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

Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#921

Post by dang »

jrflowers wrote: post #914
dang wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's meant to be read as "Be kind."

We've never tried to fully specify what these rules mean because (1) that's impossible, (2) it would give the misleading impression that whatever isn't listed in the specification must be ok, and (3) we don't want to be bureaucrats. HN is a spirit-of-the-law place, not a letter-of-the-law place, and always has been. I don't think it's any kind of stretch to say that advocating for violence is against the intended spirit of this site.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#922

Post by dang »

phs318u wrote: post #897
dang wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes indeed: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... . I said I was ashamed, not surprised. It isn't surprising, and the feeling comes with the job every day. The difference is that I said something about it this time; I occasionally do, as long as it isn't often. Maybe once a year or so.

Fair enough. You’re human too. Thank you for the job you do. As quixotic as t sometimes appears I value the effort and it’s a big part of why this forum has stayed cleaner than others. Please don’t be disheartened. Discussions like these prove the point of difference of HN to other fora. Vitriol is a relative rarity here. We should all keep striving to preserve that.

Appreciated!

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#924

Post by etempleton »

Hikikomori wrote: post #885
etempleton wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying he should not be criticized or even held legally liable for actions. Merely that, you know, fire bombing peoples homes whose actions you disagree with is bad thing. Controversial hot take, I know.

Dysfunctional political systems tend to break the states monopoly on violence.

I don’t disagree. It is why a functional and fair (as much as possible) system must be in place.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#925

Post by akerl_ »

jrflowers wrote: post #914
dang wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you realize you're attempting to tell a moderator of the site how the guideline for the site is meant to be read?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#926

Post by esalman »

dash2 wrote: post #524

I've skimmed the thread here and I am now seriously considering leaving HN for the first time in about 15 years. Here are some quotes from what used to be a pretty interesting and thoughtful community: > Ah, the Elon manoeuvre: trying to make would-be assassins hesitate by using your own child as a shield. > the words and narratives that Sam Altman promoted caused so much fear and uncertainty and anger that someone t…

Have you asked yourself why someone went as far as hurling a molotov at his place in the first place?

I would never, but you have to understand that serious pain and harm is being inflicted on people, AT SCALE, by the advent of AI. I'm not even talking about Israeli, Palestinian, or Iranian kids. People in America with terminal illness are losing healthcare.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#927

Post by akramachamarei »

impossiblefork wrote: post #880
akramachamarei wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, like other disruptive inventions of the past, there will be pain for many, but it will pass. Society will grow and adapt. There's some statistic somewhere I will paraphrase and/or botch that goes like: 90% of the jobs people have today didn't exist 50 years ago. I think no one can imagine what possible opportunities will manifest in the future. It's a lot easier to imagine everything that might go wrong beca…

Why do you think so in the specific case of hypothetical improved LLMs that can do a large fraction of the kind of intellectual work humans are tasked with? I think in such a state, there will no way up, not way to success, no way to real autonomy for ordinary people, maybe you'll even have actual oligarchal rule, since so few people do anything contributing to the economy with their labour.

Really, I don't know. But there is that underappreciated concept of "elastic demand" which I will gesture at even though I'm only casually acquainted with it. It's related to the vernacular fallacy of the economic Pie, as if it's a static thing that doesn't grow and shrink. I suspect, as the cost of producing things, including intellectual, knowledge-based products goes down, that we may just end up demanding more of these things, or better kinds.

I might look at the example of AI art. Artists were/are freaking out about it, worried that they'd lose business. I think they probably have, for some of the more utility cases for art like promotional material. However, a lot of the new consumers of AI art were not buying human art before. Some of the people making little personal projects, posting YouTube videos, making indie games, would never have paid artists to make assets for their things because it wouldn't be worth the money. I have personal experience with this on the consumer side.

Of course, when AI can do what you do for a job, it won't just be attracting currently unpaying, potential customers. Still, I'm not too confident our predictive skills as a society to say what will or won't happen. Like has happened before, many situations and opportunities will arise that will be utterly unanticipated.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#928

Post by tasuki »

UncleMeat wrote: post #711
Natfan wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a single wealthy white male person

Yep. Tons of comments here justifying the murder of Jordan Neely when that happened,

First time I hear about that, reading the Wikipedia page it very much doesn't sound like murder: the victim was threatening people on the train with killing them, specifically also a mother with a stroller. The aggressor applied what they were taught as a non lethal hold.

Why a person died during a supposedly non lethal hold definitely needs to be investigated very thoroughly. Either it wasn't non lethal, was applied the wrong way, or there were some other contributing factors.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#929

Post by yyrrll »

array_key_first wrote: post #789
etempleton wrote: post #422

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]

> In essence, he has threatened to kill millions of people.

“In essence” is doing enormous work here, and it will be basically impossible to have any kind of discussion if that work is considered acceptable.

This kind of word-twisting can be used to make pretty much anyone into a murderer, at which point “discussion” will come down to who the mob chooses to listen to.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#930

Post by _DeadFred_ »

etempleton wrote: post #422

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.

If I torture 1 person that is bad. If I inflict a smaller suffering on millions of people, does it reach parity? Were the Sackler's actions that ruined so many lives, led young girls/boys into forced prostitution, led to so many ODs and suicides, something that ranked close to deserving violence? Or does the 'LLC/Corp' absorb all responsibility like some capitalist papal indulgence?

If the Sackler's actions are visible evil, where on the 'LLC/Corpo' scale does evil turn to 'acceptable business' and the choices made by management to inflict damage on many many people switch to 'acceptable business' where the perpetrators are disconnected from their actions/choices?

'LLC/Corporations' absolve management of liability/accountability in the government eyes, but you are making an assumption that then extends to absolving when it comes to actual morality. While you can try to sell 'articles of incorporation' count as modern indulgences freeing people from sin under the religion of capitalism I'm not sure all of society agrees. I think the concept that LLC/Incorporation is a blanket 'papal indulgence' absolving management of all accountability/moral behavior in our modern techno feudalist social structure is wearing thin for a lot of people. Clunky as hell language but it's a discuss that needs to be had, and better for all sooner rather than later.

Post reply on HN