Well, regarding manual labour. Putting aisde the "is working with AI drying out your brain" discussion... Quite frankly, even fast touch-typists like me will never outpace an LLM write a few obvious functions... Isn't that also more or less the same thing as being freed of manual labour. How much of the thinking/design process your outsource to your LLM is a totally different discussion. See vibe-coding vs "pair" programming. But all that aside, I very much feel like LLMs are pretty much saving me a lot of manual typing.
Child abuse is practiced by the parents who end up deciding to use such a thing. Please don't shift responsibilities away from those who have them. If a parent makes such a decision, they are prone to also do other bad things to their children.
If somebody was marketing cigarettes for children, I don't think "only bad parents would buy these anyway" absolves the company for knowingly setting this situation up and profiting off it.
Every day I see a celebrity in an ad for gambling and they all have the same defence "well, if people choose to gamble if they have a problem, then that's on them". Everyone knows it will destroy lives. But they say "that's on them for buying what I'm selling".
People are walking around perpetuating the moral compass of a heroin dealer like it's normal. You are responsible for your mark on the world and your fellow human beings. Yes, even if you only did the bad thing to get the money.
You could appy the same hyperbole to alcohol. Yet America learnt 100 years ago that prohibition isn't really s solution. As much as you might hate it, there isn't really a way around people being responsible for their actions to a certain degree. Besides, comparing technology to heroin on a site like HN is pretty hilarious.
Gin is supposedly very calming for toddlers. Stressed parents used it a lot back in the day. I hear if you're fancy, cognac is even better. You gotta be a real hypocrite to drink a beer on fridays but not let your toddler have any, right?
Some things are difficult to regulate, even as we know they are harmful and difficult to control for adults due to their addictive nature.
You don't have to think about it very hard to realize that kids, who have not yet learned to emotionally regulate themselves, will be even more vulnerable to these things if we push it on them.
Thanks for underlining my point. Parents giving gin or cognac to their toddlers are just bad parents, a case for CPS, end of discussion. No need to regulate the gin industry just because there are hopelessly bad parents in the world.
but the fact that " Parents giving gin or cognac to their toddlers are just bad parents, a case for CPS, end of discussion" seems so absolutely self-evident to you has been brought about by a century of regulations, public education and resulting stigma/taboo. believe it or not, but giving (small amounts) of alcohol to toddlers and even infants (by way of drinking a shot before breastfeeding) was actually a shockingly widespread practice across many countries over 100 years ago. it took real effort by governments to get people to stop doing that and get us to a point where we are now - where such behaviour is self-evidently bad to anyone in their right mind and we've collectively agreed that it's in everyone's best interest that the state takes children of parents who do this to them into custody.
it is not unthinkable that future generations, perhaps not even that far into the future will regard and regulate tablet/phone/[smart device] usage by toddlers in the exact same way.
"over 100 years ago", you wish. The last case I was personally told about was from the 1980s. Yet, regulations and/or taboo didn't help that child. A hopelessly negligent and stupid mother is just that, case closed. And that is pretty much my point. No amount of government regulation is really going to protect the children from the decisions their parents make behind closed doors. And pretending the responsibility is with evil large corporations or the government is only clouding the truth, namely that parents are responsible for their children and what they consume. I am sooo fed up with all these excuses. And I have reasons. My mother wasn't and still isn't the most rational person. And no amount of regulations would have protected me from her mental health issues. It wasn't the fault of the car industry that my mother told me at the age of 14 that she wants me to go with her on a car trip visiting my grandmother because she would prefer me also dying in case she had an accident. No amount of industry regulations would have protected me from the schock I had when I heard that sentence. Openly talking about the responsibilities of parents and not hiding obvious stupidity would have perhaps helped a bit.
> No amount of government regulation is really going to protect the children from the decisions their parents make behind closed doors.
More people need to be talking about this. The children of parents who abdicate their responsibilities of parenting are going to become the adults we deal with on a daily basis. I think the scope of the issue is not perceptible until you get to know how much damage a person with all the power can bring onto their child. That kind of thing is lifelong and not everyone can afford the therapy you will end up needing.
It shocks me that even the nicest parents I know - on the surface - still give their children phones.
This is why I see the drive for child safety regulation as an unspoken admission that the problems of an individual parent are falsely seen as insurmountable, so people start pointing fingers at whoever is in the vicinity, when in reality the parent was the one responsible for choosing their own fights by purposefully exposing their child to the modern Internet. Parenting has existed for thousands of years, social media for just 20. This is a solvable problem but parents have to change their behavior. When the majority of childhood is spent with one's family, there is no other solution.
I believe that in marketing something to children, you become co-responsible for the usage situation you are promoting, even as parents share that responsibility. Marketing cigarettes, gin or tablets to children would be immoral in deeper ways than doing the same to adults. I stand by that.
For the record I think the gin industry should in fact be regulated from marketing their product as a pacificer for kids. I find it very difficult to believe that you don't.
Nobody is marketing a "toddler pacifier" to children. The intended audience is PARENTS. Or do you actually know toddlers with enough financial power to buy their own tablets/whatever? C'mon, the cope is getting really hilarious. I don't really understand where this reluctance to make parents responsible for their decisions comes from? Is it a knee-jerk reaction of actual parents? Why is it so hard to accept that YOU are responsible for most of the things happening to your child until a certain age?
Nobody is saying parents aren't responsible for their choices, only that trying to influence them to make harmful choices via marketing is immoral and bad for society. The parents are supposed to give this thing to their kids as a pacificer, that is literally the proposed use case here. If you are trying to make money by encouraging people buying your cigarettes for their children, you are morally complicit in that outcome, regardless of all the purchases still being made by adults.
I don’t think it’s woke that killed it. If they’d embraced the right with similar zest, the result would be the same. I think it’s ‘go divisive, go broke.’
Your post would be way less hilarious if you refrained from using words like "bitches" in a post arguing for DEI! Derogatory sexist terms don't really help your cuase.
While cynical, there is a lot of truth to your statement. I wish the activist type would realize that they are actually being used, but it appears there isn't much chance they will ever listen to the old dogs in this game.
Real equality isn't obtainable. What we are doing currently is just moving things around. The classic case of the vocal minority being louder then another minority. This isn't creating honest fairness, it just highlights certain groups to the detriment of others. Since LGBTQ has become louder, disabled people are being more forgotten again. Accessibility is HARD, so, just cater to LGBTQ and your corporate conscience is magically cleared up. Activists HATE this insight, since they are also blind to the needs of even smaller groups. I know what I am talking about, I am disabled, and I am watching the "landscape" since 35 years.
If your knee jerk reaction is to downvote this, I am not surprised, because, you know, that just underlines my point.
Is a bit like with democracy. Its the best system we have... Everything we, as humans, do, will eventually be unfair, because, frankly, humans are just not fair. Sure, a select few have high goals, and might even DTRT... But thats always just a small group. The rest of us will try to take advantage of others, some coniscously, some unconsciously. Humankind will only be fair once it has ended.
I don't see how you could conclude that capitalism is the best system when it is the only one the west has tried since the end of feudalism. I think there is still plenty of progress to be made and capitalism creates more negative incentives than anything positive.
And "discord" means "disagreement", "lack of harmony", "arguments" in English. Even weirder name for a chat application in an even more commonly used language.
"Slack" associates pretty strongly with "slack off" (get no work done) too, so that one's also strange.
The only explanation I can offer for “Slack” is that its founders and top brass have been adherents of the “parody religion” Church of the SubGenius, and have successfully interposed themselves into the everyday business machinations of a wide swath of Western businesses.
Meanwhile, “Discord” wouldn’t surprise me if it were a product of the Discordians themselves, a similarly disorganized “parody religion”.
I read it directly from the founder and former CEO, who included a screenshot from November 2012, about 9 months before the August 2013 release, of him using that acronym as a code name. https://xxcancel.com/stewart/status/780906639301812225
I figured Slack referred to slack in task time estimation i.e. the amount of extra time allowed in a task. Collaborating on Slack would count towards that time.
No need for a "culture clash", slapping is out of the question anyway. If a female slapped my child, I'd make sure she looses her job, no matter where she or I come from.
I don't think they are actually evil, I think they're doing what they're doing out of mostly pure intentions. That being said, people need to start advocating internally to get their companies off of using Anthropic's models and start using privacy focused local or open weight models.
It's one thing that Anthropic is pushing for so much open weight regulation, it's another that they have such a high valuation pumped by all of our collective subscriptions and token budgets.
reply