24 ms·

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 b

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

arrowsmith 6mo ago
"I'm not saying violence is okay, but violence is okay"
- dwroberts 6mo ago
  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
- pydry 6mo ago
  Not ok, but anybody who is ok with terrorizing, say, an Iranian civilian nuclear scientist ought to be equally indifferent to this.
  - arrowsmith 6mo ago
    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
    - mvc 6mo ago
      What about executives/scientists on the US nuclear programme?
    - Arodex 6mo ago
      Altman and other AI evangelists spent their time equating AI with nuclear technology. They make the comparison all the time.
      - pydry 6mo ago
        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.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/643/825/18c...
    - pillefitz 6mo ago
      The former are doing way more damage to civilization
      - arrowsmith 6mo ago
        Give the latter a nuclear bomb and see how true that stays
        pydry 6mo ago
        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.
    - ath3nd 6mo ago
      [dead]
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- hax0ron3 6mo ago
  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.
  - pseudalopex 6mo ago
    Most people believe some violence is correct. But the disagreements include every variable.
  - arrowsmith 6mo ago
    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.
bko 6mo ago
> 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?
- pocksuppet 6mo ago
  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.
  - bko 6mo ago
    "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?
    - pixel_popping 6mo ago
      That's what's happening when people want to blame specific persons for world issues instead of the collective.
    - AlexeyBelov 6mo ago
      > Are painkillers "authorized" to get people to overdose? Are you saying the Sacklers did nothing wrong?
    - pocksuppet 6mo ago
      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?
- xg15 6mo ago
nl 6mo ago
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)
- rrr_oh_man 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - trinsic2 6mo ago
    Only an act of congress can make that happen. That hasn't happened. So no, it's still the DOD.
- trinsic2 6mo ago
  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.
  - xp84 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - trinsic2 6mo ago
      There is a proper definition for authoritarianism. noun: authoritarianism the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. Both parties are involved in this. Its about taking away peoples freedom to chose.
Razengan 6mo ago
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?
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- alexdias 6mo ago
  > When was the last time they were physically attacked? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
  - Razengan 6mo ago
    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?

arrowsmith 6mo ago

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

dwroberts 6mo ago
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
pydry 6mo ago
Not ok, but anybody who is ok with terrorizing, say, an Iranian civilian nuclear scientist ought to be equally indifferent to this.
- arrowsmith 6mo ago
  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
  - mvc 6mo ago
    What about executives/scientists on the US nuclear programme?
  - Arodex 6mo ago
    Altman and other AI evangelists spent their time equating AI with nuclear technology. They make the comparison all the time.
    - pydry 6mo ago
      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.png https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/643/825/18c...
  - pillefitz 6mo ago
    The former are doing way more damage to civilization
    - arrowsmith 6mo ago
      Give the latter a nuclear bomb and see how true that stays
      - pydry 6mo ago
        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.
  - ath3nd 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
hax0ron3 6mo ago
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.
- pseudalopex 6mo ago
  Most people believe some violence is correct. But the disagreements include every variable.
- arrowsmith 6mo ago
  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.

bko 6mo ago

> 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?

pocksuppet 6mo ago
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.
- bko 6mo ago
  "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?
  - pixel_popping 6mo ago
    That's what's happening when people want to blame specific persons for world issues instead of the collective.
  - AlexeyBelov 6mo ago
    > Are painkillers "authorized" to get people to overdose? Are you saying the Sacklers did nothing wrong?
  - pocksuppet 6mo ago
    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?
xg15 6mo ago

nl 6mo ago

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)

rrr_oh_man 6mo ago
[flagged]
- trinsic2 6mo ago
  Only an act of congress can make that happen. That hasn't happened. So no, it's still the DOD.
trinsic2 6mo ago
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.
- xp84 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - trinsic2 6mo ago
    There is a proper definition for authoritarianism. noun: authoritarianism the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. Both parties are involved in this. Its about taking away peoples freedom to chose.

Razengan 6mo ago

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?

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
alexdias 6mo ago
> When was the last time they were physically attacked? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
- Razengan 6mo ago
  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?