Not a parent.
Of course it will help in that case. It’s literally what it’s there for. Also, the age where you can get away with leashing your kids is also the age where they aren’t forming a ton of memories or where they have no social context to be embarrassed. They may be embarrassed when they’re older, but that’s just life.
Stop inflicting your feelings into random children.
Rights and freedoms are not unlimited. Freedom of speech ends at things that put people in danger (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded space). Guns are available pursuant to a well regulated militia (or should be, but let’s not open that can of worms).
I’ll grant the proactive/reactive in a sort of way. If anyone (not only old people drink the fox news poison) starts up with some hyper racist shit, is restricting them not reactive to their emergent behavior? Would it be that big a stretch to codify the effects of propaganda as a sort of mental injury that needs treated? (Yes it would). Point is, at this point we’re splitting this hair rather fine and getting away from the important bits.
So the real way to handle the propaganda is to punish fox and their ilk for being wildly irresponsible and setting up racist fascist bullshit. Corporations are much easier to regulate than individuals (theoretically). They should be sued into the ground for all they’ve done, but we live in an oligarchy so that’s not happening anytime soon. This shower thought emerges because free market capitalism refuses to have any morals whatsoever and people are desperate to stop the big companies from hurting everyone. And the thing that’s easiest for everyone to see is the people they love start repeating horrible things and being helpless to pull them out of the echo chamber.
No, the shower thought isn’t good. It shouldn’t get that far. But right now, the only thing we can affect is the people next to us because the rich are never held accountable, so we’re stuck with bad and worse solutions.
Not the gotcha you think it is. And also, big difference between bans and regulation, let’s not conflate them.
We install breathalyzers in cars and revoke licenses when people refuse to act responsibly. It’s a common requirement of probation and parole to remain sober. We do what you (/I) describe often. In fact, it’s kinda the basis of operation for law at large: we limit the behavior of individuals to reduce harm to people. Be it saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick”. So yeah, I’m OK with what you described. If people cannot mange their substances, we can and do force them to stop with punitive measures.
See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Propaganda can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.
Now we have them exposed to content that is arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. voting). And this isn’t opinion stuff or debates. These are outright lies catered to them. There were no dogs being eaten in Springfield, and yet I could hear the old dudes at my gym discussing it while they walked the mezzanine. At what point does their right to play with their phone cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?
Calling bad faith. The Rogan-stans tend to hide behind “he let’s anyone on his show regardless of his feelings”, while failing to acknowledge that he’s platforming some heinously evil and/or stupid people (apparently Andrew fucking Tate is lined up to be on there soon) and just signs off on whatever crazy they spout (looks at Jordan Peterson). He’s abdicated all responsibility for giving some awful people a platform and good PR.
It’s not about disagreement, it’s about responsibility for who uses your platform. If he grilled them like an investigative journalist or meaningfully debated them in any way, we could talk. But this fucker would have Andrew Wakefield on and just be like “oh yeah, vaccines are evil”.
We can influence the behavior of our loved ones, we can’t meaningfully influence sociopathic corporations. While not feasible, it still feels like the best of a bunch of shitty options.
Those pokemon are metal as fuck.
Maybe, maybe not. If it’s a project or a paper, sure, this genie isn’t going back in the bottle so might as well acclimate. And also judge harshly for error since that’s kinda the big reason you don’t trust the things outright.
If it’s a closed book exam or some other “prove you know this” like showing your math work, then it’s an effective method of preventing cheating. More or less, bit of an arms race with that.
Oh yeah. I married my first boyfriend, though we met when I was 24 (out of the closet at 22, took a while to try dating). That stuff can work, but I’m just not gonna bet on it
Or they have a functional polycule. That is an option. I’m not betting on it by age alone, but it’s an option
Not everyone has a passport and you use SSN to get one. Passports are relatively rare for a lot of people in the US.
Yes, sort of, but in a stupid way. The number is treated as a unique identifier of a person, but you don’t carry it around since it’s so insecure.
Never thought you would. The comment wasn’t really for you.
It became a slur back when I was a child in the 90s because people used it as a general perjorative. Doesn’t help that it once innocently described a vulnerable minority. When cunts like you decided to use it as a slur, they tied said vulnerable minority to the concept of “this thing is bad” and harmed that community.
I’m not policing your speech. I’m calling you a cunt for using a decidedly shitty term that’s been shitty for decades.
Downvoted for casual use of a slur.
You’re right in that the goal is problem solving, you’re wrong that inability to code isn’t a problem.
AI can make a for loop and do common tasks but the moment you have something halfway novel to do, it has a habit of shitting itself and pretending that the feces is good code. And if you can’t read code, you can’t tell the shit from the stuff you want.
It may be able to do it in the future but it can’t yet
Source: data engineer who has fought his AI a time or two.
An elegant way to make someone feel ashamed for using many smart words, ha-ha.
Unintentional I assure you.
I think it’s some social mechanism making them choose a brute force solution first.
I feel like it’s simpler than that. Ye olde “when all you have is a hammer, everything’s a nail”. Or in this case, when you’ve built the most complex hammer in history, you want everything to be a nail.
So I’d say commercially they already are successful.
Definitely. I’ll never write another cover letter. In their use-case, they’re solid.
but I haven’t even finished my BS yet
Currently working on my masters after being in industry for a decade. The paper is nice, but actually applying the knowledge is poorly taught (IMHO, YMMV) and being willing to learn independently has served me better than by BS in EE.
I’m not against attempts at global artificial intelligence, just against one approach to it. Also no matter how we want to pretend it’s something general, we in fact want something thinking like a human.
Agreed. The techbros pretending that the stochastic parrots they’ve created are general AI annoys me to no end.
While not as academically cogent as your response (totally not feeling inferior at the moment), it has struck me that LLMs would make a fantastic input/output to a greater system analogous to the Wernicke/Broca areas of the brain. It seems like they’re trying to get a parrot to swim by having it do literally everything. I suppose the thing that sticks in my craw is the giveaway that they’ve promised that this one technique (more or less, I know it’s more complicated than that) can do literally everything a human can, which should be an entire parade of red flags to anyone with a drop of knowledge of data science or fraud. I know that it’s supposed to be a universal function appropriator hypothetically, but I think the gap between hypothesis and practice is very large and we’re dumping a lot of resources into filling in the canyon (chucking more data at the problem) when we could be building a bridge (creating specialized models that work together).
Now that I’ve used a whole lot of cheap metaphor on someone who causally dropped ‘syllogism’ into a conversation, I’m feeling like a freshmen in a grad level class. I’ll admit I’m nowhere near up to date on specific models and bleeding edge techniques.
Yup. I switched to linux on my home computer and now the more time I spend with it, the more I pity my work computer for the cancer it has to deal with.