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

691–700 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#691

Post by alien_at_work »

GuiA wrote: post #527
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…

> 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? Becau…

People in this very thread are saying anyone who works on such technologies are inherently unethical people. Do you not see how this kind of labelling is dangerous and distructive to debate?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#692

Post by teekert »

hprotagonist wrote: post #376
teekert wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes, sure. But sometimes it takes years of effort and loneliness, that is at least where the "and yet it moves" quote comes from. I my mind at least, Galilei was alone, with unpopular, dangerous views, against a huge number of people with another opinion. It is what the piece is about, it is what the Fountainhead is about.

"solo science gods make great advances" is not at all what "E Pur Si Muove" means. It means that the material world is what it is, and that reality is not modulated by human decree.

To me, and I'm entitled to my own feeling about "E Pur Si Muove" ;), it also stands for a strong believe in one's own observations, a strong will that is not swayed by the masses and the loneliness that comes with it. The sentence "E Pur Si Muove" may provide people with the strength needed to voice their unconventional theories.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#693

Post by danso »

ironjunkie wrote: post #607
Diederich wrote: post #339

Shortly prior to the recent US presidential election, I worked next to a nice, smart young man from California who went to a well-known progressive university in the bay area. Politics was very rarely discussed at work, but in the weeks before the election, there was some cross talk in the isles. He trusted me enough to message me privately that he was planning to vote for Trump. At that time, I was quite anxious abo…

As an outsider to American politics. This is 100% my vision also. I know a lot of people that have moderate views that are simply shut down by liberals. As a response, they hide and vote for Trump. I see it as their way to elect someone that is not afraid to go against the accepted view of the elites and therefore going against all that political correctness nonsense.

What "political correctness nonsense"?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#694

Post by marchenko »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #668
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…

> That's just like, your opinion man. No. Given the technologies we're talking about, what the parent wrote in those two quoted sentences is literally as close to stating an obvious fact as possible when discussing future technology. > These issues are fundamentally political, and there is no reason that they should be above any form of discourse or criticism. Discourse and criticism? Fine. But first, understanding.…

It's not necessarily selfish. One argument I've heard against life extension is that if it is only - or even deferentially - available to the upper stratum, the power of compound interest will allow them to accumulate and hold even greater proportions of social and economic resources (esp. zero-sum resources like status and power). Others caution that social structures will become more resistant to change if those with the most social capital are also the longest-lived. Most people really do care about status relative to their contemporaries-not just absolute status - and how it affects their agency. And then there are environmentalists who have ecological worries, and others with different specific but impersonal concerns.

Death is a great redistributor for all forms of capital - social, economic, and organic.

I can think of counter-arguments to these points, but they do not necessarily stem from selfishness,merely different preferences.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#695

Post by squarefoot »

pavlov wrote: post #560
simonbyrne wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, perhaps the authors status in San Francisco means that any comments he makes will be more likely to get attention (and hence criticism) than in China.

In China, the author is a visiting foreign multimillionaire — the type of person whose conversation will be enthusiastically received no matter the content.

That would likely be the reaction in whatever country he was visiting. Being multimillionaire and foreign makes the difference.

Contracts with government == money+jobs == votes -> power.

Contracts with politician owned company == money -> power.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#696

Post by jochung »

danso wrote: post #693
ironjunkie wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider to American politics. This is 100% my vision also. I know a lot of people that have moderate views that are simply shut down by liberals. As a response, they hide and vote for Trump. I see it as their way to elect someone that is not afraid to go against the accepted view of the elites and therefore going against all that political correctness nonsense.

What "political correctness nonsense"?

Firing people for providing criticism of a company's diversity police, while citing science, and letting your friends in media drag the plaintiff through the mud.

Cancelling events and boycotting sponsors because their speaker line up isn't sufficiently in line with imaginary industry demographics. Or even because a blind selection process, the thing people say they want, ends up selecting a wrongthinker.

Bullying comet-chasing scientists into tearful apologies over their choice of shirt. Or a self deprecating joke. That's just in STEM, you see the same in comedy, in politics, etc.

In each instance, a pitchfork wielding mob was summoned with social media outrage by bad faith actors. And get this, they are the ones who also loudly complain about trolls.

The rule to make sense of it is quite easy: when they do it to you, it's just consequences for speech. When it happens to them, it's targeted harassment that makes people feel unsafe and someone needs to step in and ban it.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#697

Post by ihm »

sheepmullet wrote: post #605
AlexandrB wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intolerance based on thoughts you have a choice to verbalize is markedly different than intolerance based on physical/physiological attributes you can't control. Someone having a bad experience because they expressed an unpopular opinion in SF seems bad if you've never been the target of disdain for just existing.

Why are they markedly different? Ive found it's much easier to shrug off discrimination based on my skin color than it is to shrug off discrimination based on my core beliefs. I'd love to see some research on this - do people who can be discriminated against based upon sexual orientation (which can be hidden) have it a lot easier than people who can be discriminated against based on skin color (which they obviously c…

> Ive found it's much easier to shrug off discrimination based on my skin color than it is to shrug off discrimination based on my core beliefs.

Are you white?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#698

Post by prepend »

beachy wrote: post #678
reitanqild wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a joke and I also think American gun laws could need some adjustment. That said what I've always been told is to start with myself: maybe my "opponents" are dumb. That doesn't help anything but my ego. Instead I'd recommend looking into common ground or another way to present my arguments. I disagree deeply with a good number of you but still I think most of you don’t realize most of the time since I e…

Yeah, I probably phrased my post overly provocatively but I wasn't trying to be funny, just logical. And thank you for a reasoned and courteous response. My thoughts were: 1) Mass shootings are horrific, and it seems insane that anyone can own an assault rifle with such low barriers, but at the same time, death from gun violence is statistically low compared to, say, auto accidents. If being in favour of stricter gun…

While climate change is extremely serious, I don’t think there are any models that show it causing human extinction. The second half of your statement is more accurate to show degradation. But pairing it with extinction makes it harder to see your point through the hyperbole.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#699

Post by ihm »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #667
edmccard wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But isn't insane that things like life extension and genetic engineering are becoming a victim to this? I wouldn't have even thought these issues were controversial or political. You don't think there are any political ramifications to the possibility of dividing the world into new categories of "haves" (life-extended and genetically-modified) and "have nots"?

There could be, but this is exactly why politics is toxic. People start to bicker about who gets what piece of a pie before it's even baked, and they're willing to kill each other and destroy the oven over that, even though without that pie, everyone will starve.

But it's clear who will have access to these technologies once they exist -- those who can pay the most. Access to such technologies will probably also give the user better economic outcomes, so there's a very legitimate fear that such technologies will significantly widen the already wide chasm separating rich from poor.

The kind of argument you're making only stands to benefit those who will get access to these technologies by default (i.e., the rich).

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#700

Post by prepend »

sgift wrote: post #477
seizethecheese wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think what you're experiencing is value mismatch. When the culture won't bend the way you're used to, it can seem as though it's resistant to bending at all. If I need to match a culture's values in order to have an open discussion, that culture is intolerant.

No one is absolutely tolerant of every other position. The question is to what degree one is willing to tolerate (or more important: accept) other points of view.

While this is a good point, it’s exactly the statement Altman is making. The complaint is that the degree to tolerate is too low and that is harmful to society.

No one is calling for absolute tolerance where Nazi pedophiles and sexually harass people. But perhaps firing the CTO of Mozilla because be donated to Prop 8 is too strict a level of intolerance.

Post reply on HN