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

501–510 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#501

Post by untog »

chasing wrote: post #495

'More recently, I’ve seen credible people working on ideas like pharmaceuticals for intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension leave San Francisco because they found the reaction to their work to be so toxic. “If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical” was a memorable quote I heard this year.' That's toxic?…

Yeah, I think this gets to my core objection to the essay. It presents as being in favour of free speech, yet also implicitly says that anyone questioning progress (in more or less any form) is dangerous.

The idea that you should be able to say or do whatever you want and also be shielded from criticism of those ideas is silly. Especially when you're some of the most rich and powerful people in the 21st century. No-one is stopping you from doing anything, they're just questioning you about it. If you can't (or don't want to) answer those questions then maybe you should consider why that is.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#502

Post by [deleted] »

guelo wrote: post #273
creaghpatr wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People in the south don't think about San Francisco at all. Only the Fox News anchors based in New York but charged with representing the politics of the south care about San Francisco.

People in SF don't think about the south either besides in political discussions.

[deleted]

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#503

Post by conanbatt »

ak_yo wrote: post #108
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…

From my perspective, I don't want to work in an environment where people are voicing their opinion that (e.g.) gay marriage is illegitimate or wrong. How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral? I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me. It's not that you can…

> How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral?

Isn't that a restriction you are putting on yourself? As I see it, it is your requirement that someone has to share your point of view, and to get it to be so has to be your cost, not theirs.

Everyone things something someone else is doing or thinking is immoral all the time. It even has the composition problem: I think its immoral to sabotage people because you think its immoral! Thus who is the immoral!

> It's not that you can't have these opinions or voice them -- but it's also not the case that the people who are most affected by those opinions are going to feel OK about it.

I agree. There is a price you pay when you have a contrarian view point. You must. However today that is not vocal disagreement, its firing people and exile. Some twitter mob victims have become unemployable. Thats not reasonable to me.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#504

Post by ch4s3 »

colordrops wrote: post #176
ch4s3 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That struck me as ridiculous. If you piss off the mayor of SF you don't get disappeared, but that very much does happen in China.

That's not what is being talked about here. The topic is about social ostracization based on opinions you hold, rather than the ability to challenge authority over public broadcast mediums.

Then he's wrong about that too. There are plenty of heterodox ideas that would get you ostracized socially as well as imprisoned in Beijing, they just aren't the ideas that are heterodox in SF and vica versa, so he's ignoring them. Also, the blurry line between state and society in China means that social heterodoxy is a challenge to authority. He's missing the point.

Furthermore, what is he really ostracized from? He never makes that clear. His anecdote about " radical life extension" relies on literally the worst version of criticism of life extension, the kind you would get from the angriest and least informed type of person. It's a bad argument.

Furthermore his argument about Newton undermines itself. Newton hid his work on alchemy and it was uncovered after his death, because he'd have literally been imprisoned for it. That wouldn't happen if Musk tried to turn lead into gold today.

Again, the mention if Elon Musk is ridiculous, because plenty of people ridiculed SpaceX when he started it, but he push on anyway.

Sure, occasionally good ideas get shouted down throughout history by small minded reactionaries, especially slightly transgressive ones, but that's just the hurdle you have to cross to execute on brilliant ideas sometimes. This whole thing seemed extremely thin skinned and petulant to me, and I definitely have diminished respect for Sam after reading it.

And, if indeed he is correct and SF has entered a phase of reactionary response to new ideas, then that change hasn't happened in a vacuum.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#505

Post by ch4s3 »

creaghpatr wrote: post #84
pavlov wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In China, you can even get disappeared in your own home. It’s called “residential surveillance at a designated location” — indefinite house arrest under police watch. It’s used routinely against both irrelevant dissidents and high-profile targets like artist Ai Weiwei and Nobel prize winner Liu Xiaobo. Maybe, in Altman’s Panglossian view, house arrest is just an opportunity to think deeply about inconvenient truths.

I'm giving Sam the benefit of the doubt that he's just trying to make a point and didn't think that line through.

I'd refer you to my response below. If he didn't think it through, then it points to how thin his argument is and how weak his thinking is on this issue.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#506

Post by conanbatt »

macrael wrote: post #439
defen wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work with vegans who think the fact that I use and consume animal products is immoral. They regularly make smug or passive-aggressive comments. And frankly I don't give a shit, and it doesn't stop us from working together.

There is not a long history of vegans killing people for their meat eating beliefs. You are wrong to equate the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LG...

What does that have to do with it. The history of it doesnt make it less or more immoral.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#508

Post by Gargoyle »

dang wrote: post #498
Gargoyle wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think this is one place he could put his money where his mouth is. Completely revamp the culture here, on this board that represents his company.

IMO YC could legitimately respond to that one like Odetta did when Joan Baez said "you taught me how to sing": "Oh baby, don't you blame me for that".

That the paid moderator of this site would respond like this is unsurprising.

And yet the position of moderator is one that could do wonders for setting a better culture.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#509

Post by cirgue »

untog wrote: post #501
chasing wrote: post #495

'More recently, I’ve seen credible people working on ideas like pharmaceuticals for intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension leave San Francisco because they found the reaction to their work to be so toxic. “If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical” was a memorable quote I heard this year.' That's toxic?…

Yeah, I think this gets to my core objection to the essay. It presents as being in favour of free speech, yet also implicitly says that anyone questioning progress (in more or less any form) is dangerous. The idea that you should be able to say or do whatever you want and also be shielded from criticism of those ideas is silly. Especially when you're some of the most rich and powerful people in the 21st century. No-o…

Saying "you are unethical for doing this research" is very different from saying "I think there are serious problems with extending human life". One is a legitimate criticism and is vital to public debate. The other is name calling.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#510

Post by btilly »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #266
btilly wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is no such language in your employment agreement, that is the default arrangement. I'm not going to bother having to get a lawyer to fix something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place. In California it isn't a problem. I'm firmly convinced that this fact is one of the reasons why Silicon Valley is in California and not New York.

Silicon Valley is in California because of historical reasons related to a) US defense R&D spending following WWII and b) the 60's counterculture, not because of differences in each respective state's employment law. IANAL, but declining to hire a lawyer out of principle because you think that certain aspects of a given state's employment law "shouldn't be a problem in the first place" is really dumb.

Whatever the history, startups are fragile. Were California law different, it would definitely have a chilling effect on startups.

As for hiring a lawyer, most of the people who really need to know this don't know up front that they should negotiate such terms. And most employees, including me, don't really want to start off a new job haggling over the contract. It really doesn't make a good first impression.

Post reply on HN