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

591–600 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#591

Post by jedmeyers »

jstanley wrote: post #27
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…

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.

> just because a person presents an unethical idea doesn't make that person universally unethical.

Reminds me of a Kill the Poor sketch by Mitchell and Webb.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#592

Post by Houshalter »

cortesoft wrote: post #576
Houshalter wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is that liberals AREN'T tolerant of Muslims who have anti-gay beliefs; we are as against them as we are against Christian's who are anti-gay. In principle, yes. In practice they definitely are not. Liberals are not going on mass firing and blacklist campaigns of conservative Muslims. They aren't getting filtered and censored on social medial platforms. There is nowhere near the same level of emotional ha…

> Liberals are not going on mass firing and blacklist campaigns of conservative Muslims. Where are these 'mass' campaigns happening? I am sure there are some by fringe liberal groups, but 'mass' is probably an overstatement. Same with filtered and censored on social media; I see plenty of right wing posts on Facebook and Twitter. > This was a big issue in the atheist community. A lot of atheist thinkers became massiv…

There are a number of high profile examples like Mozillas CEO being kicked out for donating to conservative groups or Damore's firing. As far as mass campaigns, there's a number of managers that have admitted to keeping political blacklists just within Google: https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/google-manifesto-blacklists.h... And there are various large campaigns to dox people on the far right like https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/14/543418271... which have been successful in getting numerous people fired.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#593

Post by xmonkee »

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…

I'm with you on this. I've been living in the US for three years and literally never faced any racism of any sort. I went to vacation in Amsterdam and some shit faced kid decided to harass me cause I'm Indian within two days of being there. Anecdotal, but yeah.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#594

Post by xster »

marme wrote: post #552
Buldak wrote: post #514

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…

this is exactly the case. Try saying "taiwan is an independent country" in beijing and see how well that statement is received

Seems like a sensible theme to explore but is this data or conjecture? I'd make a similarly anecdotal conjecture that you'd be met with rigorous debate but your social character standing won't be affected by bringing this topic up, nor would it be socially acceptable for your opponent to use ad hominem at any point. This is the theme the author is addressing.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#595

Post by Houshalter »

cortesoft wrote: post #580
rhapsodic wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A right-wing person makes a statement saying, "We need to stop allowing Muslims into this country to protect ourselves against terrorism" >A liberal response is to say, "That is intolerant. You can't group all Muslims as terrorists. We need to be tolerant of people with different faiths" That's a very good characterization of most liberal responses on this particular issue. It's a complete non-sequitur. The RW state…

I don't think it is a non-sequitur as much as focusing on different concerns. While it is true that the RW statement doesn't imply that all Muslims are terrorists, it does imply that it is ok to ban ALL Muslims if some are terrorists. The liberal position is that this is NOT ok; we feel that the cost of blocking innocent people from entering the country is not worth the cost of allowing some possible terrorists in. T…

The two arguments aren't exactly equivalent. Gun buyers are US citizens have a lot of rights and obligations from the government. Immigrants are not citizens and don't have any rights or obligations to fairness from the government. We already have very different rules for immigrants from different countries. A Canadian can get into the country much easier than other countries for example.

I don't personally support banning Muslims because the terrorism is so low it's not worth worrying about. But one could imagine if it got much higher and was a legitimate large threat. Then I would be completely ok with banning Muslims.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#596

Post by SamBam »

jstanley wrote: post #66
SamBam wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's fine to criticise the ethics of the work. Beneficial, in fact. The problem arises when you can't separate the ethics of the work from the ethics of the person doing the work. When "this is a bad idea, maybe you should stop" becomes "you are a bad person".

It's fine in theory to criticise the ethics of the idea alone, but there can be a limit to that.

If the CEO of a mining company has the "ingenious, un-PC idea" to increase mining profits by lobbying Congress and donating to sympathetic lawmakers to ease EPA regulations so he can dump mercury directly in the river, my ethical argument against the idea is that it damages the environment and the people in the communities, possibly for generations.

If his answer is "I know that, but I value profits more," what is left to discuss about the ethics of the idea? We agree on the facts of the matter.

All that's left is for me to say "I think your moral framework is very different from mine," which is really not that different from my saying "I think you are a bad person."

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#597

Post by rhizome »

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…

What do you mean by "ethical outlook?" Who doesn't have one? You may not agree with their ethics, but they're there. If you're talking about shared ethics, that's known as morality.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#598

Post by ch4s3 »

colordrops wrote: post #523
ch4s3 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spe…

Yeah, I also know a number of extremely left leaning folks who advocate some authoritarian nonsense, and I agree that they're wrong. I don't care to address the free speech week which was clearly set up to provoke the response they got.

However, none of that changes the fact that Sam Altman is playing loose with some sloppy analogy. No one is stifling his speech.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#599

Post by sheepmullet »

methodover wrote: post #559
munin wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing I hear the most from people who have moved to Dallas recently or visiting is "Everyone here is so nice" I lived in Dallas, it was the only place I've lived where people would yell "faggot" at me on the street. People there aren't that friendly if you look different.

All these people saying SF is less tolerant than the Deep South are almost certainly not gay. I came out in college in a big city in TX and it was fucking brutal. Someone who thinks SF is intolerant has no fucking clue what real intolerance looks like.

Or perhaps they have had different experiences from you?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#600

Post by throwaway8766 »

ak_yo wrote: post #260
throwaway8766 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally empathize with this perspective. It would never be appropriate for coworkers to criticize (directly or indirectly) your lifestyle, identity, or personal decisions. With regards to your statement "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.", in many ways I totally respect that concern. But…

That's totally fair -- and I appreciate that you're willing to engage seriously about these things! Your last point is well-taken. It may even be the case these days that the majority of people who hold views similar to yours think the way you do. But I think we need to take into account the uncertainty that people in these situations face. It's hard to know what the other person is thinking -- and if all you know is…

You as well!

This is a really good reminder that there is indeed a tragic past of marginalized groups being treated poorly and receiving harm/violence. And there still is in certain areas, meaning that even though my standpoint may be that "of course I value them as a person", from the recipient's standpoint that cannot be assumed, and indeed it may be safer not to. This is super important to keep in mind, and at times may be worth stating explicitly (if the topic comes up/is appropriate) when talking about this with folks. I can't assume they know I believe this.

Post reply on HN