7 ms·
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 agains
by etempleton 6mo ago
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.
- voidhorse 6mo ago[flagged]
- pillefitz 6mo ago[flagged]
- confiq 6mo ago> he has done nothing to begin to justify violence No One does! I also found news hard to believe but it is true: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czx91rdxpyeo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czx91rdxpyeo I'm not a big fan of Sam Altman, but violence like this is not a solution; it has the actually opposite effect as it probably did with Trump.
- mcv 6mo agoOr Iran, for that matter.
- speleding 6mo agoReading that BBC article, how the attacker got caught while shouting at an OpenAI building, it would seem likely that this attacker is confused or deranged. Not specifically someone with deliberate evil intent. So the headline seems to be more "high profile person attacked by lunatic" than "OpenAI CEO attacked for being evil".
- trinsic2 6mo agoActions have consequences. There will always be people in the world that get pushed beyond the limits they can endure. It reminds of that CEO that got gunned down by someone that was being affected by the company profiting off of making a business of denying health insurance claims on technicalities. I don't support this and yet I know for every harm people in these corrupt institutions are involved in, the universe gives back your due. If you want to stop the harm. Stop harming the world with your actions in what every way that needs to manifest for you.
- altmanaltman 6mo agoIs there anything anyone can do that justifies violence or threats of violence? No. Even if that person is a proven child molestater, a just society stands on just law. But as far as political justification stands, he is as valid of a target for hostile nations just as Iranian nuclear scientists were (unless he has 0 involvment with USG). That's just the world we live in. Use your tech for war in other nations, you give a justification for other nations to target you. Same goes for Lockheed Martin ceo etc, nothing specific against Sam. But saying nobody has no valid reason to target Sam like this is pretty stupid imo.
- dangus 6mo agoI’m pretty sure if someone sexually assaulted my child or murdered them I’d be more than morally justified to get a few or a lot of punches in. Some people are treated a whole lot better than others in prison.
- pocksuppet 6mo agoAre the parents of an Iranian nuclear scientist murdered by an OpenAI-powered drone morally justified to murder Sam Altman?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- 1718627440 6mo agoThey have "given" that privilege to the Iranian Army.
- odshoifsdhfs 6mo agoYes. Why the fuck are we pretending they are not? Even his husband is a valid target as he knows who he goes to bed with and where the caviar comes from. (I will probably say his kid no because he has no responsibility/understanding of this)
- spwa4 6mo ago[flagged]
- Jamesbeam 6mo agoUnpopular opinion. It depends. I totally agree with your statement if we are talking about the average citizen starting to throw Molotovs at his house. If you’re afraid AI is taking your job, just do something else. It’s not the end of the world changing careers. Plenty of work AI won’t be able to do, or allowed to do without a human assisting in some way that secures the human a good income and way of life. So if this is done by an individual citizen, they need to be hunted down, arrested, and get the full force of the justice system to deter others from doing the same. On the other hand, right now, Sam Altman is a valid military target for assassination in the US / Iran war. OpenAI did snatch up the contract from Anthropic at the Pentagon, and their technology is in some capacity used to murder Iranian HVTs (High Value Targets). Altman is therefore technically a legal HVT for the Iranians. If you say it’s valid and not a war crime for the US to assassinate former political Iranian figures and their families for aiding the new regime and therefore becoming enemy combatants in the eye of the US Military, it’s also valid to assassinate Altman and his family for doing the same to the other war party. It’s a bit of a Schrödinger situation. He is technically a valid target in a current war, but not for the private citizen. In both cases, though, I’d advocate that violence is neither a solution to solve the problem that AI might be creating for a lot of people in the future, nor should he be treated as an enemy combatant and his infant child and wife bombed to smitherens. Diplomacy is key here, just like it would have been the better solution than going to war with Iran. If you disagree with Altman, send him a letter, show up at his workplace, talk to the man, gather people who think the same of him you do, write letters to your voted representatives, make calls, vote politicians into office that are anti AI and who will go after him and regulate his company to shit. Bureaucrats can make Altman’s life more miserable than a thousand Molotovs ever could. If you gather enough support, you can reach the same goal, taking his power over your life away, without any violence. But are you really surprised people chose violence over the democracy toolbox in the US if they get told by the people in charge of their country that violence is indeed a good way to solve problems, that you should have a "warrior" spirit and everything is up for grabs, even sovereign countries like Greenland because you can outviolence any other nation on the planet? Violence only creates more violence and as long as there is a president who chooses to put oil in the fire and pretends it’s ok to murder US citizens like Alex Pretti, you don’t really need to wonder if the average citizen starts murdering tech CEOs in the near future. They just follow the Top-down approach to using violence as a tool the leadership lives by example.
- ath3nd 6mo ago[dead]
- yaro330 6mo agoSeriously? Not even the DOD partnership?
- siva7 6mo agoYou make it sound like an american company has a choice under this administration
- dwroberts 6mo agoThey were just following orders, right
- selfhoster11 6mo agoThey always have a choice, it just doesn't make them as much.
- finghin 6mo agoYou may want to sit with that one for a while.
- ahtihn 6mo agoAnthropic clearly showed that they have a choice.
- nickthegreek 6mo agoAnthropic seemed to have a choice.
- pocksuppet 6mo agoIs it a democracy or a dictatorship?
- AllegedAlec 6mo ago[flagged]
- brysonreece 6mo agoIf you work to inflict violence on others, you shouldn’t be surprised when it’s attempted to be inflicted back on you. I’m not saying it’s a just worldview, but it is pragmatic.
- 710dev 6mo ago[flagged]
- raptor99 6mo agoAgreed! Have you heard of Suchir Balaji?
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- smallmancontrov 6mo agoHoly shit how is this the first time I am hearing about this? This should not be my first time hearing about this. > Suchir Balaji (November 21, 1998 – November 26, 2024) was an American artificial intelligence researcher who was found dead one month after accusing OpenAI, his former employer, of violating United States copyright law -Wikipedia
- lr1970 6mo agoThere was a Tacker Carlson interview with Sam Altman where Tacker probed him on Balaji's murder and Sam quickly got confused and disoriented. Make your own conclusions.
- HaZeust 6mo agoSaying he got confused and disoriented is and interesting conclusion to make of that interview. He was defensive from the onset and even went combative when Carlson continued down a specific line of questioning, which he allegedly did at the request of the victim's family.
- smallmancontrov 6mo agoTragic: the worst pundit I know did some amazing journalism there.
- johnbarron 6mo ago[flagged]
- pixel_popping 6mo ago[flagged]
- Minor49er 6mo agoI think he means murder, not killing processes /s
- pixel_popping 6mo agomy bad.
- array_key_first 6mo ago[flagged]
- inquirerGeneral 6mo ago[dead]
- giardini 6mo ago[flagged]
- array_key_first 6mo agowhat?
- MiguelX413 6mo agoI mean, those things are true too. I don't see how they relate or what your point is.
- yyrrll 6mo ago> 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.
- Arodex 6mo ago>“In essence” is doing enormous work here What kind of health insurance does one have when one is employed in the USA? What is the life expectancy of unemployed people vs. employed? Case closed.
- pnt12 6mo agoI mean, it would also be an option to fix the deficient public health of USA. For all the stupid manipulative stuff Altman says, the system precedes him, no?
- odshoifsdhfs 6mo ago[flagged]
- etempleton 6mo agoI 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.
- Hikikomori 6mo agoDysfunctional political systems tend to break the states monopoly on violence.
- etempleton 6mo agoI don’t disagree. It is why a functional and fair (as much as possible) system must be in place.
- MiguelX413 6mo agoUnfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon, and more and more people feel the same. There's no faith left to be had in the justice system anymore after Epstein, Kissinger, etc. We live in a system that threatens to invade the Hague to protect its war criminals, not a system that exists to prosecute evil-doërs.
- Razengan 6mo agoSo why is nobody committing violence against Trump for starting a literal war? No, because even TALKING about doing anything to the ACTUALLY EVIL people of this world will get your ass wrecked.
- AlexeyBelov 6mo agoSure, 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.
- _DeadFred_ 6mo agoIf 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.
- nicbou 6mo ago> 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.
- foxyv 6mo agoJustice isn't just about punishing the guilty. It is also about restoring the trust in our society when it has been damaged by criminals. Very few Americans I know have any faith in our justice system's ability to hold the wealthy accountable. As a result, we will see more and more violence as a natural consequence. Sam Altman could use his considerable wealth to hold billionaires like himself accountable for crimes that they commit through lobbying or funding investigations. Seeing criminal billionaires face justice would go a long to reducing this kind of violence.