> 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.
I 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?
This is not an argument or a rebuttal, and I don't think you're really understanding what I'm saying.
I'm not saying altman is actually a murderer or that AI is even bad for society as a whole.
I'm saying that what he is saying is directly threatening to a lot of people, and it should be obvious that some of those people will lash out.
Something being good for society can still be bad for you. If you're someone who altman is bragging about making redundant, then you might be mad at altman. It's very simple reasoning.
I simply don't understand how somebody able to enjoy modern comforts precisely because of innovations resulting in job eliminations will suddenly draw the line when AI might risk some jobs.
I never said that I'm drawing the line anywhere - I'm merely saying that Altman bragging about it is a REAL and OBVIOUS threat to the people he's trying to replace.
Whether that's good societally is a different question. Is it good FOR THOSE PEOPLE from their perspective? Of course it's not, and that should be painfully obvious to everyone here.
So then, why are we playing stupid and acting surprised when Altman is in danger? Everyone should have saw this coming.
Words can justify violence. A serious threat of violence is a reasonable basis for acting in self-defense. Another comment said the same about pre-emptive self-defense as if one should wait to be shot at even whilst a gun is pointed at them before shooting back.
By this incredibly specious logic, many of your comments here represent “threats” towards people who work in AI, or with the DoD, etc, in any capacity. I guess they’re now justified in trying to murder your children, right?
> 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.
>“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.
Right, everyone who disagrees with you is a murderer, that’s going to work out great.
3 replies →
I 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?
These comments have gone beyond Reddit levels and reached Facebook insanity levels.
This is not an argument or a rebuttal, and I don't think you're really understanding what I'm saying.
I'm not saying altman is actually a murderer or that AI is even bad for society as a whole.
I'm saying that what he is saying is directly threatening to a lot of people, and it should be obvious that some of those people will lash out.
Something being good for society can still be bad for you. If you're someone who altman is bragging about making redundant, then you might be mad at altman. It's very simple reasoning.
I simply don't understand how somebody able to enjoy modern comforts precisely because of innovations resulting in job eliminations will suddenly draw the line when AI might risk some jobs.
I never said that I'm drawing the line anywhere - I'm merely saying that Altman bragging about it is a REAL and OBVIOUS threat to the people he's trying to replace.
Whether that's good societally is a different question. Is it good FOR THOSE PEOPLE from their perspective? Of course it's not, and that should be painfully obvious to everyone here.
So then, why are we playing stupid and acting surprised when Altman is in danger? Everyone should have saw this coming.
Words can justify violence. A serious threat of violence is a reasonable basis for acting in self-defense. Another comment said the same about pre-emptive self-defense as if one should wait to be shot at even whilst a gun is pointed at them before shooting back.
By this incredibly specious logic, many of your comments here represent “threats” towards people who work in AI, or with the DoD, etc, in any capacity. I guess they’re now justified in trying to murder your children, right?
No, people don't have the right to self-defense against self-defense. The provocator doesn't get that.
[dead]
[flagged]
what?
I mean, those things are true too.
I don't see how they relate or what your point is.