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

711–720 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#711

Post by GuiA »

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.…

> 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.

Yeah uh, it’s statements like these that make people so angry at Silicon Valley nerds who think they’ve got it all figured it out and that anyone who disagrees with them are beneath them.

These things aren’t facts, they’re statements that are very much up for debate and discussion. If you can’t even see that, maybe try signing up for an intro course to philosophy at your local community college or something.

(Oh and a little tip for you: angrily repeating that something is an obvious truth over and over doesn’t make it so, surprisingly enough)

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#712

Post by prepend »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #658
prepend wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How grounded is this in data? I think there are two questions that need to be answered. First, it is not a given that everyone is capable of violence. There are some people who will not carry out violence, this is pretty much the vast majority. But it’s hard to predict who can commit violence and who will not. Given this small amount of people who commit violence, what is the probability of people with open verbal ho…

How grounded is this in data? It is very grounded in data. I have had college classes on Intro to Psychology , Social Psychology and Negotiation and Conflict Management . I spent a lot of time in therapy and have done a lot of reading on social subjects and so forth. I was a military wife and history major and I have an AA in Humanities. The one urban planning conference I managed to attend, I went to all the social…

While you certainly have a lot of experience and impressive education, I’m not sure how this shows how willing people are to commit violence. Or whether this is a significant probability. Or even an attention worthy probability.

Through your studies have you been able to identify evidence for a range or risk / odds ratio difference of haters to commit violence vs the standard population?

This is certainly hard to quantify, but seems important if it’s going to impact how you interact with people and how you recommend others interact with people.

I’m a bit disturbed that you seem unwilling (or unable) to discuss this and end the thread with “just trust me.” I certainly would like to trust you, but I try to shape my worldview through evidence and defendable evidence.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#713

Post by GuiA »

marchenko wrote: post #694
TeMPOraL wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wi…

Yeah, you summed up perfectly one of the main counter arguments.

If the richer you are, the healthier and smarter you can make your babies, and the healthier and the smarter your babies, the more access to jobs/education/etc they get, it’s not much comfort that poor people will be somewhat better off than they were 50 years prior as the inequality gaps keep getting wider and wider.

70 years later, our society is still very much suffering the consequences of things like real estate redlining, which heavily discriminated against black people in the US. Thinking that things like targeted gene therapy and radical life extension couldn’t be harmful in the same way is either pure ignorance or delusion.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#714

Post by thowar2 »

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…

The range of controversial subjects in China is incredibly narrow, but the punishments worse.

For the most part, no one in your every day life gives a shit what you say or do.

For Americans and nationals of other privileged countries there is even more tolerance for the controversial subjects.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#716

Post by GuiA »

ethbro wrote: post #708
mephitix wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, whatever points this article had were completely marred by terrible examples. Saying it's easier to talk about things in China vs US. I've been to China and you can get thrown in jail for saying the type of things we say re. our political environment. My friends there have to speak in whispers in public while people in SF have no problem raging about our politicians. And saying we should "allow people to say di…

> Yeah, whatever points this article had were completely marred by terrible examples. The article isn't that complicated. He meant to say exactly what he did say. Which makes sense, given the entire point of tolerating free speech is that people are free to say terrible things, not "moderately uncomfortable" things. Executive summary: (1) Open societies are more innovative. (2) Silicon Valley is becoming less toleran…

> (2) Silicon Valley is becoming less tolerant of divergent viewpoints.

As measured by what? Are there people being jailed for expressing a divergent opinion, or being refused service in restaurants/hotels/shops/etc, or unable to find employment?

For the latter point, employment, some people are likely to pick one of the few examples that routinely get reused in this discussion - such as Damore + Google, or Eich + Mozilla. But are these kind of things actually happening at an increasing rate? Because I recall similar things happening in the 2000s, and 90s, and I wasn't around before but they likely did too (and go back a few decades earlier, and it'd be saying something like "women can be engineers just like men" or "black people can be doctors just like white people" that'd get you ostracized, so yeah). So unless you have actual data showing that there has been an increase in people getting fired/being denied employment in the past 5-10 years for having divergent viewpoints, there's nothing there.

If your main measure for "less tolerant of divergent viewpoints" is "people being mean to you on Twitter", well yeah, that's part of living in an open society. In fact one could equally argue that people feeling more empowered to call out things they disagree with is the very hallmark of an open society.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#717

Post by lukeschlather »

psyc wrote: post #74
lukeschlather wrote: post #33

Nobody can possibly be as free to speak their mind as a wealthy American investor in a developing country. I suspect the lack of freedom the author is feeling is the fact that in San Francisco his disapproval doesn't represent an existential threat for the people around him.

I don’t see how this follows at all. Can’t a rich person value their reputation and good name?

Of course, but people are less likely to speak their minds, so it's harder for the author to know what people actually think of him in China.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#718

Post by rhapsodic »

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…

>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.

I'm about to speak one of the "heresies" that sama referred to in the third paragraph.

I don't believe there is a significant "cost" to barring immigration of low-skilled, poorly-educated people into the US. If fact, in my calculation, it costs us more than we gain by letting them in, considering that the number of jobs that the half of our citizenry with an IQ of 100 or below are capable of doing are shrinking.

I'm not without compassion for those people who want to come here. I don't blame them at all for wanting to. But my main priority is helping our own citizens (of any race, creed or color) who rightly view their future with trepidation. America has a huge number of huge problems, and I don't see how low-skilled, low-educated immigration addresses any of them. But I do see how it exacerbates some of them.

Unlike many people, I'm not moved by platitudes like "but we're a nation of immigrants!" or "diversity!" I think US immigration policy should be based on what benefits the US and its citizens, rather than other countries or their citizens. My position is essentially based on mathematics.

I would say that in about 80% of the instances where I've attempted to discuss this issue with liberals, they've offered not a shred of dispassionate reasoning, but reached straight for the old "but that's racist!" arrow in their quiver. They either can't or won't refute my reasoning, so they impugn my character instead.

I really enjoy the rare occasions where I can have a legitimate discussion on political issues with someone who disagrees with me, and who can discuss the issues without calling me names. But alas, those occasions are rare. That's why sama's article really resonated with me.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#719

Post by nine_k »

Alex3917 wrote: post #606
nine_k wrote: post #206

One of the things often overlooked is how our (American) culture is very much driven by religion. Note that the religion is not necessarily some version of Christianity. The overwhelming religious movement rarely named could be called "progressivism". A religion, as opposed to other forms, usually has postulates you may not doubt, words you may not say, etc. That is, it constraints rational approaches in the area of…

> The irony is, of course, is that "progressivism" often writes "reason" or "science" on its banners. Progressivism is about infrastructure and government transparency. It has nothing to do with identity politics or other leftist issues.

Good thing if it's so! I mean, I wish it was so; what I called by "progressivism" (note the quotes; I don't know a universally accepted name) is very much about identity politics, unequality issues of all kinds, and many other things related to "social progress" as seen as a motion towards a certain kind of utopia.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#720

Post by te_chris »

jochung wrote: post #696
danso wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

'Citing science'. I can think of a few other groups throughout history who have said awful things and backed it up with 'science'.
Post reply on HN