[flagged]
What's worse: living through a systemic collapse scenario, or finding yourself trapped in a bunker in New Zealand with Peter Thiel?
Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
91–100 of 433 posts
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never once seen someone on HN express happiness that someone was killed in a drive-by gang shooting.
[flagged]
I think the point was that people are willing to be happy about this happening to tech CEOs but would not express the same about a gang shooting.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#93Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#94In case someone reading this is thinking similar thoughts: there's no version of reality where doing this will solve any problem. Don't.
Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening?
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#95In case someone reading this is thinking similar thoughts: there's no version of reality where doing this will solve any problem. Don't.
Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening?
If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
>you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all I know what you mean, of course, but it's just not true in honesty - when pressed, there are no binaries in morality, as romantic and proud as the idea is. "Violence is never the answer" is both true and also irrelevant once a person is asked to consider the existence of his very way of life, his values, his livelihood, his culture, his home, or oth…
> “Violence is never the answer" is both true and also irrelevant
That statement is factually false. Sometimes violence is the answer. But we’re a social species. One-off violence is pretty much never the answer unless you need a short-term solution to e.g. entrapment.
I didn’t say rights are absolute. Just universal. The process for abrogating them must be just that—a process you’d wish to be visited upon you. Unilateral action destroys the idea of a right.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#97[flagged]
but we haven't even proven that AI will destroy vast amounts of jobs. Some, sure, junior software engineers are in trouble. but other then that, do we really have any quantified evidence as to how many jobs have been displaced by AI? i've been looking for numbers on this but it all seems murky and wishy washy. i'm open to be convinced, if anyone's got numbers. also, if the worst case scenario does happen and most of…
>[if] most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money.
This is even more hideous than expressions of approval for individual violence. This is a dystopian acquiescence.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#98In case someone reading this is thinking similar thoughts: there's no version of reality where doing this will solve any problem. Don't.
[deleted]
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#99Crazy, as bad of a person as I think Altman is, he isn't even the worst AI CEO. But even the worst of them doesn't deserve this.
Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening?
If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.
> If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.
FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor. I think this illustrates how a law can protect problems rather than solving them.