Sam Altman on Tucker Carlson [video]
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
youtube.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Tucker CarlsonSam AltmanFree Speech
Key topics
Tucker Carlson
Sam Altman
Free Speech
The video features Sam Altman discussing his views on Tucker Carlson, sparking controversy and debate among commenters about Carlson's behavior and Altman's experience with him.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
23m
Peak period
32
0-12h
Avg / period
11.3
Comment distribution34 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 34 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 12, 2025 at 1:22 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 12, 2025 at 1:45 AM EDT
23m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
32 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 17, 2025 at 2:00 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45218861Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 12:41:39 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crrlv7jdnq8o
How do you know the opinions are honest? That strikes me as not easily assessable. What does it mean that an opinion is transparent?
His private texts include, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait.”
And
"I hate him passionately. ... I can't handle much more of this”.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-carlson-endorses-donald-...
He was sending these texts while publicly repeating the standard Fox News lines about how great Trump is, etc.
How can you ever consider him honest, after this?
What lead you to believe you can take two people like Tucker Carlson and MTG who are PRIMARILY known for spouting bullshit and you can somehow magically decipher the signal from the noise? Is it just the topic of Israel that you agree with them on? What are you actually comparing them against? I’d love to know more about what you’re describing looks like in practice because it sounds very handwavy at the moment and maybe it would be a better discussion with concrete details.
Likewise consider the opposite. Until recently I really respected Buttigieg, but when asked about Israel he cannot answer the question. He hopelessly looks for a moderate safe way out and it looks really incompetent.
It’s not a trick question… I really want to understand what lead you to think that you can take known bullshitters and somehow seperate the fact from fiction. It’s just really confusing I think to me and others in this thread how on earth you arrived at the positions you did?
You seem to be quite focused on the idea that Israel is committing genocide which isn’t a controversial statement for a lot of people but I don’t understand why you hold up Tucker Carlson over the ICC who have much more credibility on the topic and came to the same conclusion. Why MTG and not AOC for example if you mean outspoken politicians specifically? The thinking patterns just seem incredibly strange and I wanted to know what you’re actually thinking here.
> do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector?
> you can somehow magically decipher
It is abundantly clear that you are, in fact, trying to be rude.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
You were originally responding to:
> To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.
Nothing about this requires extraordinary skill or "magic". Determining whether what Tucker Carlson said is true, works exactly the same way as determining whether what anyone else said is true.
Wait a minute, you were already faced with the fact that the likes of Tucker Carlson defend positions in public that they personally criticize and attack in less public settings.
And yet, even after being faced with that information, you still opt to ignore it and whitewash Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson as being this paragon of objectivity?
I'm starting to wonder what you are trying to do with this thread.
You should cut the act. Playing dumb doesn't help your case.
Or put differently: "they have the same world view as I have?"
But then somehow you feel the need to make your opinion and the opinion of the people that somehow align with you (or vice versa) somehow more objective or ethically better by calling it "honest", or best aligned with the evidence (as if people could not disagree on the quality of evidence, or take into account other things) or the like.
That's the part I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We're all blind men touching an elephant.
I think it means "I am a sucker with no critical thinking skills and fell for their propaganda".
The attempts to whitewash and normalize Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson also give pause. It's hard to believe someone can be this gullible, specially after being presented with facts and still doubling down on whitewashing the character.
So I'm curious. How do you know the numbers are factual and they eye witnesses are what they say they are?
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/11/casualty/
In 2018, MTG suggested that the CA fires were a result of The Rothchilds sending laser beams to earth and missing their intended target.
It comes down to the fact that he is a normie. He sees people dying and he instinctively speaks against it. It is similar with economical and other political talking points.
19 more comments available on Hacker News