413
Accept ‘bad things’ in return for benefits of AI, says Sam Altman
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
413 points (98.1% liked)
News
39483 readers
3240 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow, you seriously should read more on this case (or should I say - her parasitic lifestyle)
I will elaborate no further after your "watch your mouth" because I'm sensing aggressivity (emotional), which implies you are not being objective.
We will see how the lawsuit will end.
You've literally presented no evidence to support any of your claims. Even if she was crazy, no one was on her side, or whatever, that isn't proof she's lying about being abused. Victim blaming based on how you feel is crazy.
I'm not your AI agent. You can easily verify what I said (people being against her, her lifestyle) by spending a minute on Google. Which means yes, it looks like a weak case.
Dude you're the person trying to make this argument, not me.
And you are a person who should form their own opinion instead asking to be fed. I simply stated my opinion with general reasons. We are talking about an ongoing case with no public evidence, do you understand what you're asking? Simply gather known things and form your own conclusion, and hope for the best outcome.
EDIT: I forgot this isn't reddit. People do not like objectivity and everyone loves blind hate without proof of wrongdoing.
I'm not even asking lol. I'm stating that you suck at making points.
Again - opinion. You suck at comprehension.
no actually i can back them up, you suck at making a point
a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, you’re the one responsible for that evidence bro try growing up a bit
Are you trolling me? I literally said you have comprehension problems and then you go ahead and use completely different words with different meaning (opinion vs claims with evidence) to accuse me.
This is an ongoing case, the evidence will come with time. If any, which is why I said it looks like a weak case, if you can comprehend what that means.
??? this isn’t my fight bro lmao i’m just saying you have nothing to back up your whataboutism so don’t throw stones in a glass house
pretty rich talking about comprehension when you can’t even read a username
You made this your fight by inserting yourself into the discussion and turning it into an argument.
What whataboutism? Do you understand what that means?
I don't know what you are reading about the case but you seem to have strong opinions on this woman and her "parasitic lifestyle". I am personally wary of newspaper articles that go beyond the facts of the case and stray into hear say and opinion. I would rather stay objective and keep my nose out of the tabloids and gutter press.
I said for you to watch your mouth because idiotic statements like yours only do damage to the real victims of abuse and make people fearful to come forward with claims due to the pre trial speculation and ridicule they often face.
Why bother, you seem to have formed your opinion already.
You know what does even more harm to genuine victims? People who lie about SA to use it as extortion and the ones defending them.
This case has not even gone to trial yet but you have already made up your mind based on some hear say and tabloid drivel. I am glad you are not judge, jury and executioner in this case because your mind is clearly made up. I do not claim to know what happened, I would rather wait for the facts to be determined at trial and justice served. You are simping so hard for Altman I am trying to decide if you just love him or hate women in general? Either that or you are actually Sam Altman.
My brother in christ this all started as a sex assault allegation, which is very serious, with me simply stating my opinion that it looks like a weak case. You're over-analyzing this and turning my simple opinion into something it really isn't. Now I'm loving Altman?? Take a step back, I'm done here.
You are going out of your denigrate the woman before the case has been heard based on nothing more than your stupid opinion.
If the subject matter of the case was frivolous the wild speculation would not bother me. When dealing with the serious issues of rape and pedophilia your "simple opinion" amounting to trashing the woman's reputation without solid evidence is dangerous and you are a disgusting individual. This is just my simple opinion, now it is time for you to step back and keep your stupid opinions to yourself.
Listen here you little shit. You do not start yelling "HE'S A RAPIST" before any evidence or court closure. Do you understand the meaning behind "innocent until proven guilty"? I commented on the fucking case, you keep making this into something else. Her lifestyle is part of the case.
Everyone is allowed to comment how strong or weak the case looks, and you can state your opinion too without becoming a fucking redditor with "your opinion is invalid and stupid because it does not match my opinion"
Fuck you.
Settle down there chicken, can see you're getting a bit hot under the collar. Are you always this emotional or maybe it's your time of the month?
I never said this, I stayed that I am staying objective until the court case. There is no need for you to put words in my mouth, I am perfecty capable of articulating my own thoughts thank you very much. Your argument is clearly so weak you had to invent a straw man to fight.
You falsely accuse me of prejudging Mr. Altman while you actively prejudge the woman in this case. Can you see your own hypocrisy or are you too dumb to notice?
Now jog on little fella, you are making a show of yourself.
I think you should go back and read the original comment that started this discussion. You inserted yourself into it and now you think I'm accusing you, not stating my opinion on the topic. Stop with the logical fallacy arguments if you yourself tend to be expert at using them.
Did you just say I'm just a woman on period?
The original comment stated "alleged SA", note the careful language stating the allegation that this case is all about, not a wild accusation that the man is a paedophille or a rapist. Wild allegations are your thing buddy.
I'm not even sure what this sentence is trying to say, is English your first language? If you are asking me to stop making you look a fool and a hypocrite by using your own words against you, why should I?
The fact that you even had to ask this makes me wonder if you dressed yourself this morning or needed the assistance of a carer.
Exactly. This means that they're likely talking about the case, the allegations/accusations. I then commented ON THAT CASE that it looks weak. Anyone who then starts getting personal (you were the first to insult me, which prompted my "listen here you little shit" comment) instead of staying objective implies you truly believe the accusations before trial has happened. That sounds like you. I was also quite clear on my position (that I want altman to lose), but I'm not going to start lying to myself. If new evidence is going to get presented, then obviously it would change how strong the case looks. Are you starting to understand? Please never work as a lawyer.