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

521–530 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#521

Post by marchenko »

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?…

I think the title of the essay actually begs the question a bit. The Galileo quote ("Eppur si muove") refers to an incident where the objective facts were on the side of the persecuted speaker. Here the author discusses a clash of opinion: depending on the criteria used to assess its outcomes, or how the technology is developed or implemented, radical life extension work could indeed turn out to be unethical - we don't have access to the relevant priors of the discussants. It's possible that utterances like this give people an impression of unexamined or unearned certainty to which they react negatively.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#522

Post by drdrey »

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…

What if voicing a controversial opinion gets you fired?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#523

Post by colordrops »

ch4s3 wrote: post #504
colordrops wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? H…

I lived in Beijing for 9 years and I never once felt threat for my ideas, those of which I spoke to pretty much anyone. And I'm definitely anti-authoritarian. You really are only gonna get busted if you hold up signs or organize protests. The topic of this post is not about public protests.

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with China's treatment of public protests, and think it's despicable. And I find that free speech in the US is one of the only things that we are right about when it comes to exceptionalism. It's maybe the last thing that is special about the US, and that's why I don't like attacks against it. Only a few weeks ago during "free speech week" at Berkeley and the South Carolina protests I had leftist friends and acquaintances advocate for limitations on speech, and violence towards those who use hate speech, despite the fact that the first amendment protects hate speech. It's ass backwards, and exactly what China's faux-leftist policies advocate. In any case, that is not the topic of this post, which is topics of daily conversation.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#524

Post by merloen »

alien_at_work wrote: post #141
ak_yo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? So everyone needs to ensure they hold no oppinions you might find offensive or be homeless? It goes both ways: how am I supposed to work with someone who thinks it's ok to ostracize people for personal beliefs?

I’m an atheist. I’ve worked with people who thought I’m going to hell. What am I going to do, get them all fired?

No. Just be polite and respectful to your colleagues. Not every stone needs to be turned.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#525

Post by dang »

Gargoyle wrote: post #508
dang wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe someday I can persuade you that it's a harder problem than it seems. But my point was that the things people post on HN no more represent YC, let alone Sam, than YouTube comments represent Larry and Sergey.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#526

Post by mbroncano »

dmode wrote: post #386
MrJagil wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on your experience as a brown man in Denmark? Where did you live? I would like your take on it.

I used to live in Frederiksberg, which is practically Copenhagen. I loved Denmark, but as with most European countries, there is a specific definition of what "Dane" means. Foreigners will always be an outsider(vastly different than living in the Bay Area). I also sensed some discomfort with "white collar" brown folks. As most of Danish interactions with brown people is limited to Doner Kebab restaurants and Afghani…

To be completely fair, and by my own experience, it doesn't get any better for a caucasian foreigner.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#527

Post by GuiA »

Houshalter wrote: post #476
GuiA wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are by far the most important technologies of our time. The consequences of them being set back even a little is utterly enormous, and we should be very concerned about this. That's just like, your opinion man. 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…

>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…

> These ideas can and should be debated. Literally ostracizing people and thinking they are evil for having different opinions on them, is absurd.

Agreed. But wait, is anyone actually getting ostracized now for having different opinions? Has Sam Altman been refused service somewhere, or denied employment, or suffered any consequence for holding the opinions he does, besides maybe being called a dick on Twitter?

Because this all seems to me like rich people getting their panties in a bunch because they don’t like being called dicks on Twitter.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#528

Post by pmyteh »

dominotw wrote: post #411
pmyteh wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I, for one, didn't know it was happening and therefore could not participate. My chance of having my opinion count was zero. So pretty much by definition the poll is not representative of the universe of people-who-include-me. And by induction of all the other people who had no chance to participate. If you want to know more, I recipient looking up the 1936 Literary Digest poll for US President, one of the mo…

its the same with US polls, everyone having an opportunity is merely theoretical. Lots of people are unable to votes for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps explain how you are defining * opportunity to participate* .

If you're arguing that elections with less than 100% turnout are flawed as models of public opinion, I agree with you.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#530

Post by chasing »

drdrey wrote: post #522
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…

What if voicing a controversial opinion gets you fired?

You're going to have to be more specific. What kind of controversial opinion are you worried will get you fired?
Post reply on HN