4 ms·

WTF? You can't post like this here, regardless of whose "removing" you're advocating. Obviously we ban accounts that post like this - see https://news.ycombinat

by dang 7mo ago

WTF? You can't post like this here, regardless of whose "removing" you're advocating. Obviously we ban accounts that post like this - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. As I explained to these other users*, I'm not going to ban you right now because this thread is a mob, and mobs derange people and I don't think that any of us (including me) is immune from this. But please don't ever post anything like this, or remotely close to this, ever again to HN. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47728362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47728362 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47728150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47728150

hax0ron3 7mo ago
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?
- dang 7mo ago
  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 person and indeed wishing for it to escalate. That's a kind of violence in its own right, and a poison that we don't want here.
  - mystraline 7mo ago
    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.
    - dang 7mo ago
      When it comes to inflammatory statements on divisive topics, the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... Responding to the firebombing of someone's house with the sentence "Removing him is active harm reduction for the world" has an obvious meaning. If you didn't mean it the obvious way, you should have made your point very differently.

by dang 7mo ago

hax0ron3 7mo ago

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?

dang 7mo ago
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 person and indeed wishing for it to escalate. That's a kind of violence in its own right, and a poison that we don't want here.
- mystraline 7mo ago
  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.
  - dang 7mo ago
    When it comes to inflammatory statements on divisive topics, the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=burden%20disambiguate%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... Responding to the firebombing of someone's house with the sentence "Removing him is active harm reduction for the world" has an obvious meaning. If you didn't mean it the obvious way, you should have made your point very differently.