Shortly prior to the recent US presidential election, I worked next to a nice, smart young man from California who went to a well-known progressive university in the bay area. Politics was very rarely discussed at work, but in the weeks before the election, there was some cross talk in the isles.
He trusted me enough to message me privately that he was planning to vote for Trump. At that time, I was quite anxious about the thought of a Trump presidency, but I'm pretty far along the open-minded scale, so we chatted about it privately a bit.
My co-worker asked me to not speak about his position and to not let anyone else know about it, because he feared that his 'out of place' political views would, in his words, 'indirectly limit his career options.'
Why he supported Trump is pretty irrelevant, but I found his opinion reasonable, though I disagreed with his overall choice.
You know what? I agreed with his concern at the time, and I still agree with it. Consciously and otherwise, I think that quite a few of the fine progressive folk that we find ourselves surrounded by here in the bay area would hold such an opinion against him in important ways.
I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly, that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized) by progressives.
At this point, I can't imagine a path forward that has much of a chance of bearing fruit.
> I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly, that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized) by progressives.
That may be what you personally felt in this single personal anecdote, but it is not at all supported by the results for the bay area in the election[1].
There were an enormous number of Trump voters who explicitly stated that they voted for him because he was the only national candidate to criticize things like NAFTA and other policies which directly hurt them and/or people they knew. Presented with a series of bad options, they picked the guy who spoke to their concerns and naively wrote off the outlandish comments as news-cycle spam. Go back and look at the contested areas in Michigan and Pennsylvania where Trump did well. Or go back and listen to the town hall Bernie Sanders did after the election in West Virginia where Trump performed well-- you can listen directly to what swayed them the most. It wasn't a fear of retribution from progressive tech bosses for non-progressive ideas. It was jobs.
As an outsider to American politics. This is 100% my vision also.
I know a lot of people that have moderate views that are simply shut down by liberals. As a response, they hide and vote for Trump.
I see it as their way to elect someone that is not afraid to go against the accepted view of the elites and therefore going against all that political correctness nonsense.
> because he feared that his 'out of place' political views would, in his words, 'indirectly limit his career options.'
Why he supported Trump is pretty irrelevant, but I found his opinion reasonable, though I disagreed with his overall choice.
I think in SV, it is a completely reasonable precaution. If you openly declare you are, say, a communist (I don't mean "support Obamacare", I mean real communist, as in nationalize everything, ban private property, etc.), chances that people would shun you and that hurts you carrier are pretty small. If you say you voted for Trump, chances are higher, and I've heard people say as much pretty much open text.
> I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly, that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized) by progressives.
I'm not sure this observation has much value. Voting for a candidate that shares your values in a time when those values aren't popular is equivalent to doing so when those values are popular. Either way you're voting for a candidate that shares your values. I'm never going to place a spite-vote for someone who doesn't support my views just because my views are unpopular.
And in any case, I think certain views should be demonized. Expressing disparaging things about gay people (the example from the article) should be viewed with the same revulsion as we would today view the historical opinion that people of color were in some way "better suited" for slavery. The view that some people are somehow "less than" shouldn't be tolerated. The paradox of tolerance is very real.
Leaning in from outside the US, the path forward is obvious.
"Progressives" should embrace guns and reject abortion.
That would make them palatable to these mysterious deplorables that seem to hold sway over the US political system, giving them access to the halls of power.
Then said progressives, having kept their powder dry, could expend it on what really matters - convincing the deplorables that science is a thing, and that climate change will kill us all if we don't act.
Trump used and continues to use racial dog whistles in his speeches and official tweets. It's part of the reason 90-95 percent of African Americans vote for anyone else over a GOP candidate given the opportunity - if you hear it, it's hard to accept anything else from that speaker. Trump got close to the same vote percentages as historical GOP presidential candidates, Trump is not special in that people departed from their normal behavior to vote for him in some large silent wave.
The author says that it's safer to discuss "controversial" ideas in Beijing than America, but I wonder if that's partly because the ideas in question aren't actually controversial in Beijing. Presumably the ideas the author has in mind are those that might be interpreted to impugn certain disadvantaged groups. But if I found it more easy to say "gay people are degenerates" in Beijing, I don't think I would take that as evidence that free speech norms are more robust there--it might just mean that homophobia is the norm.
Yeah, whatever points this article had were completely marred by terrible examples.
Saying it's easier to talk about things in China vs US. I've been to China and you can get thrown in jail for saying the type of things we say re. our political environment. My friends there have to speak in whispers in public while people in SF have no problem raging about our politicians.
And saying we should "allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics". At its least a really poor choice of words there. The choice of words makes it sound like it's okay to stand aside while they spout bigotry. Perhaps he meant it's okay to say it, but we should argue against it - but unfortunately for him that point was not made because the intention of the article was to support free speech. Bad example.
A lot of people think you have to watch what you say in China, and they almost always are people who have never been there. There are very specific political things you can't do, but otherwise literally not one gives a shit about you. You can say what you want, and unless you specifically go organize a large group of people and screaming in public something politically sensitive, no one cares. Ideally in a society we don't want those people anyways.
Also, perhaps the authors status in San Francisco means that any comments he makes will be more likely to get attention (and hence criticism) than in China.
I thought it was ironic that earlier today I read an article about China's (by way of private companies) "Social Ranking" score from Wired[1], part of it entails journalist Liu Hu being part of the "Supreme People's Court black list" and the fallout that it entailed.
I think this is a radical simplification of what is a complex problem. Genetic engineering as a whole is known to be an area strewn with moral hazards, and not least harks back to some of the darkest days of 20th century science.
Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right side of the line) are inherently dangerous.
Particularly when we start involving healthcare, a "move fast/break things" type approach can be extremely detrimental, for example.
> We need to accept that some of these ideas ... are inherently dangerous.
This line of reasoning leads to censorship. It's the same line of reasoning used by every dictator and demagogue as well as China today. Why? The idea of democracy seems dangerous to a king.
Ideas are not dangerous. Ideas are never dangerous. Ideas acted upon might cause danger or harm, but an idea itself never does, never has, and never will cause harm directly.
Open debate of ideas, or the testing of opposing ideas to find the best among them, is necessary for progress... not only to find and establish new ideas, but to question widely held ideas today in the hopes of finding something better. To have open debate--to find the best ideas--you need to listen to ideas with which you might not agree, or which you might find--if acted upon--dangerous.
Having an ethical outlook is a great idea. And it's good to criticise ideas you think are unethical.
The point of the post is that just because a person presents an unethical idea doesn't make that person universally unethical. The point is to separate the ideas from the person presenting them, so that people can feel free to present novel ideas without fearing damage to their reputation if the ideas are unpopular.
The criticism quoted wasn't about ethical problems in genetic engineering research. It was about life extension as a goal.
I can imagine a debate about that, but I can't see how it is appropriate to create a toxic environment for life extension advocates.
Apparently these researchers / advocates found the environment so toxic they were motivated to move. Perhaps they were over-reacting but it seems likely something is wrong.
And "move fast / break things" applied to human biology research is entirely an insertion of the commenter, not remotely an implication of Altman's piece.
> We need to accept that some of these ideas are inherently dangerous.
We created atom bombs. Some say AI can destroy humanity (perhaps Sam himself) but here we are, I don’t think you can stop science.. it’s what makes us human.
> We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right side of the line) are inherently dangerous.
ostracizing hypothetical talks is the problem here, not pursuing the unethical goal; just talking about what part of the goal makes it unethical is being shut down (according to the article)
What do you mean by "ethical outlook?" Who doesn't have one? You may not agree with their ethics, but they're there. If you're talking about shared ethics, that's known as morality.
Complex indeed, it's a multidimensional balancing act.
Both technology and ethics can progress and regress across a huge range of concepts. Too much unexamined progress (of either tech or ethics) in one area can lead to terrible outcomes.
Being able to debate and have these conversations is essential to finding the balance.
I'm reading this as complaint about opinions condemning discussion of certain concepts, which is fair. But to ignore that other concepts face the same type of condemnation in China is... amazing.
That's exactly what the blog post wasn't realizing. Throwing out ethics is like throwing out law and order because it inhibits you from doing whatever you'd like to do. Does anyone really think they can stand upright against the winds when the weather turns nasty?
Just like laws, ethics are there for a reason, and the social changes going on are happening for a reason.
It's critical to understand that it's not an intentional simplification. Altman and the rest of the rarified VC-connected people on both coasts are very, very disconnected from what its like to live in the lower or middle classes and especially what it's like to be a part of a systemically marginalized community.
This isn't happening in only SF, or only in tech. It's happening all over, and across the spectrum of ideas.
Is the argument that social media is tearing apart our society correct? I think it goes deeper than that, and that it's tech in general. We've grown impatient with right-swipe, immediate communication (whether through texting or calling on a cell phone; remember when you had to find a phone, or wait until you got to home/work?), immediate gratification. No time or desire to think things through, just react.
The happiest time in the past 25 years was the first half of 2016, when I swore off almost all tech for 7 months, road tripped, and visited with people--strangers--and learned what made them tick. Guess what--not technology. And I was relaxed, happy, free.
Technology isn't the cause of a toxic society, but it definitely is a/the catalyst.
I'm extremely aware of this as someone who is socially conservative in terms of abortion, gay marriage, trans issues, etc (seriously not trying to start a flame war).
It's weird knowing that a large portion of the country has similar values to me, but in a major city I can never mention these things or I'll immediately become unemployable. It doesn't matter that these things have zero impact on my behavior at work; you just can't say that you believe certain things are right/wrong if it goes against norms.
Of the places I've lived (not necessarily in order):
- Deep South (18 years - born + raised)
- Boston MA (5 years @ college then job)
- NYC (6+ years)
- Los Angeles (1yr @ startup)
- San Diego (1yr @ startup)
- Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company)
I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never encountered such a self-righteous, smug and viscerally hostile attitude to other parts of the country, especially the South and Midwest (where I grew up). Someone literally told me once that "people from the South eat their children" in a half joking tone.
I don't think you can call it "racism" per se, but definitely the most oppressive form of prejudice I've ever encountered, by far, was found among people I worked and came in contact with in the SF Bay Area.
EDIT: Of course, I met (and stayed friends) with really amazing people in SF Bay Area. People with different viewpoints than mine that really expanded my horizons along a lot of different axes. And the raw intelligence of most people I interacted with - technical and otherwise - is off the charts. But the attitudes I mentioned above were expressed frequently enough to leave an impression on me.
Most of the comments here are about culture war and missing the more interesting point of the essay. We knew political tribalism was getting bad in SF. But isn't insane that things like life extension and genetic engineering are becoming a victim to this? I wouldn't have even thought these issues were controversial or political.
These are by far the most important technologies of our time. The consequences of them being set back even a little is utterly enormous, and we should be very concerned about this.
Another very important point was missed here. The smartest people can have the absolute weirdest political beliefs. They are the least likely to conform. And the most likely to not shut up about their weird ideas even when the consequences are obvious.
I have no idea what this article was about. As someone who grew up in India, lived extensively in Europe and Arizona before settling down in the Bay Area, and travel to China 2-3 times a year, I find Bay Area by far to be the most open, tolerant, accepting places I have ever lived. And it is not even comparable. And it is borne out by simple stats. People vote with their feet. Bay Area is almost a majority minority area, with equal representations of white folks, south asians, east asians, hispanics (although smaller African American population). This is not a coincidence. This is because people here are naturally accepting of other cultures, view points etc.
And comparing this to Beijing is laughable. When I travel to China, my life is put on hold as you cannot access Gmail, Facebook, Whatsapp and myriad of other mundane websites. I dare not write anything negative about the Chinese government when I am there.
India is also becoming intolerant by the day, where even the though of eating beef can lead of mob lynching or ending up in jail. Even benign things such as a Bollywood movie (Padmavati) is in trouble for imagined cultural threats.
I have lived extensively in Netherlands and Denmark. I love those countries as they are progressive in many ways. Except for the acceptance of a brown man. I don't hold any grudge, it is what it is and it is difficult for such a small country to be open about cultural integration.
I have found Bay Area to be an open community, where no matter you background you just seamlessly integrate. You go to work without thinking how you have to tweak your accent or deep dive in cultural norms to progress through corporate hierarchy (I have done that a lot as a consultant). All it matters is your work and output.
Sure, we have yet to figure out how to approach "tolerance of intolerance", but it will evolve over time and we will arrive at a sweet spot. Many countries have taken a extreme free speech stance on "tolerance of intolerance" - for example, UK allowed one Egyptian preacher to openly preach hatred and violence from the streets of London. Is that a good thing for society ? I am not so convinced.
California has been ridiculous for as long as I can remember.
Come to New York, we have 20 million or so people who don't give a fuck about you and what you do all day as long as you don't clog up the subway stairs. It's quite lovely.
This is a pretty good point. People complain about Californian culture being too sensitive but choose to stay there. If your startup can't survive unless it's right next to Silicon Valley then it probably deserves to die anyway.
NYC has plenty of tech talent to work with. Altman is not staying in SV because he can't afford to move. He's staying in the area because he actually prefers working with the people he's complaining about.
I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced. I don't mean this as a criticism of liberals or liberalism specifically here, since I realize many conservatives would do the same about issues they care about if they had the power and numbers to.
'More recently, I’ve seen credible people working on ideas like pharmaceuticals for intelligence augmentation, genetic engineering, and radical life extension leave San Francisco because they found the reaction to their work to be so toxic. “If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment, so people working on this must be really unethical” was a memorable quote I heard this year.'
That's toxic? First, sounds very straw-man. Second, okay, someone said they think something's unethical. Maybe it is? Maybe they have a point they didn't articulate well? Maybe they're straight-up wrong! If you're arguing for free speech, then you're arguing in favor of people being vocally critical of ideas you hold dear. Hiding under the pillow fort of "California is so intolerant" makes it seem like what you're actually complaining about is people disagreeing with you.
There is a difference between thoughtful disagreement and treating the speaker as an outcast. We should engage and attack ideas based on merits.
One of my favorite ideas here recently is a "steel man" argument. It's putting the best version of an opposing argument forward before explaining why it's wrong.
This charity to the people behind the ideas is missing when you're looking for a soundbite or worse looking to banish to an out group.
I remember being in argentina a couple of years back and seeing the "Political correctness" pro-trump slogan and thinking how dumb that sounded.
Moved back to SF, and there is a HUGE difference of what it was for me 5 years ago. The people I know are way more cautious and the people I don't are even more afraid.
The Damore essay is still one of the unspeakables. I know I fear getting fired if i publicly said i agreed with it, even though i never read it or did anything of the sort. That to me is a ridiculous state of things.
With other westerners or with Chinese people? I think that is a crucial detail that was left out.
Anyway, some people are building a future that others do not want to live in, so it is no wonder that some ideas are going to be received harshly. Nonetheless I understand that we cannot predict the future, so maybe, what people think will happen, won't. But people are fearful of a possible Pandora Box event.
I personally do not like those who are so excited, by the business or technology they are building, that they never stop and think about the consequences. I also do not like those who think, "my intentions for the use of this technology are wholesome, therefore I am not responsible for any harm that can be caused by others using this technology maliciously".
Tim Ferriss also mentioned this issue in his recent AMA [1] when discussing why he recently relocated to Austin. He describes it as "a peculiar form of McCarthyism masquerading as liberal open-mindedness." The whole comment is worth reading.
A lot of comments make the argument that any extreme political correctness is exclusive to the bay area, not the US as a whole, or that Sam's experience is true in an "expat bubble" in China.
To which I submit as evidence "Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World", an art exhibition currently on display at the Guggenheim in New York City.
This retrospective of Chinese art had 3(!) works of art removed (ie, censored) from the exhibition because the content was perceived as morally reprehensible by some groups of new york animal rights activists.
Proof that at least along some avenues of discourse (what is allowed in art? when is animal suffering allowed? when is representation of a disturbing act that occurred in the past allowed?) the NYC progressive contingent is more conservative than the Chinese.
Note: This does not mean that China is a paradise of free speech. There are other avenues of discourse (ex political discourse) where this is not the case.
Note 2: They sell hot dogs outside the Guggenheim.
> This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics.
What about all the novel things about physics that we won't ever hear from the gay people who are forced out of physics because of a life-threatening climate of hate and bigotry?
YC could open up an office in Padova, where Galileo spent the 'happiest years of his life'. Be happy to help, although we're pretty content here in Bend these days.
Regarding Beijing: I think he may have been in something of an 'expat bubble'. Speaking with other entrepreneurs far from home, it's easy to focus on that. Try criticizing the political leadership, though.
The constant pursuit of ideological purity in the Bay, the desire for diversity of skin tones and orientations, but not of ideas, taking offense as a viable way of establishing social hierarchies. It's all very tiring.
As someone with many “heretic ideas”, I disagree with this article - people that execute on crazy ideas are thick-skinned. Hard to believe that smart people would actually leave SF because of PC culture (although it is annoying). Even from Altman’s examples, Newton stayed in England and did what he wanted, despite the social norms.
It was also odd to see Altman use China as the bastion of freedom, a place with widespread internet censorship and where things like democracy are considered heretic.
I hardly see him presenting China as a bastion of freedom. But I do understand how one could feel safer voicing their mind on a certain subset of topics among a crowd of Beijingren versus a crowd of San Franciscans.
[+] [-] Diederich|8 years ago|reply
He trusted me enough to message me privately that he was planning to vote for Trump. At that time, I was quite anxious about the thought of a Trump presidency, but I'm pretty far along the open-minded scale, so we chatted about it privately a bit.
My co-worker asked me to not speak about his position and to not let anyone else know about it, because he feared that his 'out of place' political views would, in his words, 'indirectly limit his career options.'
Why he supported Trump is pretty irrelevant, but I found his opinion reasonable, though I disagreed with his overall choice.
You know what? I agreed with his concern at the time, and I still agree with it. Consciously and otherwise, I think that quite a few of the fine progressive folk that we find ourselves surrounded by here in the bay area would hold such an opinion against him in important ways.
I think that a pretty big chunk of Trump's votes came from people who would otherwise not have voted for him...but did so because they sensed, correctly, that their thoughts, ideas and voices were being marginalized (and demonized) by progressives.
At this point, I can't imagine a path forward that has much of a chance of bearing fruit.
[+] [-] jancsika|8 years ago|reply
That may be what you personally felt in this single personal anecdote, but it is not at all supported by the results for the bay area in the election[1].
There were an enormous number of Trump voters who explicitly stated that they voted for him because he was the only national candidate to criticize things like NAFTA and other policies which directly hurt them and/or people they knew. Presented with a series of bad options, they picked the guy who spoke to their concerns and naively wrote off the outlandish comments as news-cycle spam. Go back and look at the contested areas in Michigan and Pennsylvania where Trump did well. Or go back and listen to the town hall Bernie Sanders did after the election in West Virginia where Trump performed well-- you can listen directly to what swayed them the most. It wasn't a fear of retribution from progressive tech bosses for non-progressive ideas. It was jobs.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california-preside...
[+] [-] ironjunkie|8 years ago|reply
I know a lot of people that have moderate views that are simply shut down by liberals. As a response, they hide and vote for Trump.
I see it as their way to elect someone that is not afraid to go against the accepted view of the elites and therefore going against all that political correctness nonsense.
[+] [-] smsm42|8 years ago|reply
I think in SV, it is a completely reasonable precaution. If you openly declare you are, say, a communist (I don't mean "support Obamacare", I mean real communist, as in nationalize everything, ban private property, etc.), chances that people would shun you and that hurts you carrier are pretty small. If you say you voted for Trump, chances are higher, and I've heard people say as much pretty much open text.
[+] [-] delecti|8 years ago|reply
I'm not sure this observation has much value. Voting for a candidate that shares your values in a time when those values aren't popular is equivalent to doing so when those values are popular. Either way you're voting for a candidate that shares your values. I'm never going to place a spite-vote for someone who doesn't support my views just because my views are unpopular.
And in any case, I think certain views should be demonized. Expressing disparaging things about gay people (the example from the article) should be viewed with the same revulsion as we would today view the historical opinion that people of color were in some way "better suited" for slavery. The view that some people are somehow "less than" shouldn't be tolerated. The paradox of tolerance is very real.
[+] [-] beachy|8 years ago|reply
"Progressives" should embrace guns and reject abortion.
That would make them palatable to these mysterious deplorables that seem to hold sway over the US political system, giving them access to the halls of power.
Then said progressives, having kept their powder dry, could expend it on what really matters - convincing the deplorables that science is a thing, and that climate change will kill us all if we don't act.
[+] [-] stevenwoo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtpg|8 years ago|reply
Doing something out of spite like that is a pretty miserable experience...
[+] [-] Buldak|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mephitix|8 years ago|reply
Saying it's easier to talk about things in China vs US. I've been to China and you can get thrown in jail for saying the type of things we say re. our political environment. My friends there have to speak in whispers in public while people in SF have no problem raging about our politicians.
And saying we should "allow people to say disparaging things about gay people if we want them to be able to say novel things about physics". At its least a really poor choice of words there. The choice of words makes it sound like it's okay to stand aside while they spout bigotry. Perhaps he meant it's okay to say it, but we should argue against it - but unfortunately for him that point was not made because the intention of the article was to support free speech. Bad example.
[+] [-] volgo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonbyrne|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbigelow76|8 years ago|reply
It's convenient to be a tourist sometimes.
1. https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/
[+] [-] stevenwoo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thowar2|8 years ago|reply
For the most part, no one in your every day life gives a shit what you say or do.
For Americans and nationals of other privileged countries there is even more tolerance for the controversial subjects.
[+] [-] marme|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmc7505|8 years ago|reply
Or it could mean nobody understands your English. Does @sama even speak Chinese?
[+] [-] ealexhudson|8 years ago|reply
Having an ethical outlook isn't a form of heresy, it's a form of societal safety. We need to accept that some of these ideas (probably not all - it's always difficult to get on the right side of the line) are inherently dangerous.
Particularly when we start involving healthcare, a "move fast/break things" type approach can be extremely detrimental, for example.
[+] [-] hellcow|8 years ago|reply
This line of reasoning leads to censorship. It's the same line of reasoning used by every dictator and demagogue as well as China today. Why? The idea of democracy seems dangerous to a king.
Ideas are not dangerous. Ideas are never dangerous. Ideas acted upon might cause danger or harm, but an idea itself never does, never has, and never will cause harm directly.
Open debate of ideas, or the testing of opposing ideas to find the best among them, is necessary for progress... not only to find and establish new ideas, but to question widely held ideas today in the hopes of finding something better. To have open debate--to find the best ideas--you need to listen to ideas with which you might not agree, or which you might find--if acted upon--dangerous.
[+] [-] jstanley|8 years ago|reply
The point of the post is that just because a person presents an unethical idea doesn't make that person universally unethical. The point is to separate the ideas from the person presenting them, so that people can feel free to present novel ideas without fearing damage to their reputation if the ideas are unpopular.
[+] [-] stestagg|8 years ago|reply
Yes, it's subtle, but the current shift in the US is towards ideas being dangrous
[+] [-] jedharris|8 years ago|reply
I can imagine a debate about that, but I can't see how it is appropriate to create a toxic environment for life extension advocates.
Apparently these researchers / advocates found the environment so toxic they were motivated to move. Perhaps they were over-reacting but it seems likely something is wrong.
And "move fast / break things" applied to human biology research is entirely an insertion of the commenter, not remotely an implication of Altman's piece.
[+] [-] staunch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkagenius|8 years ago|reply
We created atom bombs. Some say AI can destroy humanity (perhaps Sam himself) but here we are, I don’t think you can stop science.. it’s what makes us human.
[+] [-] interfixus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LoSboccacc|8 years ago|reply
ostracizing hypothetical talks is the problem here, not pursuing the unethical goal; just talking about what part of the goal makes it unethical is being shut down (according to the article)
[+] [-] rhizome|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] interurban|8 years ago|reply
Both technology and ethics can progress and regress across a huge range of concepts. Too much unexamined progress (of either tech or ethics) in one area can lead to terrible outcomes.
Being able to debate and have these conversations is essential to finding the balance.
I'm reading this as complaint about opinions condemning discussion of certain concepts, which is fair. But to ignore that other concepts face the same type of condemnation in China is... amazing.
[+] [-] Hattyflanagan|8 years ago|reply
Just like laws, ethics are there for a reason, and the social changes going on are happening for a reason.
[+] [-] ixtli|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kfcm|8 years ago|reply
Is the argument that social media is tearing apart our society correct? I think it goes deeper than that, and that it's tech in general. We've grown impatient with right-swipe, immediate communication (whether through texting or calling on a cell phone; remember when you had to find a phone, or wait until you got to home/work?), immediate gratification. No time or desire to think things through, just react.
The happiest time in the past 25 years was the first half of 2016, when I swore off almost all tech for 7 months, road tripped, and visited with people--strangers--and learned what made them tick. Guess what--not technology. And I was relaxed, happy, free.
Technology isn't the cause of a toxic society, but it definitely is a/the catalyst.
[+] [-] throwaway8766|8 years ago|reply
It's weird knowing that a large portion of the country has similar values to me, but in a major city I can never mention these things or I'll immediately become unemployable. It doesn't matter that these things have zero impact on my behavior at work; you just can't say that you believe certain things are right/wrong if it goes against norms.
[+] [-] throwaway34689|8 years ago|reply
- Deep South (18 years - born + raised) - Boston MA (5 years @ college then job) - NYC (6+ years) - Los Angeles (1yr @ startup) - San Diego (1yr @ startup) - Bay Area (6 years, including 4+ at household name tech company)
I found the Bay Area (and SF in particular) to be the most intolerant, rigid and inflexible culture I've ever lived and worked in. I've never encountered such a self-righteous, smug and viscerally hostile attitude to other parts of the country, especially the South and Midwest (where I grew up). Someone literally told me once that "people from the South eat their children" in a half joking tone.
I don't think you can call it "racism" per se, but definitely the most oppressive form of prejudice I've ever encountered, by far, was found among people I worked and came in contact with in the SF Bay Area.
EDIT: Of course, I met (and stayed friends) with really amazing people in SF Bay Area. People with different viewpoints than mine that really expanded my horizons along a lot of different axes. And the raw intelligence of most people I interacted with - technical and otherwise - is off the charts. But the attitudes I mentioned above were expressed frequently enough to leave an impression on me.
[+] [-] Houshalter|8 years ago|reply
These are by far the most important technologies of our time. The consequences of them being set back even a little is utterly enormous, and we should be very concerned about this.
Another very important point was missed here. The smartest people can have the absolute weirdest political beliefs. They are the least likely to conform. And the most likely to not shut up about their weird ideas even when the consequences are obvious.
[+] [-] dmode|8 years ago|reply
And comparing this to Beijing is laughable. When I travel to China, my life is put on hold as you cannot access Gmail, Facebook, Whatsapp and myriad of other mundane websites. I dare not write anything negative about the Chinese government when I am there.
India is also becoming intolerant by the day, where even the though of eating beef can lead of mob lynching or ending up in jail. Even benign things such as a Bollywood movie (Padmavati) is in trouble for imagined cultural threats.
I have lived extensively in Netherlands and Denmark. I love those countries as they are progressive in many ways. Except for the acceptance of a brown man. I don't hold any grudge, it is what it is and it is difficult for such a small country to be open about cultural integration.
I have found Bay Area to be an open community, where no matter you background you just seamlessly integrate. You go to work without thinking how you have to tweak your accent or deep dive in cultural norms to progress through corporate hierarchy (I have done that a lot as a consultant). All it matters is your work and output.
Sure, we have yet to figure out how to approach "tolerance of intolerance", but it will evolve over time and we will arrive at a sweet spot. Many countries have taken a extreme free speech stance on "tolerance of intolerance" - for example, UK allowed one Egyptian preacher to openly preach hatred and violence from the streets of London. Is that a good thing for society ? I am not so convinced.
[+] [-] CPLX|8 years ago|reply
Come to New York, we have 20 million or so people who don't give a fuck about you and what you do all day as long as you don't clog up the subway stairs. It's quite lovely.
[+] [-] olympus|8 years ago|reply
NYC has plenty of tech talent to work with. Altman is not staying in SV because he can't afford to move. He's staying in the area because he actually prefers working with the people he's complaining about.
[+] [-] slededit|8 years ago|reply
- An Irish tourist I met in a bar.
[+] [-] workthrowaway27|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasing|8 years ago|reply
That's toxic? First, sounds very straw-man. Second, okay, someone said they think something's unethical. Maybe it is? Maybe they have a point they didn't articulate well? Maybe they're straight-up wrong! If you're arguing for free speech, then you're arguing in favor of people being vocally critical of ideas you hold dear. Hiding under the pillow fort of "California is so intolerant" makes it seem like what you're actually complaining about is people disagreeing with you.
[+] [-] ivankirigin|8 years ago|reply
One of my favorite ideas here recently is a "steel man" argument. It's putting the best version of an opposing argument forward before explaining why it's wrong.
This charity to the people behind the ideas is missing when you're looking for a soundbite or worse looking to banish to an out group.
[+] [-] conanbatt|8 years ago|reply
Moved back to SF, and there is a HUGE difference of what it was for me 5 years ago. The people I know are way more cautious and the people I don't are even more afraid.
The Damore essay is still one of the unspeakables. I know I fear getting fired if i publicly said i agreed with it, even though i never read it or did anything of the sort. That to me is a ridiculous state of things.
[+] [-] lumberjack|8 years ago|reply
Anyway, some people are building a future that others do not want to live in, so it is no wonder that some ideas are going to be received harshly. Nonetheless I understand that we cannot predict the future, so maybe, what people think will happen, won't. But people are fearful of a possible Pandora Box event.
I personally do not like those who are so excited, by the business or technology they are building, that they never stop and think about the consequences. I also do not like those who think, "my intentions for the use of this technology are wholesome, therefore I am not responsible for any harm that can be caused by others using this technology maliciously".
New ideas should be explored, but with caution.
[+] [-] iceIX|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7erct8/i_am_tim_ferri...
[+] [-] el_nahual|8 years ago|reply
To which I submit as evidence "Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World", an art exhibition currently on display at the Guggenheim in New York City.
This retrospective of Chinese art had 3(!) works of art removed (ie, censored) from the exhibition because the content was perceived as morally reprehensible by some groups of new york animal rights activists.
Proof that at least along some avenues of discourse (what is allowed in art? when is animal suffering allowed? when is representation of a disturbing act that occurred in the past allowed?) the NYC progressive contingent is more conservative than the Chinese.
Note: This does not mean that China is a paradise of free speech. There are other avenues of discourse (ex political discourse) where this is not the case.
Note 2: They sell hot dogs outside the Guggenheim.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/sep/26/guggenh...
[+] [-] jordanpg|8 years ago|reply
What about all the novel things about physics that we won't ever hear from the gay people who are forced out of physics because of a life-threatening climate of hate and bigotry?
[+] [-] davidw|8 years ago|reply
Regarding Beijing: I think he may have been in something of an 'expat bubble'. Speaking with other entrepreneurs far from home, it's easy to focus on that. Try criticizing the political leadership, though.
[+] [-] BadassFractal|8 years ago|reply
Every few months living in the Bay reminds me of the importance of Paul Graham's http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html .
The constant pursuit of ideological purity in the Bay, the desire for diversity of skin tones and orientations, but not of ideas, taking offense as a viable way of establishing social hierarchies. It's all very tiring.
[+] [-] sebleon|8 years ago|reply
It was also odd to see Altman use China as the bastion of freedom, a place with widespread internet censorship and where things like democracy are considered heretic.
[+] [-] Cyberdog|8 years ago|reply