> Europe is continually complaining about its dependency on Chinese steel, cars, electronics and semiconductors yet their carmakers are buying cheap Chinese steel instead of European steel and European semiconductor manufacturers are preferring cheap Chinese semiconductor equipment over ASML gear.
You clearly have no idea about the value creation chain. Steel is a commodity, why shoot yourself into the foot by buying expensive one. And semiconductors are not commodities.
But I guess this logic only makes sense to a country that insists on using its own overpriced steel to save a couple jobs.
How are you gonna fight a war when you can't make the steel for your bullets and artillery grenades? Yes, that's the scary logic we need to take into account these days.
Steel is not a commodity, it's a basic ingredient in any industrial base.
That's the decentralized nature of capitalism working as intended. Distributing resources in the most efficient way possible. Thank you invisible hand.
Ironically, Adam Smith himself spent plenty of time worrying about the risk that allowing wealth to concentrate and an oligarchy to form would undermine the invisible hand. Much of what he was responding to was English society's tendency toward extremely rich people and organizations (e.g., the East India Company) hoarding resources on a mass scale, to the detriment of everyone else. So what's happening with AI right now is very much the antithesis of the free market he envisioned.
He wrote at lest one very thoughtful essay expanding on his belief that idolizing the wealthy undermines the basic principles of free and civil society. He criticized large accumulations of wealth as "a monopoly against one's countrymen." And something like half of The Wealth of Nations was committed to suggesting government policies to prevent an entrenched uber-wealthy class from forming, precisely so that capitalism could work as intended.
It's shocking to me that he was aware of it and yet considered it an unrelated defect that can be individually corrected, and not a flaw that blows the entire idea wide open. To me it seems that this outcome was unavoidable and that this is the equilibrium his system will settle into earlier or later. Opposing the concentration of power is harder than making it happen. Even strong regulations only need to spring one leak somewhere for them to get in and get the ball slowly rolling. It's a ratchet. If he knew about this, then his ideology was like boarding an already slowly sinking ship and hoping someone would just keep scooping out the water and throwing it overboard at a sufficient pace forever.
> It's shocking to me that he was aware of it and yet considered it an unrelated defect that can be individually corrected, and not a flaw that blows the entire idea wide open.
Hindsight is 20/20. He was suggesting free markets as the counter to entrenches aristocrats. It took centuries for our modern understanding of monopolies and rentier capitalism to develop.
He was arguably also right insofar as the slippery slope that he warned about is pretty much exactly the slippery slope that we slid down. And I can’t really blame him for the fact that most Adam Smith fanboys don’t seem to have read the second half of his book.
Spot on, that's the big flaw in liberalism. It's never an issue with the system, only communists reason in systems. No, it's just that the guy in charge is bad, and if we could get someone better there, everything would turn out fine.
Let's disregard that ever since Reagan, no president was ever able to slow the runaway financialisation of capitalism, or the concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands. Capital has known no major blowbacks in many decades, and it's never been so powerful before.
Adam Smith never believed in an "invisible hand". He uses the concept to disparage the fantasy of "self-regulating" free markets. Even before capitalism did we understand that markets needed rules and regulations, it took centuries of propaganda and of demonizing the opposition as "luddites", then "communists" to convince the majority that we needed to abolish all rules for the economy to flourish.
A deregulated market is terrible for the environment, the economy and pretty much everyone and everything. It only gives more relative wealth (and power) to the oligarchs, who then lord over us unopposed.
Not to detract from your point, but France had a good run with nuclear energy throughout the 70s, no? They built them on mass, built them reliably and quickly, learned from project to project and had economies of scale.
And if I am not mistaken then for a long time energy prices in France were smaller than that of neighbouring countries.
But to be fair, it is difficult to tell what "profitable" means because a primary motivation has always been the development of nuclear weapons, so the true amortization is across industry and national security.
But is this the intended maintenance duration, or the actual one? Because the construction of every EPR project has been a disaster. Construction took 20 years in Europe and 9 years in China.
Well, there are only four EPRs in the world. It is too early to say. Frankly, as a non-expert "armchair observer", Finland was dumb for starting the EPR project before the design was finalised.
From what I read no further EPRs are planned and they fully want to go ahead with a streamlined EPR2 design.
I think the problem of the Finns was that they really wanted energy independence and tge inly ones that were on the market were the french. No doubt the frenched used much diplomatic muscle to attract them as a first experiment.
I think there’s 2 factors at play. 1) they grew up with technology rather than having it introduced later in life and 2) they grew up with a version that is arguably quite negative.
For e.g millennials, we didn’t have internet until our teens, and the early years of the internet looked very different from the ad-infested hellscape that it is today.
Those younger generation are in a really dark place right now. In many cities they will never be able to afford a house; and on top of that AI labs are now saying they will never have a job.
One of main reason i postpone having kid. I definitely don't want to bring my child to this current world. Unless i see some better future, i don't think i will change my plan anytime soon.
You need to zoom out a bit, too much narrow focus HN style can be pretty toxic in age of ai. Tons of folks here have obsessive traits and this is perfect tool to hone that crack in personality further and go deeper and deeper.
Or, in other words, world is fine, will be fine and whatever comes societies will adapt. Don't have kids if you don't want to but llms shouldn't be the deciding factor. Think how late 1930s must have felt apocalyptically in Europe and rest of the world, yet we came through that stronger (and then got weaker but thats another story) and mankind goes on.
Given a choice, a vast majority of children (and people in general) would choose to have a life, even with arguably uncertain future prospects, over not getting to live at all.
The real reason you're postponing parenthood is probably that you choose to prioritize your comfort and financial independence at this moment. And there is nothing wrong with it, but I do miss honesty.
What's insane is that there's seemingly an account made just to post this useless comment, in a thread buried several levels deep, under an, for HN standards, old post.
I sympathize with the scariness of never being able to own a house. But I also think between Automation and remote work, what we really need is to encourage the development of like 50-100 new tier 1 cities in the US. Part of the major cost is the fact that you have to deal with the old before you can get to the new in these cities.
Whereas a field 5 miles off a major highway? I bet you could build a city, a better one, for half the cost.
Effectively, they will never have a true life. They will just meander around here and there, making money whatever ways they can, surviving, and ultimately pass away from something they can’t afford to fix.
That, or become violent. I'm not saying that in a supportive way, moreso thinking of uprisings historically arising from people with no other option. Although, that was before facial recognition technology...
They didn't need facial recognition technology because they were physically in one place and the cops could just arrest everyone in that place - if there were enough cops which there never were.
And on top of that they'll have to deal with crumbling infrastructure, aging population and global warming. They've already had COVID. I hope they don't have a catastrophic AI bubble pop.
In like five cities in the USA. I live in a top 10 city by population in the USA (so it's not "flyover"), and the median home price is 288–319, while median HHI is 89. That's easily in the recommended home loan range of 3*HHI.
Look, I'm sorry you can only be happy living in SV, but there's plenty of jobs in the boring parts of America, and the homes are affordable.
All that being said, homeownership is largely a scam, financially. Use your downpayment as a market investment and rent. You'll end up with more money when you retire, and as a bonus, you aren't tied to one geographic location if you lose your job.
The only reason apartments can even exist is because of economies of scale. If you have one rental property, it's virtually impossible to make money (certainly not in a way that outpaces index funds) because you don't have the economies of scale at your disposal.
Your entire premise is one that's missing important context. Based on the numbers you provide, you're probably in Chicago or Dallas, maybe Austin, but that's pushing more like 400K.
Homes in the median are generally not viable unless you don't have a family or don't care about quality schools. In my city (90K), two houses that are identical but divided by the school district boundary between rank #1 and rank #265 out of 359 is a difference of $300K. One would be within the median and the other well above.
And let me be clear: ALL HOUSING IS A SCAM FINANCIALLY. Rent screws you one way and housing screws you another.
"Quality schools" are almost entirely about the student body, so it doesn't really make sense to say median schools aren't viable for the median family. Obviously you're not going to get a ton of doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. kids at a median school because the median person is not one of those things, and those people tend to care about "quality schools" i.e. living near each other and away from the median.
Do we really want people to have no association with their city, and encourage them to be interchangeable cogs for whatever business deigns them worthy of a job in some remote part of America, so they can be ready to take whatever’s offered like that’s a good thing?
Most people like putting down roots, knowing the town and people, having a local community, would like to have family and friends nearby.
I hired a few contractors out of the bay area to another state where their salary was 1/3 a nice permanent home and they ended up scattering to other parts of the country. One even went back to the Bay Area. Yes there are nice places to live besides the bay area.
Right, but the opportunity cost of the down payment is what gets you. You're forgetting that if you rent, you have a large chunk of cash that you could invest in higher yielding assets.
This isn't controversial. This is what anyone with finance expertise will tell you.
Yeah but real estate is something even people with seriously subpar IQ understand well, like gold. Its a conservative investment in most places, but risk of losing it is next to 0 realistically, which is something folks like a lot. Those that invested 20 years ago in many cases saw massive returns, in very safe manner. Not even going into airbnb and similar.
Also, if your down payments on mortgage are equal to rental fees, you won't save much renting, you just have better flexibility with moving, something great for single folks but families want opposite. In our case, for example we pay less mortgage than we would be paying in rental for same place (can check easily since symmetrical apartment next door is rented).
I don't want risky investments with potentially better returns for me, real estate is good enough.
Finance people are welcome to go live in shoeboxes and invest in higher yielding assets, clears them out of the housing market for the rest of us who value a house to live in over higher yields.
Remember how we were all going to “surf the information superhighway” and we’d all become smarter because we had access to all the worlds experts and books?
Debatable. Maybe they were less informed in the sense of not having access to as much so called news or content. But what about the quality? Being strictly less informed by emotionalized info shots could very well mean being less misinformed.
Nor you though and not me. Best among us are dead or isolated from cancers of the world. Ambition, how disgusting a trait the only thing the ambitious deserve is suffering.
They can't even use a computer, they struggle with basic computer knowledge because they grow up with closed ecosystems and most of them only have smartphones, not a desktop PC. They are called "Digital Naives" (sic) for a reason.
>> I am more and more convinced that young people have a much better understanding of technology and especially its impact on society.
> They can't even use a computer, they struggle with basic computer knowledge because they grow up with closed ecosystems and most of them only have smartphones, not a desktop PC. They are called "Digital Naives" (sic) for a reason.
You and the GP are talking about totally different things.
Also the OP is talking about elementary schoolers. Even as a future software engineer interested in computers in the pre-smartphone era, my computer knowledge in elementary school was still pretty basic.
My son (11) constantly refers to kids like this as 'ipad kids'. He has a PC and has taught himself to program, so I think he looks down on kids like this, which seems to be the majority of them.
Well, if the frontier AI labs get their way the development of the brains of the next generation is wholly unnecessary. I expect they feel as much deep in their bones as they sit through the drudgery of school without a future to put any of it to use.
The damage done by doomscrolling and social media goes far beyond the "development of the brain for reasons of economic participation". Also, you seem to think the development of the brain doesn't have any purpose beyond that - a view I don't share.
If - and that if is doing some heavy lifting; given the underlying, fundamental problems of LLMs it doesn't make any sense to assume that we'll get there anytime soon - LLM AIs will be able to dominate economy in such a way that humans cannot compete anymore, that simply means that humans will have tons of free time at their hands. (
There's a reason for the grain dole that the Roman elites handed out to the poor of the city. I assume if you have a whole population that doesn't have anything valuable to contribute to the economy, the economy will still have to find a way to sustain them. Otherwise riots.)
A well developed brain seems to be exactly what I would want in such a case.
Tonnes of free time, an undying need for validation from other humans, and an inability to tolerate boredom. The way to compete and gain status will be through violence. If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.
The condition hasn't. The conditions have (in most places). So, I'm expected a regression to the mean. I don't see that as a positive, desirable development.
The use of personal computers way overshot what they were designed for. Don't mistake people putting up with the relative complexity of personal computing with them wanting it. That's why so many people no longer bother with PCs or keep an old one around just for things that need to be done and through the web. Phones, primarily, and tablets for media consumption, are much easier to use.
Try explaining a clutch and stick shift to kids. They will look at you and wonder why and how you think having a pedal that decouples the engine from the rest of the drivetrain so you can manually operate a gear lever was appropriate for a mass market product.
They can't use a Windows-95-style filesystem for the same reason I can't use IBM-style JCL and COBOL. That is not the entire field of computing, in fact it's barely any of the field of computing which is the reason they can't use it. Just because that paradigm was once dominant, doesn't mean it still is.
But they are all still using traditional file systems constantly, but usually through an abstraction that gives them less understanding and control. Dragging stuff around on a smart phone is often changing some files and folders under the hood. The knowledge of how things work one step down the abstraction layer is still valuable for anyone who wants more than the lowest level control and understanding of what they're doing.
And what replaced it? Can you do the same tasks within that unstated "new paradigm"? Not knowing how to use a desktop computer limits you from all creative software from IDEs to video editors. That's like saying illiteracy is just a new oral paradigm.
But will you be hired to do video editing on a tablet? REAL work like for a media company or movie studio? No. ipad skills are mostly irrelevant if your goal is to be employable. The advanced animations and workflows are not being done on tablets. Most people like being employable.
At least kids in the 90s learned how to use a desktop, which directly translated in some way to an office job.
Do they have the motivation to learn though? You could say the same about gen Z with books; it's just that many have never cared enough to make it a habit.
That having been said, the new generation mostly does computing with a smartphone/tablet and these kids are very adept at handling them. If a child wants something, it'll find a way to make it happen and they're good at that. Creating spreadsheets and organizing files is simply not on their list. If it were, they'd be better at it than most people who grew up before computers.
Opposite of my experience. A few family members and their friends invited me to a discord server recently; I'll join for games some nights. They're very acutely aware of how things work. We talk a lot about how even their schoolmates don't really use social media much (at least, not the big ones) and despise AI.
NAT and the slow adoption of IPv6 are partly to blame for this; so are phones. To host your own anything, you need a machine that can be left turned on (so a desktop fixed in one place) and an IP address.
They could 100% figure it out if TS was still a popular thing. What's with the assumption all the kids these days are utter zombies who can't think for themselves?
Everyone likes slop. That's why Instagram, Tiktok and Linkedin were so popular pre-AI.
They don't like slop when they're looking for non-slop and they recognise the slop, because it's not solving their problem. If they don't recognise the slop they'll just treat it as non-slop and use it, and in this case they arguably still liked it.
I'm a fan of generated music and have run across some generated vids I like. I've seen some really creative stuff which took existing fiction and generated vid content around that. Previously, that content simply would not have been created because it would have been way too expensive. I know I'm not the only one out there who enjoys it at times.
There is undoubtedly some performative element, how big that is who knows?
Confessing to liking generated music is wild and legitimately embarrassing. Somehow, even compared to ripoff visual art, fake music is even more obviously plagiaristic. The stuff that it's ripping off already exists and isn't even hard to find since ALL of it is billed exactly as the style/genre that it's stealing from. That's the equivalent of framing and hanging a "ghibli style" generated print in your living room.
This is what I mean, people don't feel the same way. I find the lyrics creative enough, the style hits, that's all I'm looking for. I don't find most music on the market that interesting, anyway. I found people making music about UFOs and disclosure of all things, there isn't exactly a huge market for that. It's allowing people to express things in music they previously weren't.
This is the kind of stuff which will just cause people to be contrarian and like it because we're told it's something to be embarrassed over. People put human-created content on way too high of a pedestal.
I find it interesting that we have tools which can take a general concept and sound and create hours and hours of content out of that and I don't consider it any different than remixing human stuff, it is still human at its core.
Honestly, for the people who hate this stuff, the best thing you can do is not to mock people in this way because I promise you, that's how you get contrarians. Do you know how rude it is to be told that what you like is legitimately embarrassing? What caused you to say that to another human being? Come on!
Well they used to. Make music about UFOs and such, I mean.
Woke up this morning, I was feeling quite weird, Had flies in my beard, my toothpaste was smeared Over my window, they'd written my name, Said so long, we'll see you again ...
Did a vehicle, did a vehicle, did a vehicle come from somewhere out there, just to land in the Andes? Was it round and did it have a motor ...
Not sure why you felt the need to throw in a random insult there but I'm sure you already know the answer to the difference between making something voluntarily and involuntarily.
Apologies, I intended the oxygen bit as a flippant joke but I can see how that could come across as an insult instead.
As to the difference between voluntary and involuntary, the grey line between those is exactly my point. The employee 'voluntarily' wears blue jackets and could certainly not wear one, and risk getting fired, and certainly could quit that job. A student certainly could spend far more time than their peers on study and end up with a lesser grade on their work, with presumably less returns in most cases. I see a lot of parallels between a teenage student navigating complex new social relationships and learning their way through middle and high school and an employee trying to just earn enough money for rent, in terms of both of them having to make 'choices' that do not feel from the inside like decisions they make freely and that have consequences that appear life-ruining to not take (in which case it reveals a preference for not having your life ruined, rather than for whatever it is that you decided to wear or use or do to merely keep up with the perceived requirements).
I'm talking about the latter. Lots of people make slop art and use AI slop for their school essays as mentioned above. Just a few days ago we had this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49764791
That's the part that's performative, they use it, and maybe even like using it, but then outwardly say how much they hate it. I feel like you're not getting that point about what others here are saying.
I don't think anyone hates all of AI except a minority
and even if you would hate AI, you don't really have a choice anymore since employers will expect you to be more productive due to it
but I definitely see a bunch of hate towards the dystopian aspects of it and as mentioned before, the whole slop thing and how you see AI slop everywhere now. it definitely evokes a very negative feeling in me when I see something like that
That's our point. No one hates all of it yet some people such as some of the Gen Alpha kids as shown in the article performatively act as if they do. Sounds like you're agreeing with us here in this thread.
Every generation is full of people that have a strong aversion to tech. The mistake was thinking it would magically only be the Boomers with that problem, but I've always known people in my age group who needed that remedial tech class in college.
It did appear to improve for a little while when everyone needed a laptop or desktop to access the Internet. But smartphones have eliminated that. So have tablets. And lightweight laptops like Chromebooks have further eliminated the need for tech knowledge. I work at a K-12 school, and a surprisingly large number of young parents have access to the Internet only through their smartphones. And, truthfully, they don't need a PC to access the Internet anymore. It's an extra cost you can just bypass, and nobody under 30 with kids has spare money at this point.
But, in as much as new teachers coming into our district today are often just as tech-illiterate as those we saw 20 years ago, we haven't seen the number of tech-savvy people really decreasing, either. Tech remains a hobby for some people, and that doesn't seem to be decreasing.
Yes, we're not going to raise another generation where the techies have a common background of making MS-DOS boot disks; reading modem initialization strings; upgrading RAM requiring a chip puller or piggybacking; managing IRQs, memory addresses, or bus addressing for ISA/IDE hardware with jumpers or DIP switches; or knowing what `LOAD"*",8,1` means. But that doesn't mean people aren't learning tech, having fun with it, or making careers out of it.
I can't imagine what gave you that idea. I find there is a small slice of people who actually understand technology and it's massively underrepresented by the younger generations. They have no concept of files/folders or how the computer works at any level. Their views are often half-baked (I know mine were) and the news never actually portrays what the majority are thinking. The news is much more interested in quick hits and shock pieces "Kids are going back to dumb phones" (no they aren't), "Kids are using paper maps" (nope, a few people find them quirky and treat them as art, they aren't using them).
You and he are using “understand” differently. You’re talking about understanding the internals, the components and concepts inside the box labeled “technology”; he’s talking about understanding the externalities, where that box is moving and how fast, how the box affects and alters the world around it.
Fair, but I also think that kids aren't any better at seeing the externalities. Kids are very good at following what is "hip" and it's currently in vogue to dislike AI. But just because their influencer-doom-scroll-fed brains are currently hearing "AI Bad" doesn't mean they have any actual understanding.
I'm sure this is some kind of logical fallacy but: show me a kind not on TikTok/Reels/IG/brainrot that has a coherent argument against AI and I'll be interested in listening. Outside that it's all echo chambers on social media IMHO.
This feels unfalsifiable, because you could reject any coherent argument put forth by saying that they just got this from some social media platform and they don't truly think that. The modern society and system have been picked apart relentlessly, and most of the simple arguments against it are already floating all over the place, including the short-form addiction farms.
The fact you think that not a single one out of hundreds of millions of people has a genuine belief and that they all are just dumb kids being dumb because they're kids and following trends is staggering, I don't think any adult generation has ever had an opinion this extreme about their youth.
Anyway, here's this article[0] that was posted on the NYT about a week ago. It's not about AI, but many of the interviewed kids touch on its future downsides in ways that aren't just "AI bad cuz TikTok". And these kids are young, their worldviews aren't half as coherent as a 16 year old's. They were definitely pre-selected by the editors and probably aren't representative of the average kid, but they represent some of them. That's enough for your request of n=1.
> I don't think any adult generation has ever had an opinion this extreme about their youth.
Literally every adult generation has done this for time immemorial, just like the "kids these days" or "the next generation is screwed because X". I'm not saying no kid can have genuine belief nor was I saying that no kid has a coherent anti-AI argument _but_ this article is talking about slang, just because "that's ai" is slang and has negative connotation does not, for one second, mean that kids using that are actually anti-AI. It's slang, not a policy position.
People are reading way too much into that. In 1 year the slang will have moved on and will not be the basis for how they think about AI. Go look at the history of slang, it's not policy forming in the way it's being presented by some in this thread, that's the issue I have.
Just like when kids my age said "that's gay", that didn't mean they were all homophobic, it was slang. Some of those people grew up to be actual homophobes, some grew up to be gay, some grew up to allies. The same will happen here and none if it will be due to the year/months that it existed as slang.
You know the saying “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it”? With how many salaries today are dependent on creating negative externalities, I wonder if maybe kids are better at understanding certain things like AI and climate change simply because they don’t have salaries.
I think the key is that young people get to approach new technology playfully, over-use it, and make mistakes.
I learned lessons as a teenager on Twitter in 2012 that clearly none of the middle-aged people posting constantly on the company Slack ever internalized.
Maybe the impacts but Gen Z at least the younger ones really struggle with technology. Things like file systems (even the gui kind) and the keys in a keyboard - had one ask me what’s a semicolon, he was a fully formed adult. They are not digital natives they were raised from behind the walls of the iGarden.
Why? Serious question, they completely lack the context essential to understand, the previous generation does not seem to have an improved understanding either, they are just users. Consumers of ads.
Better "understanding of technology", probably not - early computing and internet required a lot more technical insight, and younger generations are notoriously tech illiterate.
Insight into how it effects society? Very possibly, at the least it's a different, more native perspective. Whether it is also broader or more correct, it's hard to say.
Google drive, icloud drive, anything drive is also file/folders based. Someone that doesn't know about that is a modern-day illiterate. Yeah, I know, there are many of them nowadays.
Are they actually? Google Drive has folders, but there's no concept of things like "which folder is this file in", you can have access to many root folders but not a list of them all, and the most convenient way to find anything is to search.
> I am more and more convinced that young people have a much better understanding of technology and especially its impact on society.
People are taking your words to the literal meaning and miss the forest for the trees.
Kids aren't conditioned by society and are more in touch with their instinctual drives than adult people. They are much more keen to perceive that a piece of technology isn't "good" or "natural" or "desirable" without being able to form a reasoned argument. Any kid grown on an iPad is able to tell that it's an unnatural environment, and less preferable than growing up among and being cared by other humans.
It's a bit like that IQ curve meme, where the uneducated person (the children in this case) and genius agree that the modern world has gone too far, while the average adult self-indulgently defends our modern world, crying that we should be grateful to technology and if it weren't for it we would be dying of dysentery and we shouldn't resist AI but just learn to embrace it, yadda yadda.
I'd rather trust the instincts of a kid than the rationalizations of many adults, in this case.
Wonderful writeup, I couldn't have formulated it better! Honestly, I never expected my comment to gain traction but I find it interesting that it had such resonance in both directions.
In a way I am happy I left so much to the imagination for open interpretation.
Because at the root of it is judgement and taste, something we are well aware they lack when it comes to the things I listed, yet somehow we're going to say they understand the broader pros and cons of AI well enough such that their use of it as a pejorative is damning of what AI is actually worth.
The problem with that though, they don't really get to see what great feats a healthy adult brain is allegedly capable of, for example from their parents, nor their teachers if we're being honest for a millisecond. So why bother? Offline adult brains have failed at preventing any of this - nor are they more successful. It's really not brain health that predicts success in 2026.
Not understanding the consequences and impacts of doomscrolling and instant gratification videos on reasoning, memory and abstract thinking is not limited to persons aged 15-16. I'd argue this applies to about 90% of the population using smartphones.
Parents around me are somehow quite aware of the problems, some more deeper in, some less:
Esp. the ones from the education group are, agains my expectation, very well educated and up-to-date regarding problems of all this stuff. So, yes. For sure, Im in a bubble and I do not know about people & their society outside of my bubble.
> Do you really think young people around 14-16 understand the impact of doomscrolling & 15 sec videos on their brain capacities?
Yes, they do. Social media is, ironically, full of young Gen-Z rediscovering the joys of the analog world, saying they want to get off social media, looking into dumb phones. You don't see many "grown adults" talking about it. They're too far gone.
> OK, transferring this would also mean then that teens aware about the bad things with smoking/alkohol/etc.?
Yes. Smoking and alcohol are less popular with young people than they've ever been. The social pressure and perception of smoking or even drinking as cool and rebellious have mostly vanished.
> I have a different perspective and I clearly see that they need guidance, same with their folks in school.
It depends, no one's saying that the 'aware of societal ills' position is even in the majority, but it is a considerable group, especially with the older ones. I see polarization where one group trends towards full brainrot and the other trends towards full disillusionment. Again, this is not the majority opinion, but it seems at least common enough.
It’s the opposite reason , for them social media is everything, and if that’s ai , it’s not cool , influencers don’t like it , until new ai influencers will emerge and will break a stereotype. It’s a s simple as that
It's like paying for cable back in the day but you also get ads. The sheer audacity they think they can get away with because they consider themselves having a monopoly.
Kinda, but the back catalog has never been bigger or more valuable. There is good stuff from every era, and it only accumulates. What happens when the viewing mix is 10% new stuff, 90% classics?
I think LLMs are the single best things that were invented to make mathematics accessible.
I loved mathematics when I was young and wanted to be good at it, but I got burnt so many times by teachers who could not explain even if their life depended on it.
Asking an LLM and discovering how different theories belong together and what are genuinely open questions, along with different philosophical interpretations has been a wonderful gift.
I have long accepted that Mathematics is a language where you must go "all in" because for the most parts institutions are fundamentally unable to explain it in an intuitive way. There are people who "just get it" and are blind to the struggle of people who need a different approach in learning it. There's something about the field where a generational survivorship bias has created an environment where math is mostly taught to likeminded people, who then don't see why anybody could not see the difficulties learning it.
I know this is not true everywhere, but the only reason I could finish my studies was because there are some genuinely excellent online lectures on youtube, along with massive support from friends who have already been through the ordeal.
If I had had access to an LLM, I could have actually taught myself from scratch and be more playful in learning it. And no, I am not willing to learn lots of math "for fun", I can think of better "for fun" things that actually help my profession and cater to my actual interests and not just some academic ideal.
LLMs are decent at explaining up to undergrad mathematics but that is because they are parroting / plagiarizing the hundreds of human-written books that have been written for the express purpose of teaching undergrads. LLMs are actually fairly terrible at explaining higher mathematics; humans are much better.
They are definitely doing more than parroting. When learning mathematics, it's not uncommon to have some little misunderstanding that just isn't covered by a written explanation because it's "obvious" unless you happen to have misunderstood it that particular way. When that happens, you could look up the topic in 5 books on the subject and not make progress (never mind that you have to search through them to get to roughly the right point). LLMs are genuinely good at challenges like this - they make mistakes, but they can still identify and correct your misunderstanding with a bit of back and forth.
A good human on the subject will do better, and I'm not claiming the LLM has "understanding" in any philosophical sense. But it's more useful than something that just regurgitates material.
> it's not uncommon to have some little misunderstanding that just isn't covered by a written explanation because it's "obvious" unless you happen to have misunderstood it that particular way... LLMs are genuinely good at challenges like this
For undergrad math, sure, and again, I think it's often because on some random corner of the internet someone else had a very similar misunderstanding. On the other hand, when I ask for clarifications on niche topics that have few examples on the internet LLMs (even Opus 5) often confidently cite irrelevant papers / results or simply hallucinate.
I think you're desperate to think that LLMs cannot make any sort of deduction by themselves: they must have just remembered someone else doing it. But I've definitely had conversations where they've had insights that can't be explained by that. Yes, I've had plenty of hallucinations too, but it's worth it, for me at least, overall.
Having said that, I wouldn't attempt to learn a whole topic with an LLM, that would be frustrating.
They don't parrot if you know what to ask for. You can name for examples, name your own thoughts and observations and these things will often quote something related or the fact that a famous mathematician has also made this observation some point in time which then lead to the study of something else.
I am not going to study a whole book just so I can find the answer to a couple things I might never need. I like to focus on a few areas, learn everything I need to understand it, know if there are any dependencies and see what is there to discover and then move on.
I know many people get joy from learning knowledge that is not directly applicable and might never be applicable. And I know that the academic spirit would be to learn these things. But my time is seriously finite and I am not using math in my life in any fashion whatsoever other than occasional curiosity.
Sure. But it was a bitch to get access to a good maths textbook- either you forked out a lot of money, got a library loan (we had to renew ours every 7 days), etc. With an LLM there's good breadth of knowledge so if can quickly hop across topics rather than follow the progression proscribed by the author. There's also no element of judgement/ego etc etc.
99%. Humans break into three categories: originators, amplifiers, mimics. The 99% are mimics, they won't use LLMs for anything other than direct applications to existing life tasks.
See: what they did with personal computers and smartphones. They have access to Fable and Astra right now, and they're not interested what-so-ever despite what these systems can now do. Instead they'll promptly go vaporize $50k on a giant pile of metal garbage (autos) that will rapidly depreciate. They have no practical use for Fable as is.
For the same reason people didn't rush off to their local public library to teach themselves JavaScript to acquire a better life for the cost of renting library books. They can't easily go against their restraints, their biological potential. To do so is extraordinarily taxing.
Originators generate most of the extreme wealth, and extreme outcomes. Mimics can be exceptionally successful however, most doctors are mimics for example, they won't ever originate anything.
Amplifiers are the teachers, they - ideally - shuttle what works to the mimics for reproduction across society. The mimics are largely just trying to keep up with the Joneses. They go out of their way to not risk anything most of the time. They're ideally following pre-set paths to biological success. It's why mass, rapid de-industrialization for one example is such a wipeout, the mimics don't adapt very quickly, they followed the path they were told would work and then they feel betrayed, they become like abandoned programs and don't know what to do next.
As a system you don't want too much of your population in the originator category: it's very expensive and highly prone to spectacular failure. You want the extreme majority of your biological entities following successful paths that have already been proven to work.
Humans aren't special, we're animals. Apply the patterns accordingly.
You are not wrong, but I was just saying that the possibility is there. And especially for people who are despairing over bad math education I see this as a game changer. Seeing equations used to make me angry and powerless for over a decade because I felt absolutely hopeless during my studies.
If there is no legal guarantee that human creativity can pay off we are starving art and humanity from its inception. If ordinary people cannot participate in the act of creation, you get exactly what hollywood has become.
Sorry, but this reads like a mouthpiece exactly from those companies that benefit the most from having no copyright and I doubt your have thought this actually through.
Lack of way to capture value from intellectual labor is considered a market failure that leads to suboptimal market results for consumers, but with AI that argument becomes very weak.
Sorry but the point isn't to create artificial scarcity just so intellectual labor is well off, that's a negative side for the consumer that was considered necessary tradeoff. Market economy should be about providing the most value to the consumer.
Disclaimer - I was never a fan of IP laws despite them working in my favor, with AI I can see them finally being abolished.
We could imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today – a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit. A Disneyland with no children.
I recall a popular claim several years ago that we all lived in a hologram (whatever happened to that?).
I bet this has nothing to do with string theorists trying to make their 2D models apply to actual physical observations…
reply