Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

blog.samaltman.com

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#971
post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

If I wanted him dead, I would have said so.

Sam Altman should have been removed years ago when the board tried to do so. This does not mean "to kill", execute, eradicate, or similar euphemisms.

Given his military proclivities of AI targeting and action systems in Iran, his removal is instrumental in stopping or impeding AI warafare.

But really, the bigger point here on HN is having a charitable interpretation, and was lost on my statement. I still absolutely think he should be removed. Life? No. OpenAI? Yes.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#972

Jfc. People, a molitov cocktail was thrown as his home. The rest of what is written doesn't matter. This isn't the moment for that conversation. That's his family. He has a fucking child. Holy shit.

If he treats his kid the same way he treated (raped) his little sister growing up, I feel extra bad for that child now.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#974

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I one billion percent prefer a flawed democracy with the rule of law, however imperfect, to a world where some random HN user thinks they their personal beliefs give them the moral authority to burn a family alive. Only an utter fool would wish for that world.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Words can justify violence. A serious threat of violence is a reasonable basis for acting in self-defense. Another comment said the same about pre-emptive self-defense as if one should wait to be shot at even whilst a gun is pointed at them before shooting back.

By this incredibly specious logic, many of your comments here represent “threats” towards people who work in AI, or with the DoD, etc, in any capacity. I guess they’re now justified in trying to murder your children, right?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#976
post #734

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?

The government asked Sam Altman "may we use this to kill people?" and Sam Altman said "yes if you pay us lots of money". What's hard to understand?

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#977
post #49

Genuinely surprised at the extreme comments against sama here. I don’t think he’s a good steward of the technology, but I don’t think violence is funny or justified. I also don’t think it’s justified for him to use it to say that a negative article about him is correlated to this event. Seems to imply that an “incendiary article” led to this and that criticism is tantamount to calls to violence. He drives the convers…

> 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…

I mostly agree with you - he seemed happy for the chance to play the victim. When the system is working, war is different because it has democratic process behind approval (Iran is obviously showing the system is breaking down)

But just because horrible people exist in positions of power doesn’t mean I have to become horrible myself. I accept that there is a threshold where that changes, but I think we would disagree that we’ve hit that threshold. If anything violence now just gives more excuse to justify further consolidation of power (look I got attacked! The anti AI people are crazy, any criticism of me is just encouraging them!) Imagine if it was a serious attack on sama, they could spin it into some serious gains for them.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#978
A lot of the comments here is why I have been disgusted with the left in the last few years, having always voted D before and, at simultaneously, being disgusted by the trumpanzee right.

The so called "woke" (in case someone whines about me using this term and says the usual "it's not a thing", I'll define it as basically the delusional left, who have become extremists due to wallowing in their own outrage social media info bubble 24/7) are so up their own ass about their supposedly superior moral values that they have come full circle and become void of the most basic morals.

They find all sorts of justifications for violence (even lethal) against anyone they deem "evil" in their own warped, highly subjective opinion. Their opinions can be summarized as "I'm against violence and have very an extremely high moral compass but it's OK to kill this particular civilian because of these really good reasons I'm about to cite". The reasons are often terrible and devoid of being based on verifiable, objective reality but the meme-induced righteousness is 10/10.

There is not a single drop of self-doubt and anyone arguing against them get immediately labeled "evil" as well, regardless of how rational and well explained their opinions are. These people are outraged by the killing of IRGC, Hamas or Hezbollah leaders (some of the most deserving of violence) but justify violence against someone like Sam.

The same people who say that words are violence and that misgendering someone is tantamount to putting their life in danger had no problems celebrating the cowardly assassination of Charlie Kirk.

I can cite many other examples but this comment is getting longer than intended and I've made my point.

I agree with the moderator here. It's become sad how even in a community like this, full of supposedly well-educated, intelligent people nonsense like the above has become the norm.

Lastly, what people like this don't realize is that by behaving this way they're the worst enemies of their own cause. As awful as Trump and his supporters are, my motivation to vote for the party full of progressive wokesters has almost completely dried up. I feel like the D party no longer represents me as a rational person interested in fact-based, civilized discussions and policies that come out of those. The left has become as hateful and hysterical as the right. In many ways, it has even surpassed the right. I'm now stuck in the middle watching both sides becoming more and more extreme in their views and losing all humanity, while at the same time, completely delusionally, believing in their own moral superiority.

Re: Sam Altman's response to Molotov cocktail incident

#979

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words can justify violence. A serious threat of violence is a reasonable basis for acting in self-defense. Another comment said the same about pre-emptive self-defense as if one should wait to be shot at even whilst a gun is pointed at them before shooting back.

By this incredibly specious logic, many of your comments here represent “threats” towards people who work in AI, or with the DoD, etc, in any capacity. I guess they’re now justified in trying to murder your children, right?

No, people don't have the right to self-defense against self-defense. The provocator doesn't get that.
Post reply on HN