It is fair to be critical of Sam and other tech leaders regarding AI, but he has done nothing to begin to justify violence or even the threat of violence against him or his family.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
911–920 of 1001 posts
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#912I 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…
Maybe it's time to pack it in? I don't just mean you, I mean that maybe this site has kinda run its course. The tech scene isn't the small, tight-knit thing it used to be. This site is now enormous . Discussion quality seems to have sort of "regressed to the mean"... the larger HN gets and the more people join the discussion, it starts to resemble the median social media site more and more. At some point it sorta los…
I don't think the "tech scene" was ever the small, tight-knit thing it used to be.
I'm not sure whether HN comments have gotten worse in general - these things fluctuate a lot, over long stretches, and the fundamentals are more or less the same over time.
Despite my emotional statement, I'm not really thinking of packing it in. HN obviously does more good than harm, even though it's popular for people to say the opposite (and even part of the game to say it).
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#913I feel like he is chucking a molotov cocktail at all of us. Maybe it will bounce off. Maybe we won't be so lucky.
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#914Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. There are like 20 rules for commenting on this site. Pretty much all of them are versions of “have decorum”, and none of them are “do not advocate for violence”. It is not just tolerate…
I don't recognize what we actually do, or feel, in anything you've written here, and agree that it would all be pretty disgusting if it were true. "Be kind" isn't about decorum and certainly excludes violence. If you ignore the most important one, of course you'll end up with a distorted view. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > this thread is not really exceptional in any way It was different when I f…
>"Be kind" isn't about decorum and certainly excludes violence.
The guideline in full (at least as it’s presented on the page)
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Is meant to be read: “Do not advocate for violence. (decorum). (decorum); (decorum). (decorum)” ?
I would be surprised to find out that I am the one user on this website to have read “be kind” in that context to be an ambiguous suggestion about conversation quality or whatever rather than a rule about what topics of discussion are flat-out banned.
Given that virtually every other platform that facilitates user interactions has clearly-delineated guidelines about what is and is not ok to post about, eschewing that in favor of “be kind” sort of gives the impression that such guidelines here are unnecessary because people will… conduct themselves here… with, for lack of a better word, decorum.
Seeing as kindness is left entirely up to each user to interpret and decorum is described in detail, it is unsurprising to me that this site gets a lot of polite or analytical-sounding reprehensible rhetoric.
It is like if you made a rule that everybody has to have a prominent horn section, walking bass line, and off-beat rhythms with a calypso influence and then wondered why your second rule of “don’t be rude“ didn’t stop everybody from playing ska.
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#915Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine you knew Sam personally when he was President of YC. Most people don't, instead going off what they read in the press. Recent press is often less than flattering, given how contentious AI in general is as of late. Consider for some it's already hit home in the form of job loss, which for most people can easily be catastrophic. Or maybe they've a giant datacenter in their back yard suddenly, and now their ai…
You're being nice about it but I think you're inadvertently expressing literally the sentiment Dan was referring to.
On the contrary, not justifying nor condoning anything of the sort.
The main point I was trying to make was in highlighting the perceptual and emotional disconnect between knowing and working with someone personally, versus those who haven't (myself included).
Most people's perception of Sam was shaped in recent years, by press coverage that tends to treat him as the face of AI, with sentiment that usually goes something like: "hey, this guy's stealing all your water so he can take your job too, and by the way he lies a lot."
A couple follow-on points there were:
a) Dan shouldn't take it personally for not being able to control a tidal wave of negative sentiment stemming from that dynamic playing out.
b) I don't think it does anyone any good to dismiss the negative sentiment driving that as mere mob mentality. Even Sam appears to understand this quite well, in the very blog post the submission links to.
To echo another comment[0]:
>... while the vast majority of us think "holy crap, that's horrible" but aren't adding it because of course that's already been said and there just isn't any more nuance needed.
I agree; explicit condemnation just felt performative and hollow.
For what it's worth, I'm actually rooting for Sam assuming his words ultimately line up with his actions, and my opinion of him is neutral or slightly positive. I don't think it's widely appreciated just how crazy a position the guy is in; there's no way he can make everybody happy.
To touch on the hollow part: this is someone pg once described in so few words as more than capable of handling himself. [1]
I recall reading that years ago he insisted offices be swept for bugs after a visit by Musk, and he hangs out with similarly powerful people.
In other words, you don't operate in that world without your security already being excellent, and it's probably going to get even better now. Give it a couple years and he'll probably have a humanoid robot perimeter that'll smoke anyone on sight with a level of efficiency that is comical.
So, in that context taking a thoughts and prayers tone felt a little unnnecessary.
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#916Earlier quoted context omitted.
My assumption based on many factors is that it is precisely why the carpet surveillance systems like Flock are being rolled out in preparation. There are people in control who don’t make 1, 5, or 10 year plans; they make 20, 50, 100, and 500 year plans; and they know human nature quite well, which allows them to of not predict, have an anxious understanding for what their plans will cause and what needs to be prepare…
The flock systems are being installed by cities not the feds. You make it seem like someone has some master plan. Does not make flock any less dangerous but its not as organized as you make it seem.
Just because it isn't mandated from the top doesn't make it disorganized.
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#917I feel like he is chucking a molotov cocktail at all of us. Maybe it will bounce off. Maybe we won't be so lucky.
[dead]
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t like expanding the definitions of things like this. People have had a commonplace definition of violence for a long time. One that encompassed throwing Molotov cocktails and doesn’t include more intangible things like poverty or inequality or racism. Academia doesn’t get to just assert that their broader definition is the real one.
But every "intangible" thing you mentioned was in fact maintained by very tangible violence that those in power decide legitimate. What happens if a poor man decides to squat a rich man's vacation home? What happens if a black woman living under segregation refuses to give up her bus seat for a white person? In both cases the police will be called, and i'm damn sure that the cops don't shy away from using violence if…
Again, your definition is too broad to be meaningful. If tolerating poverty is “violence” and genocide is “violence” the term no longer serves a purpose.
Further, just because governments use physical force to protect a thing does not make that thing violent. The federal government sent in the army to protect the Little Rock Nine in Arkansas. Does this mean racial integration is “violent”? Or is it only “violent” when the government tolerates inequality?
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#919Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being nice about it but I think you're inadvertently expressing literally the sentiment Dan was referring to.
On the contrary, not justifying nor condoning anything of the sort. The main point I was trying to make was in highlighting the perceptual and emotional disconnect between knowing and working with someone personally, versus those who haven't (myself included). Most people's perception of Sam was shaped in recent years, by press coverage that tends to treat him as the face of AI, with sentiment that usually goes somet…
I disagree with almost all of this but I'm not here to single you out.
Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident
#920Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being nice about it but I think you're inadvertently expressing literally the sentiment Dan was referring to.
On the contrary, not justifying nor condoning anything of the sort. The main point I was trying to make was in highlighting the perceptual and emotional disconnect between knowing and working with someone personally, versus those who haven't (myself included). Most people's perception of Sam was shaped in recent years, by press coverage that tends to treat him as the face of AI, with sentiment that usually goes somet…
It shouldn't matter how many lies a guy tells, or how he runs his business. People shouldn't throw molotov cocktails at his house, and people shouldn't act like his behavior is potentially justification for people throwing molotov cocktails at his house.
Anybody whose perception of Sam Altman was "he deserves for me to throw a molotov cocktail at his house" is a horrible person. I don't care if Paul Graham says he's a tough guy.
Explicit condemnation is only hollow if you don't mean it.