Comment by dang
6 days 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/item?id=47728150
6 days 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/item?id=47728150
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?
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.
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.
1 reply →