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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#951

Post by d4v3 »

MiguelX413 wrote: post #868
d4v3 wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, political violence seems to be en-vogue these days. I even hear people in "real life" casually discussing their support for it. What can we do? I think the only thing we can do is push back on it, even though it doesn't seem fair. What's a favourable alternative? You do a great job here giving individual feedback, which I know some people listen to and take in. I hope it's some kind of comfort to know…

[flagged]

If your answer to broken voting is violence, then you were probably just looking for an excuse, not a solution

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#953

Post by MiguelX413 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #903
grafmax wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Following or breaking the law isn't a good metric anymore. It never was really, a lot of genocides were “legal”. Sometimes it turns into a question of which law too. The US regularly breaks international law, so why should we respect its rule of of law if it doesn't respect international rule of law? Kissinger died peacefully and free of consequence for his warcrimes. The US threatens to invade the Hague if it tries to prosecute Americans for their warcrimes. How could anyone possibly see US law as having any legitimacy anymore?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#954

Post by MiguelX413 »

nl wrote: post #692
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…

The US is still a democracy. It's absolutely ok to oppose war. 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. It's also ok to protest that, to boycott it or to refuse to work for or with them for it. But escalating that to physical violence is not ok, and nor should people be "confuse…

Calling it “a democratically elected government's defense department” is extremely generous and not a good point even if the premise were true.

Hitler was democratically elected, who cares?

The premise doesn't make sense either because it's hardly a “defense department” either. It's been more of a “kill civilians and destabilize other democratically elected governments in Latin America and the Middle East department” for the past half century. It's the same “defense department” that overthrew democratically-electdd Allende in Chile and installed a dictator, killed schoolgirls in Iran (I'm not including Iran in the list of democratic places though), bombed a wedding in Pakistan with a drone, and more. It's a massive “defense department” for a country that hasn't been attacked in ages.

The US is hardly a democracy either because a choice between genocide-supporters isn't a real choice, there was no real anti-Zionist candidate.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#955

Post by AlexeyBelov »

etempleton wrote: post #856
odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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.

Sure, it's bad in a vacuum. I think people notice the decades long pattern (the Sacklers, etc) and just know that if some rich dude causes a million of people to lose jobs and live in poverty (or straight up die) nothing will happen to the dude.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#956

Post by AlexeyBelov »

bko wrote: post #734
pocksuppet wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're allowed to authorize your technology to be used to kill people, but if you do so, you shouldn't be surprised when those people also try to kill you. America and Americans somehow keep forgetting that actions have consequences and the government can't always override the consequences.

"Authorize" technology to kill you? Are cars authorized to run people over? Are painkillers "authorized" to get people to overdose? Are computer chips "authorized" to be put into bombers? What are you even talking about?

> Are painkillers "authorized" to get people to overdose?

Are you saying the Sacklers did nothing wrong?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#958

Post by brailsafe »

SoftTalker wrote: post #832
brailsafe wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a provision for personal use that stipulates they can't rerent the unit for a year. It wasn't illegal, but it was an asshole move. They also tried getting us for more than out full deposit, to which we declined and they relented. Basically he's just a scumbag.

I guess I don't blame someone for wanting full use of the house they bought. But if they lead you to believe they wanted you to stay and then suddenly reversed on that, yeah kind of a dick move. I probably would have pressed on negotiating a bigger buyout, but that's easy to say not knowing your situation and what other options for housing you had at the time.

Ya I explored my options, but thankfully there are relatively decent tenant protections and we had to have at least 3 months notice, as well as fortunately there being a downtown in rental prices and decreased competition for rentals, so we got a little lucky and found a bigger place quickly.

I don't believe he actually used the space, we walked by nearly every day for months, and now that it's been a year, we're periodically checking to see if there's new tenants in there.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#959

Post by nicbou »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #930
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 visib…

> Or does the 'LLC/Corp' absorb all responsibility like some capitalist papal indulgence?

That was a solid line

Callous indifference seems fine if it’s done at a large scale and the harm impersonal enough. Murder is too small, too targeted.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#960

Post by dag100 »

pixel_popping wrote: post #782
Chance-Device wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has one. If labor stops having value the economy will stop working and society will break down far in advance of building the infrastructure necessary for the promised AI abundance. I like the idea of being ”post-scarcity” as much as the next guy, but I don’t understand how we get there. It’s a project in itself, it doesn’t just happen by magic, and nobody is actively trying to make it happen or has any logist…

It is not impossible to think that many people will just be served an UBI and don't expect much more in life, after all, if we have AI+Family+Housing+Food (assuming gov robots would take care of providing us free food in some form) , I bet millions of people would be contented with it. PS: I include AI as an important one in the future because it will be a direct way to get educated and replace college for example wi…

Seeing as how austerity governments campaigned on reducing social benefits and achieved considerable success over the past few decades, I don't see how your solution consisting of granting people even more social benefits will ever happen. Unless there law and order is about to break down, there is no reason for the rich to leave all of that money "on the table".
Post reply on HN