Commenters reacted to Sam Altman’s remark that “the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of AI” by questioning his motives and empathy. Many accused him of arrogance, with some urging he "go first" or pointing out his survival bunker as evidence he shouldn’t preside over societal tradeoffs. Several framed the line as an excuse rather than candor, likening it to self-serving rhetoric for OpenAI or even calling him “the Taravangian of this world.” Others argued the optics are poor given economic harms they attribute to AI so far, and some urged hard measures - guardrails, stricter regulation, or literally cutting data-center connectivity - if the risks can’t be contained.
Opinion split over whether accepting some harm is an ordinary price of technological progress. Some commenters defended the general calculus by invoking historical precedents like cars and trains, saying tradeoffs are inevitable. Countering that, others found the touted benefits speculative and insufficiently compelling, worried about concentration of power, and insisted that who decides acceptable harms matters. A minority made light of the phrasing, noting its pop-culture echoes (Shrek), while a few criticized repeated quips and meta-discussion about duplicate replies.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.