Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | zinodaur's commentslogin

Is it okay to profit off of a machine that kills innocent people? Would it be immoral to attack the builder of that machine, if it stopped the operation of the machine?

I'm on the skeptic side of "AI" and find this entire industry obnoxious, but your argument doesn't hold any water.

Technology that can be used to kill innocent people is all around us. Would it be moral to attack knife manufacturers? Attacking one won't make the technology disappear. It has been invented, so we have to live with it.

Also, it's a stretch to say that "AI" "kills innocent people". In the hands of malicious people it can certainly do harm, but even in extreme cases, "AI" can currently only be used very indirectly to actually kill someone.

Technology itself is inert. What humans do with technology should be regulated.

IMO the fabricated concern around this tech is just part of the hype cycle. There's nothing inherently dangerous about a probabilistic pattern generator. We haven't actually invented artificial intelligence, despite of how it's marketed. What we do need to focus on is educating people to better understand this tech and use it safely, on restricting access to it so that we can mitigate abuse and avoid flooding our communication channels with garbage, and on better detection and mitigation technology to flag and filter it when it is abused. Everything else is marketing hype and isn't worth paying attention to.


> Would it be moral to attack knife manufacturers?

Apply this to guns.

Then look how this works in the US. You could, but then a law was made to protect gun manufacturers, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

AI will get this treatment I’m sure.


>Would it be moral to attack knife manufacturers?

if they're selling the knives knowingly to a knife-murderer, it might be worth discussing.

Sam Altman is not, although he portrays himself that way, some geeky guy without power who just builds products, he's the guy who makes the decision to supply this tech directly to the US government who is on the record about using it for military operations. And you're right on the last point. Sure the 20 year old guy who threw a molotov cocktail at Sam's house is, I'm going to assume for now given the topic Sam chose for the piece, an anti-tech guy.

But assume for a second you had your family wiped out in a bombing run because Pete Hegseth attempted to prompt himself to victory with the statistical lottery machine. If the CEO knew this and enabled it to add another zero to his bank account, not so sure about the ethics of that one.


I think what we should have learned from this is that it's extremely hard to "make a lesson out of" Iran if you depend on moving oil past their borders... the gulf states are much more exposed to this than the US is, and much less powerful.

They are also not neutral - they have been paying in to the US protection racket, and are discovering that their payments haven't bought much.


> it's extremely hard to "make a lesson out of" Iran if you depend on moving oil past their borders

it's not just gulf states -- look at who are the customers of those gulf states are. the whole asia, europe, and america -- the whole world is their customer.

Even if it's "extremely hard", those countries have no choice but "make a lesson out of" iran -- just like what we did with pirates

why would those "customers of gulf" just leave iran? after US leaves, will iran regime suddenly become nice and stop forcing that $2M-per-voyage bill?

no, and even if iran regime promises "I'll never bill those ships", how could you trust on that promise? the only way to ensure free-ship-passing would be obliterating Iran as an example, even if US backs away.

> They are also not neutral - they have been paying in to the US protection racket

hmm so were they "helping" US bomb iran? "being neutral" means it didn't participate on attacking iran, not whether it paid or not.


If Canada and Mexico started letting Iran launch bombing sorties against US cities from within their borders, would the US consider them neutral?

2 Million a ship seems like a pretty cheap price to pay for the damage the us and Israel have inflicted on Iran - they cannot be made to pay it though, so I suppose the rest of us will have to (through marginally higher oil prices in the long term - much less than the spectacularly high oil prices the US war will cause in the short term)


> price to pay for the damage the us and Israel have inflicted on Iran

Well if we're talking reparations, shouldn't Iran pay for the damage Hezbollah inflicted on Israel with Iranian supplied weapons for decades?


Since 1985, Hezbollah has killed approximately 600 Israelis (if you count IDF soldiers during the occupation of Beirut). Israel has killed 5x that number of civilians in the last two weeks, if you count Lebanon as well as Iran. If you count soldiers...


It would be miniscule compared to the damage Israel inflicted on Lebanon for decades


The value of the oil / natural gas production in the Gulf states is not infinite. Nobody except the US has the force projection capacity to fight a major war against Iran. If they are not interested in fighting that war, the rest of the world will find that the cheapest and least disruptive option is to cut consumption. To assume that nobody is shipping oil and natural gas from the Gulf, until a new status quo emerges in the region.


> the cheapest and least disruptive option is to cut consumption

And good for the environment!


Most nations who are affected don't have a blue-water navy or similar means to pose a serious threat to Iran. They have to either back the USA or deal with the toll and the uncertainty that comes with it.


> In the US, it means that you lose your income, your health insurance

Luckily, in the US, you can get another one much more quickly than anywhere else in the world, and be payed several multiples of what anyone else is payed.


> in the US, you can get another one much more quickly than anywhere else in the world

Depending on the economic conditions for the year, it can still take months:

> To illustrate the recent trajectory: one analysis found that in January 2023 it took job seekers 268 days on average to land a job offer, whereas by August 2024 this had improved to 182 days (about 6 months) (How Long Does it Take to Find a Job in 2024?). Another dataset focusing on tech jobseekers showed a similar trend – those in 2024 took about 247 days on average to secure a “good” job, down from 281 days in 2023.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/average-job-search-time-tech-...


The whole world is hurting pretty bad right now when it comes to tech jobs - America seems to be hurting the least.

I'm not saying the tech job situation in America isn't bad - but the world dances to America's fiddle, and its frustrating hearing Americans complain about how hard their situation is while their boot is firmly planted on my neck


> but the world dances to America's fiddle

I think we are finding out that in fact it doesn't.


I have edited it to clarify that (in the US) applied to losing health insurance.


To be specific, it’s tied to good employment. Part-time and low-salary jobs don’t often (usually?) provide it. So trading a good tech jobs for “things to keep busy” loses the insurance. Unless you can afford cobra and that only lasts 18 months. At what tends to be 5x the price.


I completely understand where you are coming from, but try not to hate on American laborers because of this situation, that is no more helpful than Americans blaming immigrants for their job woes.

It is the wealthy capitalist class that has the boot planted on all of our necks.

I do recognize that the outcome is worse for some people than others, but keeping us fighting each other is how they continue to maintain power.


I hate that you can't even talk about this stuff without being called a communist or something


[flagged]


Parent is resentful of America and their perception of Americans taking for granted how much easier it is to get an American tech job.

There is no rah rah here; literally says in next comment how Americans have their (American's) boots on their (parent's) neck.


It’s nice that Americans are being so open about how they feel about other countries these days.


"these days"? Too many countries/HNers are only just figuring out it's not fun being at the sharp-end of imperialism.


What part are you bothered about? The concept of nations?


Sibling comment summed it up pretty well; my country is considered an ally of yours, but even left leaning Americans seem to take it for granted that we deserve mass AI surveillance/blackmail/manipulation if there’s a chance it could benefit us citizens in the short term. I suppose we deserve it for being complicit in American crimes for so long


You're assuming things I didn't state. I don't particularly want mass AI surveillance at all, but considering how much more dangerous a government's mass spying is to its own citizens living in it 24/7, it's not unreasonable for that to be the focus.


> You're assuming things I didn't state. I don't particularly want mass AI surveillance at all

That's fair, sorry for that.

> considering how much more dangerous a government's mass spying is to its own citizens living in it 24/7, it's not unreasonable for that to be the focus

The US government is actively trying to influence politics in my country and spending huge amounts of money to do it. The US government is a much larger threat to us than our own government.

All of our tech is owned and operated by US companies, which means the US government has read/write access to all of our data. If we attempt to incentivize domestic software production (e.g. by taxing imported software, or by stipulating where our data can be stored and who can access it), the US government will destroy our economy. This has played out a few times recently.

I can't believe we were so foolish as to let this situation grow. Its going to be a painful few decades.


Using AI to write your code doesn't mean you have to let your code suck, or not think about the problem domain.

I review all the code Claude writes and I don't accept it unless I'm happy with it. My coworkers review it too, so there is real social pressure to make sure it doesn't suck. I still make all the important decisions (IO, consistency, style) - the difference is I can try it out 5 different ways and pick whichever one I like best, rather than spending hours on my first thought, realizing I should have done it differently once I can see the finished product, but shipping it anyways because the tickets must flow.

The vibe coding stuff still seems pretty niche to me though - AI is still too dumb to vibe code anything that has consequences, unless you can cheat with a massive externally defined test suite, or an oracle you know is correct


I wonder if we can trust Gemini to do its job well here? Whoever is being protected in those files obviously has the power to compel governments to do what they want - if Gemini started being a threat, I bet it would get some "alignment" help. Certainly its findings would be reported, as well as the identity of whoever was doing the prompting


It cannot be trusted.


Eh, if I'm paying someone to host my git webui, and they are as shitty about it as github has been recently, I'd rather pay someone else to host it or go back to hosting it myself. It is not absolutely required, but it's a differentiating feature I'm happy to pay for


We should ban dynamic feeds that aren't based on explicit user action. E.g., Youtube should only be able to show search results based on search term, not search context. The recommendations should only be videos from channels you have subscribed to.

The dangers of algorithmic content are so obvious, and the only way to stop companies from doing this stuff is to legislate against it


Ranking might be deterministic but it’s never free from bias.


i'm sure they can still scramble our brains pretty good by exploiting ranking, but if they aren't allowed to customize it per person (e.g., if the same searches have to return the same results for different people), I think it will be a lot less effective


> There’s a chance that the current situation will start to resolve itself in 3 years and we go back to normal, however that might look.

I don't think it can - dependence on US digital infrastructure grew at a time where American stability was taken as ground truth.

How can an EU leader sit across the negotiating table from a country that can delete (if not read/alter) all of their data, and a willingness to exercise that access?

Even if Trumpism goes away, to know for a certainty that Americans won't do it again one election cycle seems like it will take a long time to establish.


And a replicated postgres with backups


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: