> Nothing that Altman could say justifies violence against him.
Not arguing with you, but the author, I don't understand this line of thinking.
If Altman introduces a technology that effectively halts the upward mobility of a large portion of the population, how does that not justify violence? Saving up for a house but now there's no work. Your dreams and aspirations are second to shareholder value. The police are already there to protect the shareholders, not the average civilian.
What recourse is there? The money in politics limits the effect voting can have. You can't really opt-out of the system. Why does Sam Altman get this nice little shield where none of his actions can have a negative consequence?
Maybe the author believes in the fact that violence is never justified, and thus the things you mentioned can only be used to explain violence, never justify it? Either way, it's a weird way to think indeed.
Not arguing with you, but the author, I don't understand this line of thinking.
If Altman introduces a technology that effectively halts the upward mobility of a large portion of the population, how does that not justify violence? Saving up for a house but now there's no work. Your dreams and aspirations are second to shareholder value. The police are already there to protect the shareholders, not the average civilian.
What recourse is there? The money in politics limits the effect voting can have. You can't really opt-out of the system. Why does Sam Altman get this nice little shield where none of his actions can have a negative consequence?