I can't fault anyone for trying to be generous in interpreting something, or giving the benefit of doubt, least of all @anil. Just not the only reasonable posture anymore IMO is all.
-
-
Oh. You actually think Altman HAS ill intent? Interesting. I’m inclined to think he’s just another utopian but misguided libertarian-leaning tech bro, but I really don’t know. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cookedinwine @anildash and
Is there any difference between someone with bad intent, and someone that actually doesn't, but who acts and speaks as if he does, over and over?
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
If he can be shown he’s doing so and how to amend it? Then yes.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cookedinwine @cemerick and
Almost all people try to serve good, and most people even agree what they think is good (reducing suffering, increasing flourishing etc.). But people strongly disagree on the best strategy to increase goodness, and think those advocating other strategies must be motivated by evil
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think that's true. I think some people are malicious, and many people are motivated by personal greed to the exclusion of all else, with similar results, and I think that power and wealth, and maybe moreso the promise of them, corrupt and blind people to good.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cookedinwine @cemerick and
Do you think it remotely plausible that
@sama is maliciously serving personal greed by harming gay teenagers via pointing out that public discourse in the US has possibly become too totalitarian? I worry that this country is falling apart.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @cookedinwine and
The conceit that this is just about speech is part of what’s absurd here. It’s about who they’ll write multi-million-dollar checks to. That’s the actual objection, “why can’t I write huge checks to unabashed homophobes?”
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
More pointedly, he can, he likely has, and likely will. He just doesn't want to suffer any reputational consequences of doing so.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
btw, re: "too totalitarian": you can say exactly *everything* one might have said in 1950. You just might not be able to get/keep jobs, partners, friends, etc. Speech is freer than ever, there just happen to be material *private* consequences
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
In Eastern Germany, the consequence for saying things you were not supposed to say was usually not prison (because few things were explicitly illegal to say), but loss of university placing, career, etc., and you were shunned by colleagues and sometimes even friends and partners.
-
-
To revise what I said previously: you would face exactly those consequences in 1950 too, but *only* if you said or did things that contravened the powerful mainstream demanded the subjugation of women, brown people, queer folk, etcetc.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.