And if you didn't get the Galileo reference...

I did. I read a biography of Galileo a few years ago, and it's safe to say that we don't have a modern day equivalent of Galileo. One major difference between Galileo and the "heresies" in question here, is that Glaileo was fighting for that which was obviously true. In fact had been proven theoretically for a long time (millenia), and he now had the precise experimental verification. Politics stood in his way moreso than science. That's quite a bit different than hypothesizing things that would fundamentally change the nature of society, then trying to unleash them without regard for experimenting on people.

I'm clearly not as well read on the Valley bigwigs as you, but my view of them is fairly negative on balance. I've read close to nothing on Sam Altman; hence the above demureness. However, I think your long response supports my original statement that ideas can never be too dangerous to discuss. If we hypothesize, say, letting everyone live to infinity and beyond so long as they can afford it, then we should have a societal discussion about what that would look like and how it would affect people before anyone implements such as thing. The problem with the Valley is that they fundamentally don't want to have those conversations. They kick and scream whenever anyone tries to kill their valuation, and they do so on "free speech" grounds.

If we truly got to have a societal conversation around, e.g., Uber (vis-a-vis debated legislation, say), then we might come to the conclusion that yes, people want an easier way to get a lift quickly and maybe the taxi industry could benefit from some innovation and deregulation. But, we never get to have that conversation because on the one hand "my right to make a profit says your town council can go fuck itself", and on the other hand, "fuck you, we're rioting and shutting down the streets to keep you capitalist pigs out of our little corner of heaven". Move fast and break things is the opposite of conversation.