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

511–520 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#511

Post by conanbatt »

dguaraglia wrote: post #489
conanbatt wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Damore case has nothing to do with the validity of the science. If the scientific interpretation had been perfectly reasonable there would still be a flip-out and would have also been fired. Thats what's scary.

Damore was fired not because his science was flawed, but because he made himself essentially impossible to work with. Would you be "scared" if someone refuses to take a shower for months on end and a company decides to fire them?

I disagree entirely and vehemently to what you are saying.

> he made himself essentially impossible to work with

Who told you this? Im sure there were 100's of engineers, including female co-workers, at google that would have worked with him.

But lets play along, lets say that effectively no single person at google would voluntarily let himself work with Damore. Why do you think that is? Because 99.9% disagree with his essay? Or because he became a target for scorn in the public eye that overpunished him?

He was not fired because he wrote a shabby essay. He did not get fired for writing the essay itself. He got fired because the public asked him to be fired and punished, and google complied for PR.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#512

Post by btilly »

fourthark wrote: post #324
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.

Pretty sure you'll find the causation was the other way around.

Could be. I have no idea of the legislative history.

But I am certain that it has done a lot to help maintain our startup culture.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#513

Post by prepend »

edmccard wrote: post #493
Houshalter wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If genetic engineering and life extension become common place, especially if controlled by private companies which naturally seek profit above all else, who will benefit from them most? (hint: probably not people living on welfare) Why not? People on welfare have access to better healthcare than the richest person on Earth did 50 years ago. They have access to pocket computers and communication systems far more powe…

>People on welfare have access to better healthcare than the richest person on Earth did 50 years ago. They have access to pocket computers and communication systems far more powerful than the military could have afforded 50 years ago. Which doesn't really matter unless you have a time machine that can send them back 50 years. At least, none of the poor people I've known (including myself) have ever said "I can't aff…

It does matter as they live a healthier, happier and more productive life. I think the point is that people are better off now than 50 years earlier.

So in 50 years what used to only be available to billionaires will be over the counter.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#514

Post by Buldak »

The author says that it's safer to discuss "controversial" ideas in Beijing than America, but I wonder if that's partly because the ideas in question aren't actually controversial in Beijing. Presumably the ideas the author has in mind are those that might be interpreted to impugn certain disadvantaged groups. But if I found it more easy to say "gay people are degenerates" in Beijing, I don't think I would take that as evidence that free speech norms are more robust there--it might just mean that homophobia is the norm.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#515

Post by nateabele »

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…

But look at the form of the statement quoted. To paraphrase, 'I disagree with this idea, therefore any proponent of it is a bad person'.

The underlying assumption (or one of many) is that all perspectives have moral judgements attached, and the offended party is the sole arbiter of that judgement.

In other words, it's one thing to question progress, it's another thing to say 'I disagree with this form of progress, therefore the person working towards it is evil'. Judge action all you want, but assume good intent absent concrete evidence to the contrary.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#516

Post by untog »

cirgue wrote: post #509
untog wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. But does it really matter? Are we that sensitive?

I mean, the essay makes the argument that allowing disparagement of gay people might be a necessary in order to allow the investigation of novel physics (which, wtf) - why not also make the argument that being called unethical might be a necessary cost to allow the investigation of life extension?

Is the idea worth perusing? Then you can probably stand to be called a name or two. Especially when you're also proposing allowing whole groups of people to be disparaged in the name of progress.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#517

Post by spenczar5 »

nateabele wrote: post #515
untog wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But look at the form of the statement quoted. To paraphrase, 'I disagree with this idea , therefore any proponent of it is a bad person '. The underlying assumption (or one of many) is that all perspectives have moral judgements attached, and the offended party is the sole arbiter of that judgement. In other words, it's one thing to question progress, it's another thing to say 'I disagree with this form of progress,…

I don't read it that way. I read it as:

- Extending human lifespan harms the environment.

- Harming the environment is ethically wrong. (this is elided)

- Therefore, Extending human lifespans is ethically wrong.

This is muddy thinking and takes a great leap when it ignores the ethical _benefits_ of extending human lifespans, but I don't think it is indefensible.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#518

Post by prepend »

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...

But isn’t it simplistic to equate all transphobic people with murderers who commit violence against trans people?

Would you also be scared of working with men because they typically commit homicides more than women?

I think being afraid of your life simply because someone is a bigot who hasn’t exhibited any violent behavior is on you, not the bigot. A small number of bigots are violent and dangerous, that doesn’t mean all are.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#519

Post by dominotw »

geofft wrote: post #466
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to my sisters graduation at Northwestern where Stephen Colbert was the keynote speaker. I don't see a difference between the antics of Colbert and Yiannapoulos other than what tribe they represent. One is a keynote graduation speaker, one has riots that prevent them from speaking on campus.

To be honest, I don't think I can defend inviting Stephen Colbert, either. (Especially if he's in character.) However, commencement speeches do not have a high reputation for academic rigor to start with, so I think inviting an entertainer to speak at one is sort of different from inviting a speaker with some specific experience (either academic, or political/industrial/etc.) to give a lecture. All that said, keep th…

> Yiannopoulos wanted to read out the names of students without legal immigration status on stage at Berkeley.

I don't think this was ever true, and your whole stance on this hinges on it.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#520

Post by dang »

CalChris wrote: post #395
dang wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh please. Y'all Please don't personalize or (so to speak) group-ize this here. I know the feelings are strong, but this temptation needs to be resisted because it leads to battle, which is incompatible with thoughtful exchange. You did it again downthread ("you" vs. "we") and it strikes me as no coincidence that this subthread is by far the worst of the ones I've scrolled through so far. Which I'm sure is not your…

I lived in the South and I know what y’all means. Given what Altman was writing about I’ll put this down as unintentional irony.

I'm sure you know more about the American South than I do. But the point is that you're damaging HN by taking this thread in a significantly worse direction. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15926503 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15927904 are not helping. Please stop this now.
Post reply on HN