[flagged]
Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
31–40 of 433 posts
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#32[flagged]
I have never once seen someone on HN express happiness that someone was killed in a drive-by gang shooting.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#33Violence won't solve anything, everyone is worse off.
I agree, French Revolution was pretty peaceful
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#34Political violence is not acceptable in a democracy. Full stop, no "but". That's all that needs to be said on this thread.
I agree. Is the US still a democracy, or already an oligarchy?
The more we treat it like a democracy, the more democratic it is. The more we treat it like an oligarchy, the less democratic it is.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#35Violence won't solve anything, everyone is worse off.
Violence solves problems every day. Worse off is relative. I think you mean to qualify your statement.
Police employ violence all the time and I think we who are okay/well off all agree that they solve our problems every day.
What us cushy engineers haven't realized yet is that the gradient for who are well off are sliding more and more towards one end. Sooner or later engineers will be on the wrong side of that gradient.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
If violent attacks start metastasizing, it legitimately justifies a police crackdown. Most of the population will be for that. The pro-Palestinian activists set their cause back a year by overplaying their hands in Columbia at the start of the war. If we want to ensure zero AI legislation for the next 2 years, I couldn’t think of a better way to ensure that than to start potting randos in the streets.
[flagged]
> the sentiment for many is that 'we don't care we have nothing to lose anyway'
Everyone says this before they learn what they didn’t value. Peace, for example.
> Its easy for you to say, all perched up as a VC
It’s easy to say for anyone who has read the history of political violence. When that comes on the table, universally [1], the people with power also have the power to raise armies. The people who stand to benefit from violent insurrection, today, are the oligarchs.
This happens every time because it’s obvious. If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too. A lot more people will kill for a million dollars than because they hate some guy.
[1] Apart from early 20th century Communist revolutions, where elites actually suffered.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#37[flagged]
The fact that he would rather live in an underground bunker (than simply not let things get that out of hand) says a lot about his humanity.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#38I have a few predictions for this year: 1. Violent attacks against AI CEOs, researchers, and engineers is going to begin. This is due to widespread negative press that AI receives and as well as a pervasive feeling of economic uncertainty and doom in the population. Some of this being caused by the current administration's leadership, but much of it attributed to AI taking jobs and destroying opportunity. 2. Violent…
[deleted]
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#39[flagged]
Well folks who know about the Unabomber manifesto by Ted Kaczynski will see this attack as unsurprising, and Sam knows this sort of attack was expected; false flag or not.
It is not okay. But if we don't have any solution to the ramifications of what really is "AGI" then it unfortunately won't be the last.
Welcome to "AGI".
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#40[flagged]
> it's hard to sympathize with someone like Altman The thing about rights is you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all. If we have a right to life, sympathy isn’t relevant. Awful people can be awful, but if we start compromising their rights then we deface all of our freedoms and security.
I consider rights a functional abstraction. That is to say, they're useful, we should abide them as a tenet of a civilized society, but we also made them up. And importantly we all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are.
So I disagree with your axiom that you have to believe in them 100% or 0%.