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

71–80 of 853 posts

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#71

Post by ak_yo »

mkagenius wrote: post #23
ealexhudson wrote: post #6

I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…

> We need to accept that some of these ideas are inherently dangerous. We created atom bombs. Some say AI can destroy humanity (perhaps Sam himself) but here we are, I don’t think you can stop science.. it’s what makes us human.

You can definitely stop science. There's a reason we don't secretly infect populations with various diseases just to see what happens anymore.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#72

Post by LoSboccacc »

ealexhudson wrote: post #6

I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…

> We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right side of the line) are inherently dangerous.

ostracizing hypothetical talks is the problem here, not pursuing the unethical goal; just talking about what part of the goal makes it unethical is being shut down (according to the article)

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#73

Post by Balgair »

hprotagonist wrote: post #3

Randy was forever telling people, without rancor, that they were full of shit. That was the only way to get anything done in hacking. No one took it personally. Charlene's crowd most definitely did take it personally. It wasn't being told that they were wrong that offended them, though. It was the underlying assumption that a person could be right or wrong about _anything_. So on the Night in Question the night-- of…

Good point!

I think Sam is right and the quote (from 1999) also points to the issues. However, many comentors are pointing out that this is some 'culture war' thing that has infected SF. I think it's just a natural progression of maturing companies. They become managerial, not entrepreneurial. As such, stability is valued more than innovation, and you get a stifling environment. In essence, the Gervais principle[0] comes into effect as the 'graphite control rods' that are middle managers are lowered into place to help control the nuclear reaction that is capitalism.

Aside: It seems that HR departments (as an idea) have not been doing a good enough job a 'graphite control rod' (to help control the capitalistic reaction) in reference towards the #MeToo movement. Some better invention than an HR department is needed to prevent/control these harassments. Perhaps better surveillance/monitoring at work will help?

[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#74

Post by psyc »

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?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#75

Post by conanbatt »

I remember being in argentina a couple of years back and seeing the "Political correctness" pro-trump slogan and thinking how dumb that sounded.

Moved back to SF, and there is a HUGE difference of what it was for me 5 years ago. The people I know are way more cautious and the people I don't are even more afraid.

The Damore essay is still one of the unspeakables. I know I fear getting fired if i publicly said i agreed with it, even though i never read it or did anything of the sort. That to me is a ridiculous state of things.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#76

Post by workthrowaway27 »

geofft wrote: post #52
workthrowaway27 wrote: post #21

I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced. I don't mean this as a criticism of liberals or liberalism specifically here, since I realize many conservatives would do the same about issues they care about if they had the power and numbers to.

> I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced. This does not seem to match the reality at university campuses - only the caricature by people who find it politically expedient to be seen as persecuted.

See my reply to ak_yo.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#77

Post by interfixus »

ealexhudson wrote: post #6

I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science. Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right sid…

Are you saying ideas you consider inherently dangerous are good candidates for censoring?

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#78

Post by LoSboccacc »

ak_yo wrote: post #71
mkagenius wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to accept that some of these ideas are inherently dangerous. We created atom bombs. Some say AI can destroy humanity (perhaps Sam himself) but here we are, I don’t think you can stop science.. it’s what makes us human.

You can definitely stop science. There's a reason we don't secretly infect populations with various diseases just to see what happens anymore.

> anymore

and I'd also add "to the best of our armchair knowledge"

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#79

Post by Cyberdog »

sebleon wrote: post #48

As someone with many “heretic ideas”, I disagree with this article - people that execute on crazy ideas are thick-skinned. Hard to believe that smart people would actually leave SF because of PC culture (although it is annoying). Even from Altman’s examples, Newton stayed in England and did what he wanted, despite the social norms. It was also odd to see Altman use China as the bastion of freedom, a place with widesp…

I hardly see him presenting China as a bastion of freedom. But I do understand how one could feel safer voicing their mind on a certain subset of topics among a crowd of Beijingren versus a crowd of San Franciscans.

Re: E Pur Si Muove

#80

Post by amsheehan »

jordanpg wrote: post #68

> This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics. What about all the novel things about physics that we won't ever hear from the gay people who are forced out of physics because of a life-threatening climate of hate and bigotry?

What about whataboutism?
Post reply on HN