3 ms·

Maybe. I would not do business with Kim Jong Un. He is murdering a lot of his own people. Or with Putin. He is murdering a lot of Ukrainians. But guess what:

Maybe. I would not do business with Kim Jong Un. He is murdering a lot of his own people. Or with Putin. He is murdering a lot of Ukrainians. But guess what: both North Korea and Russia are under sanctions. You can't do business with them anyway. But the UAE is not under sanctions. Which means that in the opinion of the US Government it is ok to do business with them. Then who is Open AI to say otherwise? Why should it be any of their concern to determine who is a good guy or a bad guy in the world? Shouldn't there be a division of responsibilities? Let the Department of State determine who is good and who is bad, and let companies do business with those who are not on the sanctions list.

anthonymartinez 1y ago
for a while the Pinochet regime was our perfectly acceptable ally in Chile, even though we knew he was a mass murderer. its silly to throw up your hands just because the state department (itself not exactly a bastion of morality) says that its not illegal to do business with someone.
- credit_guy 1y ago
  Let me guess: you were against Bush's war in Iraq to take down Saddam. Why? Wasn't it moral to try to eliminate a known mass murderer? Either is our duty to be the the moral arbiters of the world or it isn't. Which one is it?
  - sitkack 1y ago
    One can be against a war and at the same time be against the government that war would remove. We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of those troops were conscripts who didn't want to be there, yet we bulldozed them into the sand to suffocate, or burned them alive on the highway while they retreated. There are more than two answers to everything. > Wasn't it moral to try to eliminate a known mass murderer? Given the context and the means. No.
  - jamroom 1y ago
    We didn’t go in to Irag because Saddam was a mass murderer - we went in because Bush lied to America that Saddam was trying to get yellow cake uranium to build a bomb. A lot of Americans were against the war because we knew Saddam was not involved in 9/11 but Bush jr wanted to finish what his father couldn’t in the first gulf war. Honestly I would love it if we cared enough about mass murderers to actually go in and help, but I just don’t see that being a reason.
  - jfengel 1y ago
    We tolerate quite a few mass murderers in charge of countries. We attacked that one because, supposedly, he had the tools and intent to attack the United States with chemical weapons. Many were opposed to that war, not because they didn't feel it was right to eliminate a mass murderer, but because that was not the stayed reason. The stated reason in fact turned out to be false, and was arguably an abject lie. In other words ... it's not a great example of what you're trying to claim.
    - bdangubic 1y ago
      We tolerate quite a few mass murderers in charge of countries including our own…
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    Obviously that’s not true. Pinochet and Saddam were both direct product of US policy and intervention. At the, end, Saddam ultimately pulled too hard on the leash and miscalculated his power. Murder, mass or otherwise and morality has little bearing on matters of empire. Thinking otherwise is naive.
  - xkcd1963 1y ago
    US was never a moral arbiter, isn't and will never be. Plenty of spaces would have been better of without US involvement
  - int_19h 1y ago
    Because the war killed literally hundreds of thousands of people, and one can reasonably argue that while Saddam was bad, the overall amount of suffering caused by the war was worse than his excesses.
ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
> Why should it be any of their concern to determine who is a good guy or a bad guy in the world? Because helping someone do something bad is itself bad. > Shouldn't there be a division of responsibilities? It sounds like you mean an abdication of responsibility? We are already responsible for our own choices and actions, as well as their effects.
- credit_guy 1y ago
  No, I'm not talking about abdication of responsibility. I'm talking about modesty. It is very appealing to think you know better than other people. That we know how a society should be governed, and we are able to label another country as totalitarian, or undemocratic, or illiberal, or such. But looking around the world, you can see that a lot of evil is perpetrated exactly by people who think they know better than everyone else. Osama bin Laden himself thought that what he was doing was for the advancement of good over evil, and a lot of his followers thought the same. A lot of the people reading Hacker News right now think they have a better solution for the societal problems of the UAE. I personally have no idea about what's going on over there. But let's say that I'm in charge of the business decisions at Open AI. Should I start thinking that I know a way to solve their problems, and part of that way is for my company to apply some form of AI embargo on them? Or should I simply know my limitations, and restrict my judgment to the matters I am familiar with. "Abdication of responsibility". What grand words. Why exactly has Open AI a responsibility to guide the UAE towards a better future? And, more importantly, why should Open AI feel confident that they know what is better for the UAE?
  - cyberax 1y ago
    > Why exactly has Open AI a responsibility to guide the UAE towards a better future? OpenAI is not responsible for UAE government. However, it's responsible for its own actions, and for their easily predictable consequences.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > I'm talking about modesty. And I am talking about not doing bad things, which includes helping others do bad things. > It is very appealing to think you know better than other people. Not really. Responsibility, principles, and morality are work. It's far more appealing to claim they are someone else's job, dispense with them, turn your brain off, and do whatever feels good. > A lot of the people reading Hacker News right now think they have a better solution for the societal problems of the UAE. With all due respect, the percentage of HackerNews readers who are thinking about the UAE right now can be counted on one hand. This discussion is about generalities: Don't help people do bad stuff. You're arguing about what's bad, and what isn't, and who decides. Interesting topic (perhaps for someone else or for another time)! Would you help someone do something which you think is bad?

anthonymartinez 1y ago

for a while the Pinochet regime was our perfectly acceptable ally in Chile, even though we knew he was a mass murderer. its silly to throw up your hands just because the state department (itself not exactly a bastion of morality) says that its not illegal to do business with someone.

credit_guy 1y ago
Let me guess: you were against Bush's war in Iraq to take down Saddam. Why? Wasn't it moral to try to eliminate a known mass murderer? Either is our duty to be the the moral arbiters of the world or it isn't. Which one is it?
- sitkack 1y ago
  One can be against a war and at the same time be against the government that war would remove. We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of those troops were conscripts who didn't want to be there, yet we bulldozed them into the sand to suffocate, or burned them alive on the highway while they retreated. There are more than two answers to everything. > Wasn't it moral to try to eliminate a known mass murderer? Given the context and the means. No.
- jamroom 1y ago
  We didn’t go in to Irag because Saddam was a mass murderer - we went in because Bush lied to America that Saddam was trying to get yellow cake uranium to build a bomb. A lot of Americans were against the war because we knew Saddam was not involved in 9/11 but Bush jr wanted to finish what his father couldn’t in the first gulf war. Honestly I would love it if we cared enough about mass murderers to actually go in and help, but I just don’t see that being a reason.
- jfengel 1y ago
  We tolerate quite a few mass murderers in charge of countries. We attacked that one because, supposedly, he had the tools and intent to attack the United States with chemical weapons. Many were opposed to that war, not because they didn't feel it was right to eliminate a mass murderer, but because that was not the stayed reason. The stated reason in fact turned out to be false, and was arguably an abject lie. In other words ... it's not a great example of what you're trying to claim.
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    We tolerate quite a few mass murderers in charge of countries including our own…
- Spooky23 1y ago
  Obviously that’s not true. Pinochet and Saddam were both direct product of US policy and intervention. At the, end, Saddam ultimately pulled too hard on the leash and miscalculated his power. Murder, mass or otherwise and morality has little bearing on matters of empire. Thinking otherwise is naive.
- xkcd1963 1y ago
  US was never a moral arbiter, isn't and will never be. Plenty of spaces would have been better of without US involvement
- int_19h 1y ago
  Because the war killed literally hundreds of thousands of people, and one can reasonably argue that while Saddam was bad, the overall amount of suffering caused by the war was worse than his excesses.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

> Why should it be any of their concern to determine who is a good guy or a bad guy in the world? Because helping someone do something bad is itself bad. > Shouldn't there be a division of responsibilities? It sounds like you mean an abdication of responsibility? We are already responsible for our own choices and actions, as well as their effects.

credit_guy 1y ago
No, I'm not talking about abdication of responsibility. I'm talking about modesty. It is very appealing to think you know better than other people. That we know how a society should be governed, and we are able to label another country as totalitarian, or undemocratic, or illiberal, or such. But looking around the world, you can see that a lot of evil is perpetrated exactly by people who think they know better than everyone else. Osama bin Laden himself thought that what he was doing was for the advancement of good over evil, and a lot of his followers thought the same. A lot of the people reading Hacker News right now think they have a better solution for the societal problems of the UAE. I personally have no idea about what's going on over there. But let's say that I'm in charge of the business decisions at Open AI. Should I start thinking that I know a way to solve their problems, and part of that way is for my company to apply some form of AI embargo on them? Or should I simply know my limitations, and restrict my judgment to the matters I am familiar with. "Abdication of responsibility". What grand words. Why exactly has Open AI a responsibility to guide the UAE towards a better future? And, more importantly, why should Open AI feel confident that they know what is better for the UAE?
- cyberax 1y ago
  > Why exactly has Open AI a responsibility to guide the UAE towards a better future? OpenAI is not responsible for UAE government. However, it's responsible for its own actions, and for their easily predictable consequences.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > I'm talking about modesty. And I am talking about not doing bad things, which includes helping others do bad things. > It is very appealing to think you know better than other people. Not really. Responsibility, principles, and morality are work. It's far more appealing to claim they are someone else's job, dispense with them, turn your brain off, and do whatever feels good. > A lot of the people reading Hacker News right now think they have a better solution for the societal problems of the UAE. With all due respect, the percentage of HackerNews readers who are thinking about the UAE right now can be counted on one hand. This discussion is about generalities: Don't help people do bad stuff. You're arguing about what's bad, and what isn't, and who decides. Interesting topic (perhaps for someone else or for another time)! Would you help someone do something which you think is bad?