Comment by dwroberts
6 days ago
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
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)
I completely agree with all your statements. But I think most people in America have moved on from even trying to operate in the political system we have - because it’s been completely subverted by bad actors on both sides of the supposed 2-party system they see it as pointless.
And as such they’ve either become completely irrational (most far left or far rightists), checked out (the rest of us), or fully mentally ill (people like this, or that Gracie Mansion wacko)
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.
[flagged]
1 reply →
>The US is still a democracy
Let's see if that still holds after the midterms...
Calling it “a democratically elected government's defense department” is extremely generous and not a good point even if the premise were true.
Hitler was democratically elected, who cares?
The premise doesn't make sense either because it's hardly a “defense department” either. It's been more of a “kill civilians and destabilize other democratically elected governments in Latin America and the Middle East department” for the past half century. It's the same “defense department” that overthrew democratically-electdd Allende in Chile and installed a dictator, killed schoolgirls in Iran (I'm not including Iran in the list of democratic places though), bombed a wedding in Pakistan with a drone, and more. It's a massive “defense department” for a country that hasn't been attacked in ages.
The US is hardly a democracy either because a choice between genocide-supporters isn't a real choice, there was no real anti-Zionist candidate.
[flagged]
Only an act of congress can make that happen. That hasn't happened. So no, it's still the DOD.
Being able to vote between Moloch and Baʿal is hardly “a democracy”.
Those were both good deities before the peoples who replaced their worshippers demonized them:
Some history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Q9uyFASF0
1 reply →
>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.
Why though?
Because government violence is not the same as individual violence!
4 replies →
I’m falling into the Socratic hole [0], but in a modern civil society there is a justice system through which people seek recourse. This has all sorts of desirable effects for societies.
Please educate yourself on the basics or at least put more effort in before participating in conversations.
[0]: It’s easy to abuse the Socratic method and devolve a discussion into one of first principles. It’s extremely tiresome and a huge waste of everyone’s time.
8 replies →
> 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?
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.
"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?
3 replies →
I wouldn't want my country to use the best technology when conducting warfare because my country only conducts offensive warfare resulting in millions of innocent deaths in the Middle East, having a massive military budget that dwarfs most others combined whilst hardly ever being directly threatened.
Can we at least drop the sports games terminology ("defense", "offense") and acknowledge we're talking about mass killing of people here?
These words originated with war and were adopted by sports.
"I'm not saying violence is okay, but violence is okay"
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
Not ok, but anybody who is ok with terrorizing, say, an Iranian civilian nuclear scientist ought to be equally indifferent to this.
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
8 replies →
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.
Most people believe some violence is correct. But the disagreements include every variable.
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.
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?
> When was the last time they were physically attacked?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
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?