Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
62 points
2 hours ago
| 10 comments
| sfstandard.com
| HN
avaer
1 hour ago
[-]
In case someone reading this is thinking similar thoughts: there's no version of reality where doing this will solve any problem. Don't.
reply
samrus
41 minutes ago
[-]
Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening?
reply
furyofantares
19 minutes ago
[-]
They're just speaking to a hypothetical person who thinks this will solve a problem. In no way does their post imply they'd be ok with it if it solved some problem.

A little wild to me that so many of the replies don't understand that.

reply
drivingmenuts
38 minutes ago
[-]
If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.
reply
WarOnPrivacy
29 minutes ago
[-]
> If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.

FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor. I think this illustrates how a law can protect problems rather than solving them.

reply
tptacek
1 hour ago
[-]
This is obviously true, but you're just inviting the rebuttals. Arguments that civil violence is unproductive are boring and obvious. Normal people have been acculturated to understand the point already. The only way to have an "interesting" conversation about this is to take the other side.

All of those arguments will be vile, as they have to be given the context.

I'm not criticizing you, and I guess I'm glad someone wrote this comment quickly. You're right. But I would caution people against reading too much into the countervailing sentiment here. It's not trolling, but it is something adjacent to it.

reply
afpx
1 hour ago
[-]
In high school the 90s, I learned about what the founding fathers said about violence. But, I guess that's too 18th century now.
reply
lesuorac
2 minutes ago
[-]
Except they only won because UK was too busy spending money on a way to stop the French.

Like 1812 when the Brits weren't busy with the French they easily came in and burnt the US capital as punishment for burning the Canadian one. It's not that the British army suddenly got a lot stronger; they just weren't busy fighting on two continents.

That said, civil disobedience is largely pointless. We're in a capitalistic society so money is the name of the game. Rosa Parks did shit-all; it was the boycott of the bus system for 9 months that made the buses cave.

reply
cucumber3732842
21 minutes ago
[-]
You've basically just said anyone who doesn't hold the "approved" opinion is wrong and then you called them names. But you wrapped it in extra words so that it's less flagrant.

Did you ever think that maybe people do in fact believe what they say they believe?

reply
d3ff
1 hour ago
[-]
Its not really about that though is it?

The people who are doing this stuff are unhinged but why? Perhaps they do not trust law and order. Perhaps they feel helpless and have been led to believe its over for the labour class due to the overhyped marketing and so on.

A serious frank conversation needs to be had and the hyping needs to stop.

reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
They’re some combination of deranged, depressed and looking for a thrill. In most countries they fail to stab someone. Here they have guns.
reply
hackable_sand
8 minutes ago
[-]
You can't keep marginalizing people and expecting stability.

Here's your canary.

reply
add-sub-mul-div
1 hour ago
[-]
Before passing judgment consider that while you may have the privilege of posting from a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny, that's not necessarily the case for others.
reply
lesuorac
18 minutes ago
[-]
Tyranny of a bunch of rich white men having to pay taxes lol.

There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk.

reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
> that's not necessarily the case for others

Totally agree. I’m speaking to cases in America. If you’re in a rich country broadly at peace with competitive elections to any degree, and you’re choosing violence, you should vacation to e.g. Burma or Sudan or Libya or Ethiopia and see the cost of the violence you’re glorifying.

reply
ropetin
1 hour ago
[-]
While I 100% do not support violence against Sam Altman, or anyone else for that matter, what are people without billions of dollars and without the ear of the president supposed to do to affect change in this modern, post-capitalist hellscape? And I am genuinely interested in ideas that people think will work, not just trying to be combative.
reply
tptacek
1 hour ago
[-]
I read this comment as saying that you (100-k)% do not support violence against Sam Altman, for some positive real number k.
reply
JumpCrisscross
56 minutes ago
[-]
> what are people without billions of dollars and without the ear of the president supposed to do to affect change in this modern, post-capitalist hellscape?

California has a referendum system. Get signatures for a policy and put it to the voters.

reply
granzymes
1 hour ago
[-]
Political violence is not acceptable in a democracy.

Full stop, no "but". That's all that needs to be said on this thread.

reply
samrus
49 minutes ago
[-]
I get the sentiment but this is disengenuous. Political violence built this democracy
reply
ordu
24 minutes ago
[-]
I believe it doesn't matter. You see, if you try applying this trick to different traits of a society, it would lead to conclusions like: it is impossible for us to build an environmentally conscious society because we come here by being environmentally unconscious. It is a historical determinism, and it just don't work. For example, Europe was mostly a constant war between states, but after WWII it managed to come to EU. No more wars between European countries. Or U.S. was a country of slavers and racists, and it managed to change itself. It is still not perfect, as I hear, but at least there are no more slavery or segregation, and racism is not accepted anymore.

The long gone history of a country is not a something that should be allowed to determine its modern narratives. You shouldn't forget your history, but there are limits you shouldn't cross. When I hear arguments going back for centuries, it is a red flag for me. It is most likely a propaganda.

Psychologists talk about two common failing of their clients. People often fixate over the past or they fixate over the future, while forgetting about the present. The healthy approach is to keep a good balance between the past, the future, and the present, with a strong accent on the present. The history determinism reminds me a lot of the over-fixation on the past, and propaganda actively tries to unsettle balances in people's minds and fixate them on anything but the present.

reply
CHB0403085482
16 minutes ago
[-]
Tell that to the parisians.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp84sRpM1Js
reply
amazingamazing
27 minutes ago
[-]
sure it is. what a ridiculous comment. go read how this country was formed, or how the civil war was resolved, or...

you can disagree that this was necessary, which I'd agree with.

reply
poszlem
1 hour ago
[-]
I agree. Is the US still a democracy, or already an oligarchy?
reply
hx8
1 hour ago
[-]
The more we treat it like a democracy, the more democratic it is. The more we treat it like an oligarchy, the less democratic it is.
reply
poszlem
1 hour ago
[-]
Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat.
reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
> Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat

Not playing at all makes you easier to beat still. Anyone pining for civil war should vacation in a war zone first. It’s difficult to encapsulate the privilege of peace until it’s been lost.

reply
fzeroracer
57 minutes ago
[-]
What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti?
reply
JumpCrisscross
52 minutes ago
[-]
> What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti?

Keep pushing your state investigators. Work to flip the House. And keep protesting and disrupting the browncoats.

Alex Pretti did more to stop ICE than anyone e.g. killing an individual ICE agent would do.

reply
poszlem
1 hour ago
[-]
Civil war or getting screwed by elites aren't the only two options. That's a false dichotomy.
reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
> Civil war or getting screwed by elites aren't the only two options. That's a false dichotomy

I completely agree. But political violence increasingly polarises the outcomes to those two. (The elites can buy gunmen faster than you or I can.)

California has a referendum system. Get an AI measure on the ballot. Companies that are doing the things Anthropic got fired for refusing to provide are banned from doing business in the State of California. (Or with the State. Find a balance that gets the votes.)

reply
drekipus
1 hour ago
[-]
This is the point.

You can't call yourself a democracy just because we can change the colour of the same bus every 3 to 4 years

reply
hgoel
30 minutes ago
[-]
Crazy, as bad of a person as I think Altman is, he isn't even the worst AI CEO. But even the worst of them doesn't deserve this.
reply
cucumber3732842
29 minutes ago
[-]
He isn't even noteworthy as far as tech CEOs with bad ideas go.

I think it's just name recognition.

reply
babelfish
2 hours ago
[-]
reply
lrvick
19 minutes ago
[-]
Look, I think Sam Altman is a terrible person too, but to anyone reading that hates people like him as much as I do you should want him alive while we work to build a world where he can live out a long life in complete safety, in prison.

Violence never solves anything. You will never make anything in this world better by becoming a worse person than your enemies.

reply
Avicebron
1 hour ago
[-]
Violence won't solve anything, everyone is worse off.
reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
> Violence won't solve anything

Violence can solve problems. This kind of violence is stupid, counterproductive and immoral.

Strategically deploying violence takes time, resources and discipline. Wanking off with a gun does not.

reply
esbranson
1 hour ago
[-]
Violence solves problems every day. Worse off is relative. I think you mean to qualify your statement.
reply
ares623
1 hour ago
[-]
Police employ violence all the time and I think we who are okay/well off all agree that they solve our problems every day.

What us cushy engineers haven't realized yet is that the gradient for who are well off are sliding more and more towards one end. Sooner or later engineers will be on the wrong side of that gradient.

reply
esbranson
1 hour ago
[-]
Indeed. Violence can be and is met with violence, and refusing to discern against them is a logical failure that needs correcting. Inevitably it comes down to process, and being a one-party state in control, the Democrats control the violence. Arguably on both sides.
reply
livinglist
1 hour ago
[-]
I agree, French Revolution was pretty peaceful
reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
> French Revolution was pretty peaceful

The elites after the French Revolution were not only mostly the same as before, they escaped with so much money and wealth that it’s actually debated if they increased their wealth share through the chaos [1].

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/650023

reply
livinglist
27 minutes ago
[-]
Do you have any suggestions for a real peaceful approach to get rid of the French royalty?
reply
JumpCrisscross
13 minutes ago
[-]
> suggestions for a real peaceful approach to get rid of the French royalty?

What the British did. Tale of Two Cities. Land and electoral reform.

One of them stayed geopolitically relevant for another century. One of them became Germany’s sock puppet.

reply
GeoSys
1 hour ago
[-]
Any word on the motivation of the attach? Any manifesto or a group taking responsibility?
reply
achierius
1 hour ago
[-]
[flagged]
reply
catcowcostume
4 minutes ago
[-]
Why is this comment flagged? It's not advocating violence just asking why some violence is actively opposed while others are ignored
reply
leaves83829
1 hour ago
[-]
but we haven't even proven that AI will destroy vast amounts of jobs. Some, sure, junior software engineers are in trouble. but other then that, do we really have any quantified evidence as to how many jobs have been displaced by AI? i've been looking for numbers on this but it all seems murky and wishy washy. i'm open to be convinced, if anyone's got numbers.

also, if the worst case scenario does happen and most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money.

reply
happytoexplain
37 minutes ago
[-]
>[if] most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money.

This is even more hideous than expressions of approval for individual violence. This is a dystopian acquiescence.

reply
tptacek
1 hour ago
[-]
I have never once seen someone on HN express happiness that someone was killed in a drive-by gang shooting.
reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
reply
akerl_
43 minutes ago
[-]
I think the point was that people are willing to be happy about this happening to tech CEOs but would not express the same about a gang shooting.
reply
fzeroracer
54 minutes ago
[-]
I saw this all the time when ICE was doing their business in Minneapolis. That was only a few months ago and it doesn't take too long to dig and find some truly odious posts.
reply
echelon
1 hour ago
[-]
I have a few predictions for this year:

1. Violent attacks against AI CEOs, researchers, and engineers is going to begin. This is due to widespread negative press that AI receives and as well as a pervasive feeling of economic uncertainty and doom in the population. Some of this being caused by the current administration's leadership, but much of it attributed to AI taking jobs and destroying opportunity.

2. Violent acts taken against non-tech CEOs will increase hand-in-hand.

3. If AI continues to demonstrate impressive new capabilities for automation, this rate will increase substantially.

4. The government may come down hard on these individuals, which will further inflame the situation.

5. Data centers will come under attack / sabotage.

6. This will all wind up further inflamed by prediction markets.

I have a colleague at Anthropic that refuses to put it on his LinkedIn. We all now know why.

reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
If violent attacks start metastasizing, it legitimately justifies a police crackdown. Most of the population will be for that.

The pro-Palestinian activists set their cause back a year by overplaying their hands in Columbia at the start of the war. If we want to ensure zero AI legislation for the next 2 years, I couldn’t think of a better way to ensure that than to start potting randos in the streets.

reply
JumpCrisscross
1 hour ago
[-]
“person in the passenger seat then put their hand out the window and appeared to have fired a round on the Lombard Street side of the property”

Even if you think it’s okay to kill him, he’s not the only person ever at the property.

Deface his stuff. It’s vandalism and not nice. But it’s justifiable escalation from peaceful protest if you think the justice and political systems are inappropriately unresponsive. But gamble with lives and best case you make him a sympathetic martyr and excuse for a crackdown by the very folks you don’t want having that kind of emergency authority.

I’m not making a moral argument (there is one), but a strategic one. Assassination is rarely directly useful. In this case, it won’t be. That means your actions have to spur the polity. Killing doesn’t do that. Massive, disruptive protest and—occasionally—lighting things on fire does.

reply
donkey_brains
9 minutes ago
[-]
I think you have to be at least remotely a sympathetic figure to be a martyr
reply
rvz
1 hour ago
[-]
Well folks who know about the Unabomber manifesto by Ted Kaczynski will see this attack as unsurprising, and Sam knows this sort of attack was expected; false flag or not.

It is not okay. But if we don't have any solution to the ramifications of what really is "AGI" then it unfortunately won't be the last.

Welcome to "AGI".

reply
threatofrain
1 hour ago
[-]
People can think of ML on a government level, but it has an inescapably international dimension as a kind of gunpowder-like discovery. Relatedly, if war becomes increasingly automated and cheap, then civilian targets will be seen as obvious.

As we discuss policy ideas to pump the breaks on a domestic level, I hope we balance that against the arms race that's happening around the world.

reply