WTF? You can't post like this here, regardless of whose "removing" you're advoca...

hax0ron3 · 2026-04-11T17:39:35 1775929175

Would I not be allowed to post that removing Khameini or Putin would be good for the world? I find that hard to believe, and people do it all the time. And if it's just a matter of who it's ok to advocate for removing, then where is the line?

dang · 2026-04-11T23:59:17 1775951957

The problem here is in the question. You can't draw a single abstract line that will work independently of context, and it's mistake to try. I would need to see specific cases.

For example, consider the word "remove" and the many different associations it can have.

In this case, the comment (assuming I didn't misread it, which is always possible) seemed obviously to be endorsing specific violence against a specific person and indeed wishing for it to escalate. That's a kind of violence in its own right, and a poison that we don't want here.

mystraline · 2026-04-12T17:42:19 1776015739

If I wanted him dead, I would have said so.

Sam Altman should have been removed years ago when the board tried to do so. This does not mean "to kill", execute, eradicate, or similar euphemisms.

Given his military proclivities of AI targeting and action systems in Iran, his removal is instrumental in stopping or impeding AI warafare.

But really, the bigger point here on HN is having a charitable interpretation, and was lost on my statement. I still absolutely think he should be removed. Life? No. OpenAI? Yes.

dang · 2026-04-12T21:14:48 1776028488

When it comes to inflammatory statements on divisive topics, the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

Responding to the firebombing of someone's house with the sentence "Removing him is active harm reduction for the world" has an obvious meaning. If you didn't mean it the obvious way, you should have made your point very differently.