Nathaniel Whittemore

It kicks in at a brainstem level.

This is my criticism of the AI safety community.

I obviously can't change their beliefs, but many claim they do not want violence.

I don't think their actions thus far really support that claim because their objections to violence primarily relest on a professed belief that violence will be ineffective.

That is a cost-benefit analysis and cost-benefit analysis suggests you might be open to violence in the future if the situation changes.

that is different from not wanting violence.

Now from here, this gets deeper into the question of the responsibility thought leaders bear for the actions of people that follow their thoughts, which is way outside the scope of the show.

What I'm trying to do here is just give you a sense of where people's heads are at in and around this conversation.

This was, however, not the only strand in the conversation.

Some folks, particularly a number of journalists, took issue with what they thought was the implication in Sam Altman's blog post that the Ronan Farrow New Yorker article had some direct connection with the violence then perpetrated against him and his family.

Transformer editor Shaquille Hashim writes...

What happened to Sam Altman and his family is really awful.

It is hard to reconcile his call to de-escalate the rhetoric and tactics, however, with his implication that a piece of critical journalism was responsible for this.

Altman actually responded to that and said, "...this was a bad word choice and I wished I hadn't used it.

It has been a tough day and I'm not thinking the most clearly that I ever have."

Which, to his credit, Shaquille appreciated.

Still another strand of media discourse was that especially when it came to the second attack, maybe they bore some responsibility.

Rune from OpenAI wrote, Daniel F. added,

Pirate Wire's Mike Solano went a little bit farther.

Why TF are we sharing images of Sam's home in the press?