Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident • Hacker News Board

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#901

Post by trinsic2 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:36 PM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #824

trinsic2 wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is saying this is justified. But that doesn't mean it's not going to happen and I can understand why people would do this. ESP people that are pushed beyond the limits they can endure. Right now we have a huge imbalance in the world and more situations like this are going to manifest as we slide further and further into authoritarianism.

[flagged]

There is a proper definition for authoritarianism.

noun: authoritarianism

the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

Both parties are involved in this. Its about taking away peoples freedom to chose.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#902

Post by xg15 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:36 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #691

dwroberts wrote: post #612

Didn’t we just go through several weeks of hearing about OpenAI allowing its tech to be used for conducting warfare? Not saying that justifies harming Altman but I am confused that he seems surprised he is now in physical danger? [Or chalks it up to just some single specific incendiary article rather than the companies actual actions?] If you involve yourself in the act of killing people then, yeah, you’re going to g…

> Didn’t we just go through several weeks of hearing about OpenAI allowing its tech to be used for conducting warfare? Unfortunately warfare is a thing. Why wouldn't you want the best technology used for your country when conducting warfare? Or do you just believe warfare would cease to exist if a country gave up any means of defense or offense?

Can we at least drop the sports games terminology ("defense", "offense") and acknowledge we're talking about mass killing of people here?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#903

Post by senordevnyc » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:37 PM UTC

grafmax wrote: post #688

dang wrote: post #575

I don't think I've ever seen a thread this bad on Hacker News*. The number of commenters justifying violence, or saying they "don't condone violence" and then doing exactly that, is sickening and makes me want to find something else to do with my life—something as far away from this as I can get. I feel ashamed of this community. * Edit: It would have been clearer to say "I've never seen a mob dynamic this bad on Hac…

As I see it the underlying issue for many ITT is the hypocrisy of condemning violence against Altman while while looking the other way from his role as an oligarch and as a Defense contractor. This is a human being with an awful destructive effect on the world he shares with us. Such people don't deserve violence but expropriation.

I’m looking right at his role. What am I supposed to be seeing? Is he breaking the law?

Or do you just think he deserves whatever’s coming and more because you don’t agree with his views or actions?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#904

Post by xg15 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:38 PM UTC

zepolen wrote: post #821

hax0ron3 wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is absolutely not ok for "some people to want to hurt" someone who is running a company that is vying for contracts from a democratically elected government's defense department. Why though?

Because government violence is not the same as individual violence!

I'm getting increasingly creeped out by the mental distinction that people seem to make between "warfare" and other kind of violence, but this is the first time someone argued that explicitly.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#905

Post by trinsic2 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:39 PM UTC

Razengan wrote: post #849

trinsic2 wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actions have consequences. There will always be people in the world that get pushed beyond the limits they can endure. It reminds of that CEO that got gunned down by someone that was being affected by the company profiting off of making a business of denying health insurance claims on technicalities. I don't support this and yet I know for every harm people in these corrupt institutions are involved in, the universe…

So how often are arms manufacturers and leaders starting wars gunned down?

They way in which people answer for their crimes are a mystery to me. But I am confident that it happens differently for each individual.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#906

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:42 PM UTC

arrowsmith wrote: post #649

pydry wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not ok, but anybody who is ok with terrorizing, say, an Iranian civilian nuclear scientist ought to be equally indifferent to this.

I’m not indifferent to either of them, but if you equate American tech executives with agents of the Iranian nuclear programme then I don’t care what you have to say on any subject ever

[deleted]

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#907

Post by xg15 » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:45 PM UTC

snark_attack wrote: post #798

itsyonas wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I don’t think violence is funny or justified Well, that's okay, because even Sam Altman disagrees with you. He absolutely believes that violence, including deadly violence, is justified - hence his contract with the US Department of War to use their systems in kill chains. Perhaps the problem is that whoever threw the cocktail didn't use AI to select him as a target, or maybe he didn't receive payment for throw…

[flagged]

One of the more curious perks of being a democracy seems to be that you can also democratically (within your own country) decide about the fate of people in other, nondemocratic countries and then get to enforce those decisions by military...

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#908

Post by PostOnce » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:51 PM UTC

bdangubic wrote: post #861

odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

if every business(man) who lobbies against regulations for their business is a fair game to go after violently (not just her/him but his family as well) there would be a bloodbath of epic proportions… one day, this might be you and your family too…

It already is our families. We don't have healthcare. We live in rentals that enrich others. We take rented scooters to work. We have no retirement funds or futures.

Live in slavery and be happy? Hold a sign no one reads? Own nothing? Feel no peace, have no medicine?

I don't condone it, but I understand it.

I believe there's still the possibility for us to fix things in peace, but I can see why others don't.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#909

Post by dang » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:53 PM UTC

odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #854

dang wrote: post #575

I don't think I've ever seen a thread this bad on Hacker News*. The number of commenters justifying violence, or saying they "don't condone violence" and then doing exactly that, is sickening and makes me want to find something else to do with my life—something as far away from this as I can get. I feel ashamed of this community. * Edit: It would have been clearer to say "I've never seen a mob dynamic this bad on Hac…

So, OpenAI, Brockman, not sure about Altman directly, donated millions to Trump&Co, support and let use their technology to kill/harm millions of people, and now we are supposed to pretend to feel sorry for them? None of those news items, comments, news made you want to get away from this, but now that your YC buddy is the target and whatever else fuck is used to justify it? When ICE killed american citizens, school…

You've misunderstood what I wrote and what I felt. I wasn't talking about the underlying story or the linked article, but about the community's response to it. Perhaps this explanation will help: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47734894.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#910

Post by dang » Sat, Apr 11, 2026, 11:59 PM UTC

hax0ron3 wrote: post #819

dang wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTF? You can't post like this here, regardless of whose "removing" you're advocating. Obviously we ban accounts that post like this - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . As I explained to these other users*, I'm not going to ban you right now because this thread is a mob, and mobs derange people and I don't think that any of us (including me) is immune from this. But please don't ever post anything…

Would I not be allowed to post that removing Khameini or Putin would be good for the world? I find that hard to believe, and people do it all the time. And if it's just a matter of who it's ok to advocate for removing, then where is the line?

The problem here is in the question. You can't draw a single abstract line that will work independently of context, and it's mistake to try. I would need to see specific cases.

For example, consider the word "remove" and the many different associations it can have.

In this case, the comment (assuming I didn't misread it, which is always possible) seemed obviously to be endorsing specific violence against a specific person and indeed wishing for it to escalate. That's a kind of violence in its own right, and a poison that we don't want here.