motivated to move. Perhaps they were over-reacting but it seems likely something is wrong.

And "move fast / break things" applied to human biology research is entirely an insertion of the commenter, not remotely an implication of Altman's piece.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#164

Post by LukaAl »

The argument is interesting but flawed. He points to a problem he sees, an increasingly high focus on being politically correct. And I agree it is a problem.

But he doesn't ask himself why. He doesn't try to understand why PC is so important right now, to the point to risk missing out on important and revolutionary ideas. And that made me think: where the best idea come from? Not from being free to be jerks but from questioning the status quo in constructive ways.

Why there's so much focus on Political Correctness right now? One possible answer is because the status quo has provided a windfall for White Educated Middle-Class Males with good connections at the expense of people further away from this description. Example? Are you a woman? You have to cope with molestation from entitled men. etc etc...

I'm crazy thinking that if we solve these problems we could then start again being open to crazy shit ideas, criticize each other ideas and keep things moving.

Or yes, we could be expats in China, where for now this problem hasn't emerged yet. But it sounds to me like just swiping the dirt under the rug. Is it innovative? Just asking...

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#165

Post by librvf »

igor47 wrote: post #131
psyc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re leaving out the part where B whips up a Twitter mob to demand A be fired and ousted from the industry.

Ah, we come to the heart of it. If Sam had said, "Twitter is a problem because it enables dangerous groupthink, promotes overreaction, and stifles meaningful discourse" then (a) his argument would have been a lot more clear and (b) I would have been 100% onboard

Well, is twitter actually the problem, though? Twitter's biases are a problem, but that's a separate issue. Twitter can't be expected to prevent all forms of propaganda from its users, and even if they could the problem is not just twitter specifically, it's all social media. While the parent made a pithy comment using Twitter as an example, in reality instigators rely on an array of platforms to spread the message and whip up the proverbial mob.

And more importantly, people with decision-making power have shown a remarkable tendency to submit to the will of these capricious and volatile online mobs.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#166

Post by nilkn »

geofft wrote: post #140
psyc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this sort of too-clever reflexive argument constructing impossible to take seriously. I propose a new fallacy: Argumentum ad Gödel.

I'm pretty serious with this argument, though. The entire point of the post here is that no idea is too odious to be considered unworthy of polite debate. Life extension? Sure! Gay people are evil? Sure! (For some reason, and against all evidence, we hope nobody will be convinced of that.) Eugenics is great? Sure! People of a certain race are genetically inferior and unworthy of human rights? Sure! Those who are apos…

If you feel that you can no longer participate in HN at all because you advanced this opinion about Sam, then you might have a point. Sam's post was written in the context of people being fired from corporate jobs or feeling forced to move out of San Francisco.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#167

Post by creaghpatr »

cryptonector wrote: post #53
jstanley wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's asking for ideas to be criticised, and for the people presenting the ideas not to be ostracised. You can say "it's a bad idea to work on extending life", but following on from there to cast the person presenting the idea as unethical is doing more harm than good.

Maybe this is Altman's response to being savaged over his "everyone should get a share of GDP" idea? Who knows (besides Altman)? To be sure, there is a lot of self -censorship -- the Overton window is real, and it's not advisable to say things fully outside the Overton window. Perhaps Altman is saying that the Overton window is closing on some opinions that he thinks we should be able to discuss openly, but because t…

I don't agree with his UBI idea, but I think the debates on HN have been really great, with both sides giving a lot of food for thought.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#168

Post by jggonz »

"I would advice Mr. Sam Altman to not write such an insulting article. He should take it down immediately. Many of us reading it live in San Francisco."

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#169

Post by BenchRouter »

cjbprime wrote: post #130
alien_at_work wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

> I haven't shut down any argument by saying this

You're being naive if you think that saying this doesn't end any hope of a reasonable discussion.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#170

Post by gadders »

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

CS Lewis

Post reply on HN