Hacker News Reader

Comment by untog | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, I think this gets to my core objection to the essay. It presents as being in favour of free speech, yet also implicitly says that anyone questioning progress (in more or less any form) is dangerous.

The idea that you should be able to say or do whatever you want and also be shielded from criticism of those ideas is silly. Especially when you're some of the most rich and powerful people in the 21st century. No-one is stopping you from doing anything, they're just questioning you about it. If you can't (or don't want to) answer those questions then maybe you should consider why that is.

View on HN

But look at the form of the statement quoted. To paraphrase, 'I disagree with this idea, therefore any proponent of it is a bad person'.

The underlying assumption (or one of many) is that all perspectives have moral judgements attached, and the offended party is the sole arbiter of that judgement.

In other words, it's one thing to question progress, it's another thing to say 'I disagree with this form of progress, therefore the person working towards it is evil'. Judge action all you want, but assume good intent absent concrete evidence to the contrary.

I don't read it that way. I read it as:

- Extending human lifespan harms the environment.

- Harming the environment is ethically wrong. (this is elided)

- Therefore, Extending human lifespans is ethically wrong.

This is muddy thinking and takes a great leap when it ignores the ethical _benefits_ of extending human lifespans, but I don't think it is indefensible.

No, the issue is not that extending human lifespans is ethically wrong (it may or may not be, but that's an opinion about research.) It's claiming that people working on such research are unethical people.

A very basic part about good-faith discussions is to discuss the topic at hand and not the people having the discussion.

Many universities ban weapons research on ethical grounds.

Researchers are responsible for what they work on just like implementers are (though the nuances are different).

Huh, I don't see the difference really here. If extending human lifespans is wrong (I think you and I agree that's not the point we want to argue), then doesn't that mean working to extend human lifespans is ethically wrong?

I think the conclusion of your line of argument is that you can never say a particular person is unethical. I don't think I like that consequence - it absolves anyone of guilt for anything.

In an extreme case, how about this: "Stealing thing is wrong. Therefore, thieves are unethical people." Seems clearly reasonable to me.

Saying "you are unethical for doing this research" is very different from saying "I think there are serious problems with extending human life". One is a legitimate criticism and is vital to public debate. The other is name calling.

Sure. But does it really matter? Are we that sensitive?

I mean, the essay makes the argument that allowing disparagement of gay people might be a necessary in order to allow the investigation of novel physics (which, wtf) - why not also make the argument that being called unethical might be a necessary cost to allow the investigation of life extension?

Is the idea worth perusing? Then you can probably stand to be called a name or two. Especially when you're also proposing allowing whole groups of people to be disparaged in the name of progress.

It does matter if you want to actually talk about it. If you're just interested in making yourself feel better by calling other people names, then maybe not. But it's very basic human psychology to be less inclined to hear people out and take their concerns seriously if they call you names, and it certainly doesn't signal to me that it's worth my time explaining my position to you.

> Then you can probably stand to be called a name or two. Especially when you're also proposing allowing whole groups of people to be disparaged in the name of progress.

I don't really know what to make of your interpretation of Altman's statement. He was making the point that if a physicist has homophobic views, we should not dismiss their contributions to physics for that reason alone. Put another way, we should be tolerant of people, but not necessarily of their views.

> Sure. But does it really matter? Are we that sensitive?

Sensitivity isn't the issue: it's that calling someone names for reasons that are entirely speculative (and longer lifespan == ecological catastrophe is definitely that) is the domain of at least two other groups: grade-school children and the alt-right.

Remember that Altman is most likely paraphrasing his interpretation of a hypothetical person or class of people responding to the idea. So parsing Altman's quote too deeply might not be useful. It's entirely possible no one ever actually said those words.

People tend to "tune" the details of a story to fit their argument. Especially when they feel aggrieved.

Also, the comment assumes a certain supremacy of science (or physics) over social concerns which everyone might not agree with. Physics is wonderful. But as far as improving people's lives, decrying and eliminating homophobia might also be a very important thing to do. So to say "I'm willing to sacrifice the well-being of gay people so physics can progress..." Not everyone may agree that the exchange is worth it. And that's valid.

I think the author explicitly states we need to be okay with name calling later on?

"This is uncomfortable, but it’s possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about gay people..."

This is uncomfortable if you're Sam Altman, but it's possible we have to allow people to say disparaging things about Sam Altman.

Look, if saying disparaging things about Sam Altman is what we have to do to move physics forward -- that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

What if voicing a controversial opinion gets you fired?

You're going to have to be more specific. What kind of controversial opinion are you worried will get you fired?

Sure. How about voicing the controversial opinion that private citizens should have a right to free speech without being fired (as in, believing that free speech should apply to more than just the government).

IE, free speech, applied to private companies, as the controversial opinion that a person is getting fired for.

A company has to continue to employ you no matter what dumb things you say at work?

(Also, no place worth working for will fire you for saying “private citizens should have the right to free speech without being fired.” What is the controversial opinion you’re actually worried about expressing at work? That Windows Mobile is making a huge comeback? That pina colada Oreos are tasty?)

> What is the controversial opinion you’re actually worried about expressing at work?

The controversial opinion that free speech should apply to workplaces.

Yes lots of people oppose free speech. Some of those people might be willing to fire people over it.

I don't believe you that normal people would fire an employee for saying "free speech should apply to workplaces."

I believe there's some other idea that you're talking about expressing and then defending by saying "free speech should apply to workplaces."

What is that idea?

The idea is free speech and that's it. Full stop.

Just because you wouldn't fire someone doesn't mean someone else wouldn't.

And free speech is a controversial opinion these days, depending on where you live.

Also, your comments basically prove my point.

Apparently, free speech is so controversial, that people like you believe that a person who supports free speech must obviously hold some sort of deep dark evil opinion.

The fact that you automatically assume some nefarious motive, proves that supporting free speech is indeed a controversial opinion to hold, and that it is rational to be worried about being persecuted for believing in it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com