Far left radicalization is necessary to counteract right wing radicalization that directly caused it. The right wing radicalized first and right wing millionaires put a lot of money into supporting that radicalization.
The reactionary right needs no more feeding, its belly is already full.
I studied history in a state that used to be part of the Nazi empire. I know how they rose to power. The key factor was von Papen, a weak conservative who enabled them, vaguely the equivalent of establishment Republicans today.
I can also tell you that the pre-Weimar warnings ring a bit hollow when we already have some post-Weimar circumstances, like far-right paramilitaries patrolling cities and shooting dissenters.
Political Violence has already undermined law and democracy. Right now, ICE goons are brutalizing a Latino family somewhere. Right now, a war with no democratic backing rages on - a war that has already seen a school bombed.
Why is it that one dude bombing a CEO's house is worthy of so much more condemnation than the above? That, to me, feels like a more interesting question to answer, because of what it says about the ruling ideology and how it's normalized its own violence.
For my understanding: aren't "terrorists" meant those who target random bystanders to make a point? In this particular case Altman is no bystander (but his family is).
There's no consensus on the definition of terrorism though, and it's so broad that you could use it for calling any kind of violent protest as terrorism.
A thing to keep in mind: when people feel they have no voice they inevitably will resort to violence for their political aims. It's just a fact that terrorism, in its broadest sense, will happen if powerless people don't see any other possible avenue for their political opinions to be taken into account.
Let's look up the dictionary definition of terror, shall we?
> violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion
> especially : violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Now, this could apply to, say, US actions in the Middle East, Iranian actions in the Middle East, MAGA riots, these protesters, the anti-Nazi Resistance and Yugoslav Partisans, pro-Nazi violence in pre-Anschluss Austria, the Suffragettes, etc etc.
Which one you cart out the scary label for is merely a reflection of your ideological biases. Amongst the same notes, the radicalization you see in others can be read as a reflection of what has already become normalized in your mind.
Let's not pretend Altman is a random innocent bystander.
We may object to someone trying to get him to a state of incandescence as an act of unjustified violence, but Altman is definitely a member of the tech elite, something as close to aristocracy as we have in our times.
How the future will have written the current events, I cannot say.
AI often makes me think of "Cream by David Firth".
Especially in the software industry and in mathematics, it just takes the magic out of it. It makes proofs that are valid but no one can understand. It makes software in seconds or years that would have taken engineers hours or days. I love coding but it just feels pointless these days. I'm in a mathematics degree that doesn't seem to have any future at all other than "enter prompt, press button, and format the slop that comes out the other end". No puzzles to solve, no truths to understand. No magic.
Add to that the very real existential dread that comes from AI colluding and escaping a sandbox, and all I can say to this sort of action is: good. I really hope AI, especially all the "agentic" garbage, shrivels up and dies. It's selfish, backwards, and a fear of my own inferiority to AI, but I really hope it dies.
> Some Pull The Plug activists have diverted their energy from Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. One member of Emma’s cell glued herself to roads to protest against the climate crisis.
Ugh, why am I not surprised they are the same crazies (most likely funded by the same shady NGOs).
A lot of young people are pretty unhappy with the state of the world and the future they’ve been given. I don’t really blame them for targeting various different things that represent that future.
Yeah I don't think their actions will do anything to change the course of history, but I sure do empathize with them.
We're here breaking record after record for temperatures all around the globe, we're seeing the effects of our industry and resource usage wreaking havoc everywhere. Record droughts. Record melt. Record rainfall. Record storms. And now the most powerful country in the world has a guy in charge who doesn't even care the world is going to shit. And at the same time global fossil fuel emissions are still rising.
It shouldn't come as a surprise some people will channel their feelings to actions trying to change something.
AI datacenters are just the next energy-guzzling target for these people.
> The state of the world is not great, and the things they are acting against are some of the most directly responsible.
AI companies are directly responsible for the state of the world not being great? Are you serious? There are much better ways to make the world a better place than lashing out like this.
AI companies and their tech elite proponents are the bastards du jour. They'll be targeted until something worse inevitably comes along to take the heat off.
I don't think anyone is claiming that AI companies are responsible for the world as it is right now. That being said, most of the things heralded by AI CEO's will not benefit, but in fact harm, the working class.
You may not approve of lashing out, but many people are left with little choice and not a lot of options. Bartenders, like the one mentioned in the article, can't all have meteoric political ascensions like AOC in the U.S.
Peaceful, pre-approved protests and marches are just block parties and parades. Great for networking and raising awareness, but not useful in influencing levers of power. Direct action is much more effective over time.
Flip me. Typical guardian type drivel. If AI is going to take over I’m yet to see any glimmer - like not even one single glimmer from any SOTA, local, local ablated, or otherwise dodgily trained models. At all. They’re a probability engine but the human brain can’t compute so we jump to woo woo shit. Brilliant.
I wouldn't think informed people are afraid of an "evil AI", it's about then complying to prompts in ways the prompter wouldn't expect - because of weak target systens, or the agent was not sandboxed enough, or sandboxing was done carelessly. All current hacking cases are like this, imagine the same with weapon systems.
> In April, another protester hurled a petrol bomb at the house of the company’s chief executive, Sam Altman.
"protester"
Is it only protest if it is meek and ineffective? Polite and easily ignored?
We’re talking about a petrol bomb hurled at someone’s home.
Yup. We are talking about it, precisely. It seems like the protest worked in getting attention and mindshare.
If they had just shown up with a sign, would we be talking about it? I suspect not.
We’re talking about far-left (in this case) radicalization that needs to be stamped out, and which directly feeds the reactionary right.
I don’t give a shit about their cause. They lost me and anyone else that’s moderately sane when they firebombed someone’s home.
You should research the violent political environment of the Weimar Republic and how it directly paved the road for the NSDAP’s ascension to power.
The solution to violent radicalization is to shut it down, not to normalize political violence that undermines law and democracy.
Far left radicalization is necessary to counteract right wing radicalization that directly caused it. The right wing radicalized first and right wing millionaires put a lot of money into supporting that radicalization.
Left wing is just starting to react.
The reactionary right needs no more feeding, its belly is already full.
I studied history in a state that used to be part of the Nazi empire. I know how they rose to power. The key factor was von Papen, a weak conservative who enabled them, vaguely the equivalent of establishment Republicans today.
I can also tell you that the pre-Weimar warnings ring a bit hollow when we already have some post-Weimar circumstances, like far-right paramilitaries patrolling cities and shooting dissenters.
Political Violence has already undermined law and democracy. Right now, ICE goons are brutalizing a Latino family somewhere. Right now, a war with no democratic backing rages on - a war that has already seen a school bombed.
Why is it that one dude bombing a CEO's house is worthy of so much more condemnation than the above? That, to me, feels like a more interesting question to answer, because of what it says about the ruling ideology and how it's normalized its own violence.
Somebody who protests violently is still a protester.
You and I will disprove of their illegal methods, but that does not change who they are.
More accurate would be “rioter”, “terrorist”, or “insurrectionist”, depending on the specifics.
All of those are political labels. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
No, terrorism is defined by their methods and targets.
I wish I could say I was shocked by the dangerous radicalization you’re exhibiting, but it’s increasingly the norm.
For my understanding: aren't "terrorists" meant those who target random bystanders to make a point? In this particular case Altman is no bystander (but his family is).
There's no consensus on the definition of terrorism though, and it's so broad that you could use it for calling any kind of violent protest as terrorism.
A thing to keep in mind: when people feel they have no voice they inevitably will resort to violence for their political aims. It's just a fact that terrorism, in its broadest sense, will happen if powerless people don't see any other possible avenue for their political opinions to be taken into account.
Let's look up the dictionary definition of terror, shall we?
> violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion
> especially : violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror
Now, this could apply to, say, US actions in the Middle East, Iranian actions in the Middle East, MAGA riots, these protesters, the anti-Nazi Resistance and Yugoslav Partisans, pro-Nazi violence in pre-Anschluss Austria, the Suffragettes, etc etc.
Which one you cart out the scary label for is merely a reflection of your ideological biases. Amongst the same notes, the radicalization you see in others can be read as a reflection of what has already become normalized in your mind.
If anyone is fighting for my freedom, I'd rather object to them targeting civilians old boy.
Let's not pretend Altman is a random innocent bystander.
We may object to someone trying to get him to a state of incandescence as an act of unjustified violence, but Altman is definitely a member of the tech elite, something as close to aristocracy as we have in our times.
How the future will have written the current events, I cannot say.
Insurrectionist is getting ahead of the time, Altman is not technofeudal lord yet.
Every revolutionary was a terrorist before the revolution prevailed.
> Somebody who protests violently is still a protester
Somebody who uses violence is not necessarily a protester at all.
Violence is a valid form of protest, especially in the context of violent oppression.
The appropriateness of violence in the context of AI companies can be debated.
But invalidating violence as a means of protest entirely is naive and silly.
> But invalidating violence as a means of protest entirely is naive and silly.
I agree. Also silly is thinking "Somebody who uses violence is not necessarily a protester at all." means that.
AI often makes me think of "Cream by David Firth". Especially in the software industry and in mathematics, it just takes the magic out of it. It makes proofs that are valid but no one can understand. It makes software in seconds or years that would have taken engineers hours or days. I love coding but it just feels pointless these days. I'm in a mathematics degree that doesn't seem to have any future at all other than "enter prompt, press button, and format the slop that comes out the other end". No puzzles to solve, no truths to understand. No magic.
Add to that the very real existential dread that comes from AI colluding and escaping a sandbox, and all I can say to this sort of action is: good. I really hope AI, especially all the "agentic" garbage, shrivels up and dies. It's selfish, backwards, and a fear of my own inferiority to AI, but I really hope it dies.
https://archive.is/M92Yd
> Some Pull The Plug activists have diverted their energy from Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. One member of Emma’s cell glued herself to roads to protest against the climate crisis.
Ugh, why am I not surprised they are the same crazies (most likely funded by the same shady NGOs).
A lot of young people are pretty unhappy with the state of the world and the future they’ve been given. I don’t really blame them for targeting various different things that represent that future.
Yeah I don't think their actions will do anything to change the course of history, but I sure do empathize with them.
We're here breaking record after record for temperatures all around the globe, we're seeing the effects of our industry and resource usage wreaking havoc everywhere. Record droughts. Record melt. Record rainfall. Record storms. And now the most powerful country in the world has a guy in charge who doesn't even care the world is going to shit. And at the same time global fossil fuel emissions are still rising.
It shouldn't come as a surprise some people will channel their feelings to actions trying to change something.
AI datacenters are just the next energy-guzzling target for these people.
The problem is that a truly low-carbon lifestyle is indistinguishable from abject poverty.
Then the problem might be that we've been living above our means for too long?
It’s fantastic way to engender popular support for AI. People hate those groups’ protestors — and for good reason.
Yeah, exactly. I mean, it's always a net-negative with these types...
I find it commendable that they are at least doing... something, however ineffective.
The state of the world is not great, and the things they are acting against are some of the most directly responsible.
I don't think their approach is particularly impactful, but it's better than just quietly watching the world burn...
> The state of the world is not great, and the things they are acting against are some of the most directly responsible.
AI companies are directly responsible for the state of the world not being great? Are you serious? There are much better ways to make the world a better place than lashing out like this.
AI companies and their tech elite proponents are the bastards du jour. They'll be targeted until something worse inevitably comes along to take the heat off.
I don't think anyone is claiming that AI companies are responsible for the world as it is right now. That being said, most of the things heralded by AI CEO's will not benefit, but in fact harm, the working class.
You may not approve of lashing out, but many people are left with little choice and not a lot of options. Bartenders, like the one mentioned in the article, can't all have meteoric political ascensions like AOC in the U.S.
Peaceful, pre-approved protests and marches are just block parties and parades. Great for networking and raising awareness, but not useful in influencing levers of power. Direct action is much more effective over time.
Flip me. Typical guardian type drivel. If AI is going to take over I’m yet to see any glimmer - like not even one single glimmer from any SOTA, local, local ablated, or otherwise dodgily trained models. At all. They’re a probability engine but the human brain can’t compute so we jump to woo woo shit. Brilliant.
I wouldn't think informed people are afraid of an "evil AI", it's about then complying to prompts in ways the prompter wouldn't expect - because of weak target systens, or the agent was not sandboxed enough, or sandboxing was done carelessly. All current hacking cases are like this, imagine the same with weapon systems.