Hacker News Reader

Comment by dwroberts | Hacker News Reader

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 get blowback for that and some people are obviously going to want to hurt you

View on HN

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 "confused that he seems surprised he is now in physical danger"

(As an aside, from the statements I've heard so far it seems the person was more an anti-AI, anti-tech person than anti-war)

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.

>The US is still a democracy

Let's see if that still holds after the midterms...

>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!

But it is the same. Better and more stable for society than individual vigilantism? Yes, generally speaking it is. But still essentially the same thing, just done through a different process.

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.

I think this was a sarcastic remark

You're right but it seems there's no room for sarcasm in a place full of autism...

I’m falling into the Socratic hole [0], but in a modern civil society there is a justice system through which people seek recourse. This has all sorts of desirable effects for societies.

Please educate yourself on the basics or at least put more effort in before participating in conversations.

[0]: It’s easy to abuse the Socratic method and devolve a discussion into one of first principles. It’s extremely tiresome and a huge waste of everyone’s time.

I'm a big fan of the justice system. Can't have a functioning civilization without it. And yes, violence that is used by a democratic society following regulations is generally speaking better for society than arbitrary vigilantism motivated by personal beliefs is. But I'm not arguing that it would necessarily be good to kill Sam Altman. I'm just arguing that it's ok to find the idea of his death pleasing. I find the idea of killing all sorts of people pleasing without necessarily thinking that actually doing it would be good for society overall.

> I'm a big fan of the justice system.

I've worked in the system for decade now. and I cannot agree. I feel nothing but regret, shame, and guilt most days. It's a cruel and vindictive system. Lady Justice carries a sword for a reason, and she loves to swing it.

I commonly refer to our system as the legal system for there is little justice.

Fair point. I mean, I'm a big fan of it in theory. Not so much in reality. It's still better than having no justice system.

I wish we had a just justice system. But unfortunately, we just don't.

Look at Kissinger's peaceful unprosecuted death.

I concur. I think the true issue is that no system can solve these types of problems. There will always be people who benefit more than others, and there will always be people who slip through the cracks.

I think our system is not the worst system available by any means. I just wish there was a bit more focus on impartiality and rehabilitation. I am not so sure why there is an obsession with punishment when data suggests it does not really deter people.

No can do, this justice system actually protects war criminals rather than prosecuting them. The US threatened the international justice system by threatening to invade the Hague when it attempted to prosecute American war criminals. It's contradictory to respect the American “justice system” whilest it actively disrespects other justice systems both in other countries and in international law.

I intentionally said “modern civil society” instead of the USA to avoid talking about specifics.

Whether the USA has a sufficiently functional justice system is another topic. My intuition is also that, in the presence of a disfunctional social system, fixing (or replacing) the system will usually lead to better outcomes than side stepping it. Not that I really want to talk about the minutia and challenges of fixing the USA’s justice system.

If fixing it is an option, sure. I don't think it's a given that it is.

I completely agree with all your statements. But I think most people in America have moved on from even trying to operate in the political system we have - because it’s been completely subverted by bad actors on both sides of the supposed 2-party system they see it as pointless.

And as such they’ve either become completely irrational (most far left or far rightists), checked out (the rest of us), or fully mentally ill (people like this, or that Gracie Mansion wacko)

Being able to vote between Moloch and Baʿal is hardly “a democracy”.

Those were both good deities before the peoples who replaced their worshippers demonized them:

Some history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Q9uyFASF0

I do know that history actually, I was learning about the Baʿal Cycle last night actually, I'm a huge fan of linguistics and also learning about Semitic Religion. I was using them in the idiomatic sense in which they would usually be understood by the average reader.

I mean, I even went through the effort of expressing the pharyngeal consonant.

Address the spirit of my message rather than the letter please. I perhaps would've used a better expression if I could've thought about it first.

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.

> 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?

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?

That's what's happening when people want to blame specific persons for world issues instead of the collective.

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

Are you saying the Sacklers did nothing wrong?

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?

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

These words originated with war and were adopted by sports.

I wouldn't want my country to use the best technology when conducting warfare because my country only conducts offensive warfare resulting in millions of innocent deaths in the Middle East, having a massive military budget that dwarfs most others combined whilst hardly ever being directly threatened.

"I'm not saying violence is okay, but violence is okay"

What I am saying is if you involve yourself in violence (and directly profiting from violence) you should not be allowed to act shocked when that same violence turns up on your doorstep

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

What about executives/scientists on the US nuclear programme?

Altman and other AI evangelists spent their time equating AI with nuclear technology. They make the comparison all the time.

I think the issue may be less about the precise comparison and more about https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/643/825/18c...

The former are doing way more damage to civilization

Give the latter a nuclear bomb and see how true that stays

You might be too young to remember it but they said the same thing about North Korea.

When they actually got a nuke all it meant was that the US stopped threatening them, halted practicing manoeuvres in preparation for attack and generally just left them well alone.

Iran has probably realized by now that if they dont get a nuke the US and Israel and will keep slaughtering their schoolchildren.

Sometimes we're the brutal savages who need to be stopped, impossible though that is for some people who have more of "racial loyalty" mindset to comprehend.

Pretty much everyone thinks that violence is ok against certain people. You probably do too. The disagreements are about who violence is ok to use against.

Most people believe some violence is correct. But the disagreements include every variable.

I didn't say that violence is never okay in any circumstance. What I'm objecting to is cowards who couch their support for violence in mealy-mouthed caveats: "of COURSE i don't condone violence BUT ackshuaaaaally when you think about it isn't it _understandable_ that someone should _expect_ this kind of reaction blah blah blah blah blah..."

Just say that you think Sam Altman deserves it. You'll disgust me but at least I'd respect your honesty.

When was the last time a molotov cocktail was thrown at the house of an arms manufacturer?

Trump and other presidents literally started wars and ordered people to be killed. When was the last time they were physically attacked?

> When was the last time they were physically attacked?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

When was the last time a molotov cocktail was thrown at the house of an arms manufacturer?

Or the houses of the people who created and dropped the nukes on Japan?

The people behind many massacres including the ones perpetrated by the US itself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com