[JumpCrisscross]

> all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are

One hundred percent of those debates end at process, not unilateral action. If it can be unilaterally nullified, it is no longer a right.

> you have to believe in them 100% or 0%

Not degree but range. We don’t have a right to infinite life or medicine. But everyone has to have the same level of right for it to be a right. Otherwise I can disagree with your right to a right and nullify it on my own terms.

[abcde666777]

Just to clarify, here's my actual position - it was only implied in the first comment so I'll spell it out:

1. We shouldn't kill or harass or destroy the property of someone like Altman. AKA, I'm not in disagreement with your take on abiding by the laws of the land.

2. But it's not surprising that such things happen to individuals like him, for reasons outlined. Put it this way - if I was in his position, I would be very wary of my public image, and I'd be very wary of my intentions - am I acting for the greater good, or only for my own good?

Of course it's possible he's actually acting with the best of intentions and is just terrible at presenting himself, which is one of the reasons I'd agree with due process and respecting his rights.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's not surprising that such things happen to individuals like him

It’s understandable. But that also justifies a crackdown against it. I want to see AI regulation. Dumbfucks shooting a housekeeper in Sam Altman’s house is only going to stall that.