• CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 hours ago

    You misunderstand, I am not saying “make sure he spends it responsibly”. Nobody has has “made” him do this at all, and I didn’t advocate for a policy of doing so. What I’m saying is that I don’t think this particular use is worthy of condemnation the way his other actions are, because in the long run I think that this specific thing will end up benefiting people other than him no matter if he intends for that to happen or not (even if the American healthcare system prevents access, which I’m not confident it will do completely, not every country has that system, and it’s statistically improbable that the US will have it forever, and research results are both durable and cross borders). That sentiment isn’t saying that it excuses his wealth, just that I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman’s name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism. The concept is just as valid with him funding it as it would be had he been condemning it instead.

    • earthworm@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman’s name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism.

      I don’t know about what other people see, but I see negatives because it’s associated with a billionaire.

      If Taylor Swift put her name on it, my opinion would not change.

      Billionaires don’t build, they finance machines that extract value from human beings.

      Actual scientists have been working on using CRISPR to fight hereditary disease in the US and around the world.

      This money should have gone to them instead of into yet another billionaire’s pet designer baby startup.