Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 715 posts

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#211

Post by newspaper1 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #194
strongpigeon wrote: post #36

It is a bit scary how people seem to genuinely be OK with violence (see this reddit thread [0]). Is just me or does it feel like the overall "temperature" has gone up. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1shugf8/firebomb_t...

It’s a distinct minority. They’re convinced they’re the majority because everyone they talk to is in the same bubble, especially online. I saw the same thing with Mangione and Kirk and Pelosi.

How about the 190 school girls the US murdered in the very first attack against Iran?

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#212

Post by newZWhoDis »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #12

I don't think most people in tech are quite aware of the level of visceral AI hatred amongst non-techies. I've personally witnessed the worst Thanksgiving dinnertable fight I've ever seen (after someone revealed that their recipe was AI-generated, a couple people literally spat out the food they were enjoying and threw their plates in the trash), and a divorce (a very solid marriage between two people who were once b…

Portland?

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#213

Post by lazyasciiart »

pixel_popping wrote: post #91
therobots927 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Americans need a job to get healthcare 2. Robots take away jobs from Americans and the proceeds to go the owner (investor) class 3. Americans no longer have healthcare Understand?

I understand (I'm not from the US), however, wouldn't healthcare in the US would get drastically cheaper (even eventually free?) if hospitals/clinics were composed of humanoids instead of humans?

That’s the logic Keynes used to suggest that we’d all be working 15 hour weeks by now, with computers doing all the work.

Needless to say, we have discovered that productivity gains are not consistently converted into reduced costs and work hours.

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#214

Post by bloppe »

sophacles wrote: post #122
strongpigeon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're extrapolating a lot from my comment... One can reasonably think something has to be done to address the current (and upcoming) economic situation and think that molotov cocktails won't help. Acts like these will likely make things much worse before settling into a new situation that's probably just slightly worse.

Wondering why people might want to resist their lives becoming worse at all just so some assholes can gloat about how much richer they became is literally the same as asking why they can't just eat cake. Thinking something should be done, means nothing is being done. The poor in france didn't start with bread riots. They begged and pleaded and asked nicely first, and while lots of people thought something should be d…

Maybe this is a silly question, but why can't they just eat cake?

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#215

Post by Centigonal »

EGreg wrote: post #25

I've been saying for years on here... to the people on HN who are against blockchain but bullish on AI With blockchain and smart contracts or stupid even memecoins, you can only lose what you voluntarily put in. You had to jump through a few hoops, then maybe you got rugpulled, maybe you became a millionaire. With AI, regardless of whether you consented or not, you can lose your job, gradually your relationships and…

Is your definition of bullish "believes the technology will be widely adopted across society and accrue significant wealth to its owners?" - if so, I think it's very clear how someone could be bullish on AI and not blockchain. You don't have to like AI to see it as an inexorable transformer (ha!) of society and wealth.

Is your definition of bullish "believes the technology is a major net good for society?" - if so, you're comparing two technologies with significant social aspirations that come from very different philosophical backgrounds. While both are techno-optimist, Blockchain is a fundamentally libertarian technology, while generative AI comes from a more utilitarian, capital-focused background. People who value individual freedom above all else will get excited about blockchain and feel mixed-to-negative about AI, while people who want to elevate the overall capability of the human race to the exclusion of anything else will get excited by AI and see blockchain as a parlor trick.

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#216

Post by xienze »

Analemma_ wrote: post #47
strongpigeon wrote: post #36

It is a bit scary how people seem to genuinely be OK with violence (see this reddit thread [0]). Is just me or does it feel like the overall "temperature" has gone up. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1shugf8/firebomb_t...

Altman keeps on telling people he’s going to take away their jobs. He says that because it gets cred in tech circles, but in America this is an existential threat, not much different from telling someone “I’m going to break your kneecaps”. Of course some subset of people are going to respond with violence. The sheer tone-deafness of AI marketing is going to come back to bite us very hard. This is probably just the be…

Yeah part of me thinks the reason we know all their claims are bullshit is because you’d have to be pretty dense to think that you could promise eliminate >50% of jobs in many high value sectors within 12-18 months and _not_ expect to create more than a few people who’d have nothing to lose…

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#217

Post by [deleted] »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #204
strongpigeon wrote: post #36

It is a bit scary how people seem to genuinely be OK with violence (see this reddit thread [0]). Is just me or does it feel like the overall "temperature" has gone up. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1shugf8/firebomb_t...

People are okay with violence when democratic means (if first past the post even counts) do not solve their problems.

[deleted]

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#218

Post by kube-system »

ironman1478 wrote: post #65
pixel_popping wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it is scary, but why would a robot take healthcare away? Wouldn't that be the contrary?

There are stories about insurance companies using AI when determining if a claim should be let through or denied. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/healthcare/2026/03/...

That is scary but the methods traditionally used to deny claims aren't really any better. I've had claims denied after they were explicitly pre-approved because of string literals not matching exactly.

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#219

Post by newZWhoDis »

daveguy wrote: post #200
defen wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

let's take a second to think about the threat vectors here. The two obvious ones I can think of are: "AI hallucinates and tells you to put non-food into the food" and "AI hallucinates and gives you unsafe prep instructions" (e.g. "heat the chicken to an internal temperature of 110 degrees"). For both of those, it's not clear why "random recipe from an internet blog" is safer than something the AI generates. At some l…

Yeah, but I would trust a human writing a blog not to suggest heating chicken to 110F because the human writing the blog understands that they are taking responsibility for that recipe... The AI LLM model doesn't have a clue about responsibility except to regurgitate feel-good snippets about responsibility.

>because the human writing the blog understands

Bold assumption

Re: Molotov cocktail is hurled at home of Sam Altman

#220

Post by array_key_first »

boznz wrote: post #148
lexicality wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abundance and growing the pie for everyone is also an outcome if this is done right. Do you genuinely believe there's any chance that's going to happen?

I do, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Well then given that one side is "the situation remains neutral or very slightly improves" and the other side is "unthinkable atrocities", I think it's only rational to focus on the "unthinkable atrocities" part. Ideally, we should be focusing all our energy into making sure that doesn't happen.
Post reply on HN