It is labor. It's code. The amount of labor required to do an installation to code in the US is easily 50% more, if not more than that. Australia also has standardized streamlined racking that works on much higher percentage of roofs, the US has a lot more custom construction.
Australia's minimum wage is significantly higher than in the US. An adult working as a burger flipper at McDonalds can expect a minimum of $27.81 / hour.
You gotta admit the car looks nice compared to the Cybertruck, and the technology is indeed impressive. I think it's an organic reaction, unless they're defending Elon personally.
This is another expensive marketing gimmick nevertheless, and I'm struggling to see the value of it, especially when Tesla is not doing that well.
I still think mathematicians are going to be as important as ever. The LLMs are only finding what was technically possible given our current breadth of knowledge after brute force solving problems. Eventually it will run out of things that it can do with its training and the only way to get it to do more will be training it on new human found knowledge.
Finding that new knowledge may be exponentially more difficult, but it will be much more valuable.
> Eventually it will run out of things that it can do with its training and the only way to get it to do more will be training it on new human found knowledge.
AIs cannot invent things like cubism, surrealism or hip-hop.
Or maybe it can; the early image generators famously did output horrific images sometimes because of their limitations, but these outputs qualify nonetheless creations.
Now the interesting thing is that it is humans who evaluate them as horrific, worthless or interesting.
Certainly AIs could pretend they have that sort of opinions and judgement, but hopefully humans will remain more interested in the opinions of other humans.
> Certainly AIs could pretend they have that sort of opinions and judgement, but hopefully humans will remain more interested in the opinions of other humans.
Online, how would they even know? Offline -- either we give up on the internet, or the offline discussion will be heavily influenced by what AI said online.
Amusingly, LLMs are good at detecting patterns because they are modelled after the human brain, which is very good at detecting patterns (this e.g. is annoying when you are a game developer who wants to reuse assets). People are still able to tell if the source of an artwork (or text) because LLMs tend to output "patterned" text (like the famous "load bearing"). That being said, the false positive/negative rate of humans for this task has yet to be measured.
I don't see how its output possibilities could be infinite given a finite set of data. Taken to the extreme if you give an LLM only a single piece of information then that is going to be the only thing it can produce. Given it two pieces of information and maybe it can produce every combination of those two things. Given all of the worlds knowledge I'm sure its possible outputs are incomprehensibly large, but still not infinite. Then having its outputs match a set of really specific instructions is going to be a small subset of that.
How is this different from human brains being made up of a finite number of neurons in a finite number of configurations? I know very little about LLMs and nothing about neurology and maybe you can explain to me why one is so much more powerful than the other.
As I understand it, the advantages of AI have not just been speed of processing.
Humans have cognitive limits. Humans hold a specific slice of all knowledge at a time and necessarily limits what correlations can be leveraged. This is similar to "context windows" in modern AI. Human minds are wildly variable in efficiency. AI is has constant inefficiency, largely controlled by the speed of light, physical RAM, and processing power, with superior (no cost) "thought" context switching. The AI also has superior accuracy without the need for "concentration" because the AI is processing on a Turing machine with the limited operations that it's superior at in terms of time and energy - eg find an element in a list of 1 million elements.
> a finite number of neurons in a finite number of configurations
Neurons and synapses change, especially synapses (the connections between neurons). Some neurons have a few connections to other neurons. Others have hundreds of thousands of connections to other neurons. These grow and change. "Estimates are between 100 trillion and 1,000 trillion neural connections" Is it finite? Depends on your definition of finite. If anything countable is finite, then it is finite but the number may be practically uncountable. Is it fixed? No.
That's 100G to 1T. Neurons are more complicated than weights, so add a x1000 somewhere, but they have more redundancy because they are noisy, unrelilable and may even die, so divide by some small number.
Sure, a given LLM can only produce so much (though it might be a lot), and then you'll need fresh inputs. But you contend that those have to be human, while I am arguing that they could be
- random,
- from the environment,
- from other AIs.
That increases the space considerably.
In particular, note that your argument also applies to humans: A human, being finite, can only produce finitely many things. But you add other humans, the environment, and pure chance to the mix, and it'll be pretty infinite for all practical purposes.
I would be curious to see the end result of letting it endlessly update its inputs from its own outputs. I was under the impression that eventually this would cause delusions and if you let it do this long enough and it is solving problems that no humans can verify as correct that it isn't useful.
Maybe that is the limits of my imagination, but it seems unwise to take humans completely out of the loop. Having mathematicians around that can understand what it is doing so that we can utilize that knowledge in a way that we can have some confidence in seems important.
1. LLMs aren't run deterministically - they use a bit of noise to improve the output. So even with the exact same input you're going to get a whole distribution of outputs.
2. Feedback from the environment. LLMs (and humans!) work best when they can test ideas. That's why coding agents work so well. If you ask an agent 1000 times to just think of a compression algorithm, it'll probably spit out very samey answers just like a human would. If you give it a test corpus and let it try out different things it will absolutely be able to come up with novel ideas.
Typical thought experiment - go back to the early years of humanity, even before we've created language itself. Communication is basic grunts and other such things, cutting edge knowledge is 'poke him with the pointy end'. Compile all of this knowledge into the training set for an LLM, let it run with infinite processing power and infinite time. It'll just continually remix the knowledge of that snapshot of time. You're certainly not getting to the Moon, discovering the secrets of the atom, or even discovering mathematics.
It sounds increasingly dumb to bring this up given how advanced models have become, but it remains true - they are still fundamentally token prediction algorithms. And that imposes hard constraints on their potential. These constraints are relatively academic in our current world because there's just so absurdly much information and no human can hold more than a negligible amount in his mind at once. So they'll certainly be able to connect many 'obvious' dots that we don't see simply for a lack of carrying capacity, but they're not going to discover concepts that do not clearly follow from the comprehensive knowledge of an era.
It seems far more likely to me that current LLMs have learned generic reasoning capabilities which will allow them to solve effectively infinite problems, rather than whatever vague limit on capabilities you seem to think there are.
Yeah, I think that's a great essay and it really helped clarify some of my own ideas.
At the same time, I think it's pretty amazing how this is the fundamental question of AI's trajectory, yet people on both sides seem so sure of their viewpoint with little actual evidence or data to back it up.
That is, it's possible that LLM-based approaches will be forever limited to this "convex hull" of current training data, and thus humans will always have a role to play (and will retain primacy when it comes to overall intelligence), because it appears that humans are not limited to this convex hull based on previous discoveries (e.g. I think basically every scientist would argue Einstein's general relativity was outside the convex hull that existed at that time).
Yet, if LLM-based approaches are eventually able to surpass humans on this "novel discovery" axis, then we as a species are basically done for when it comes to intellectual primacy - and then it becomes a very strange and scary world. And many AI researchers at the top companies clearly believe current approaches will scale and eventually (pretty soon I'll add) lead us to RSI.
I have no idea which side is right, and I'll admit I really hope LLMs eventually hit a wall. But again, I just am surprised that many seem to be putting forth their beliefs, but I would love to know if there is any good evidence one way or the other (or better yet, a more concrete and verifiable definition of the "convex hull" so that researchers could provide some falsifiable examples).
Came here to say this. What AI is doing with math is essentially fuzzing, but looking for valid inputs that solve a problem and the inputs are mathematical abstractions. It's a cool approach, but AI doesn't understand what's going on, and without understanding it won't be able to create the next generation of mathematical abstractions needed for the next generation of proofs.
No, it's not. It's a bullshit marketing term by a narcissist who wants to call everything he has a hand in "super" or "great".
The field had already settled on "artificial intelligence" (AI), "artificial general intelligence" (AGI), and "artificial super intelligence" (ASI), and while there are definite gray areas in the definitions, it was widely agreed that AI referred to the field as a whole, AGI was intelligence that was "general" in the sense that it was as good as humans in all domains, and ASI was intelligence that surpasses the best human experts.
Trump wants "SI" to replace all uses of "AI", which is simply stupid bullshit, especially given that current AI includes many levels of intelligence, most of which are far, far from "super".
aren't mathematicians needed to create the problems? Everything solved so far is a question posed by a human. Which is probably why cracking diseases is more difficult (apart from man made viruses :/)
You would think any investor would prefer to be informed that the numbers don't match expectations even if they then decide to go ahead anyway. People like to gamble sometimes even though the likelihood of losing money is very high.
Threatening people is unwarranted, but of course people are allowed to choose where they buy coffee for whatever reasons they see fit. If the market decides that stores with AI posters aren't the place to be then the business has to adapt.
Seems to me it's an indicator that the owner cares more about making and serving food or drink than they do about advertising it. I'd feel differently if some big corporate chain were doing this, but if it's a little "mom & pop"/"hole in the wall" type place, cheap advertising is a neutral-to-positive signal.
> Seems to me it's an indicator that the owner cares more about making and serving food or drink than they do about advertising it.
Why? When you see a derelict pizzeria, you don't think "they must be devoting all their energy to making good pizzas!". Similarly, that a coffee shop owner uses AI for branding is a big signifier of their laziness or lack of attention to detail.
If I'm lining up to order from a shabby old school bus with a menu in the window written in sharpie on a piece of cardboard, I know I'm a couple minutes away from tucking into some banging tacos.
Starbucks has an amazingly polished corporate image and at least where I'm from the locales have great wall art done by local artists presented alongside tasteful decor and a minimalistic but well cared for choice of furniture that I can't honestly give it no less than a 9/10 presentation.
The coffee still tastes like a Victorian chimney sweeper's piss.
I’m not GP but this hits for me so I’ll reply in good faith
I don’t actually care about the menu or sign. It’s a coffee drink and I’ve had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of them. I know what I like and if it’s just stencil letters pinned on a cork board I don’t care. I just want to grab a coffee and go.
A shop with no pictures, just words? Sends a message that their coffee is probably good enough to speak for itself. Fine.
A shop with hand drawn lettering, ornate art? The coffee is probably made by people who care about their craft in some fashion. At least the person making my coffee probably enjoys their job a little. Fine.
Fully AI menu with gen Ai modeled drink pictures? The drink isn’t going to look like that. There is obviously no effort made here. They spent time to create a generic menu my kids could have put together. Worst of the lot, to be honest.
It was just a replacement for those temporary chalkboard menus, the person wo did that previously left. Perhaps she has bad taste but that doesn't mean she was slacking off. Did they spend a lot of time on the chalkboard menus previously?
This is what people are actually mad about when businesses use AI art. You claim to live in an artistic community, great, ask your staff if they have any friends who draw who want to come by and make a quick $100. You spent more money on a worse result that alienates your community.
My coffee shop barely has a menu. None of the current roasts are listed anywhere, you have to ask and they change daily. No signage. It’s consistently the best coffee I’ve had. Not fussy but very very good.
They do slack off on cleaning the chairs and the decor, that’s for sure. The coffee though is phenomenal.
How would a coffee shop spend an hour making their coffee better
Like you own a coffee shop and you’ve freed up one hour in the 12 weeks before you have to make a new sign, what do you do in that hour that makes the coffee better?
Absolutely not. My local kebab shop 100% uses AI for their menus and signage. It’s delicious. He does not have time or the desire to worry about the provenance of the menus.
It’s a pretty good indicator the owner bought a ChatGPT or Canva subscription, that’s about it.
The article literally mentions that they have baristas, one of whom was making the old menu because they were "aesthetically inclined." This can also be confirmed by looking at the employment section of their website.
The owner was not personally either making or serving the coffee.
Every single small coffee shop owner I know has employees. They work alongside them and do every job in the shop along with them. They operate in shifts, sometimes the owner is there for both open and close.
What does hiring a barista have to do with not making coffee yourself?
Gonna go with the "hilariously out of touch" comment. These places rarely print money to the point an owner can be an absentee manager type.
You're pretending not to comprehend the simple concept of a barista.
I can see you're not interested in a good faith conversation here. I'm not going to waste any more of my time. Feel free to keep on berating me if it makes you feel better.
The most fitting description of an owner of a small coffee shop is "barista". Most barista's I know also handle far more than just making coffee and serving customers. They do everything short of being personally financially responsible for the business itself.
It's quite clear that if anyone was operating in bad faith here, it's not the commenters challenging your position. Small business ownership is almost always simply a riskier version of having the job you're also hiring for with a very small chance of upside. Usually at lower pay.
In this particular case the owner was simply doing a task other barista's like herself were doing as part of the regular job of a barista.
> The owner was not personally either making or serving the coffee.
This is the part I do not follow. Of course she is? What small coffee shop owner do you know does not personally make or serve the coffee on a regular basis? The only way not to take your original post in bad faith is to not understand your meaning.
the only "threat" mentioned in the article is that someone said that if she didn't take the sign down they would post about it in a local artist community. Threatening people with violence is always unwarranted, but trying to portray talking with other people about what someone is doing as a "threat" is disingenuous.
I think that issuing an ultimatum where if the person does not do what you want, that you will be sharing your concerns with likeminded people online, with the underlying implication being that the business owner will end up experiencing some kind of negative outcome from that, is absolutely a threat.
Exactly. Pure cancel culture. Just be humble to understand the world might not agree with your views and let it be. Less "this can't exist" and more of "this is not for me".
It's not cancel culture to bad-mouth a business and refuse them your patronage.
People are vocal about what they feel passionate about, and a world where they weren't or couldn't sounds hellish to me. How would society ever progress? We'd still have "whites only" restaurants in that world.
Not saying that justifies all anger targeted at business owners, but a blanket "criticism bad" stance is a bit silly. You have to make an actual argument as to why you think the anti-AI crowd is misguided in this case.
Cancel culture or not, people are allowed to tell other people they know that something is happening, and those people can decide for themselves to patronize the business or not. To call it a threat is really exaggerating.
The headline makes it sound like people are phoning in bomb threats and violence, which doesn't seem to be happening at all.
Honestly, I think the business owner should have ignored these weak "threats" altogether. It doesn't have anything to do with coffee and it's unlikely they'll get any business because they use AI, so it can only hurt them.
I get you think the word is too heavy but remember: it's a small business and bad press is a serious thing. It could be enough to shut down the place. Just see how afraid local shop owners are of Yelp. You get review bombed there and you have a serious problem. You don't know if these artists won't just unload their (just) frustration at AI on the business exactly like that. By judging the tone "change or I'll tell the artists", it's very likely the person would try to incite them instead of just "telling" them.
Okay, but I (and I suspect a lot of people) really don't care if somebody is threatened in that way. If the business person doesn't want other people to know what they're doing then maybe they shouldn't do it. It's not worthy of a news article, IMO.
If somebody threatens them with violence (which is what "threat" is usually implying) then that's a different thing entirely.
If I tell someone that I am going to take a coordinated effort to undermine their business and get customers to stop shopping there, potentially resulting in the demise of the business, the loss of their livelihood and ability to provide for themselves or their family, I cannot think of any reasonable person who would not categorize that as a threat. A threat by no means is limited to violence only.
I am really disturbed by language minimizes concrete actions taken to cause harm.
"I am not hurting your business I am just talking to my friends!"
Sorry, but the business owner has to own their actions. If they have a large customer base of artists who will feel betrayed by their using AI, then it was a mistake to use it.
It's her right to use AI, but the customers also have the right to say they won't patronize businesses who use AI, and are free to tell people they know that the business is using it.
If the shop's oat milk was really cow's milk, would it be "threatening their business" to tell other customers that?
If the "business owner needs to own their actions", shouldn't the people who are seeking to take a coordinated effort to harm that business also "own their actions" and be able to say plainly what they are doing instead of misrepresenting it via "Stop being crazy, I'm not making threats, I'm just talking to my friends" gaslighting nonsense?
> If the shop's oat milk was really cow's milk, would it be "threatening their business" to tell other customers that?
To entertain this analogy, if a shop is misrepresenting their ingredients then it can make sense to spread the word, particularly if the shop owner refuses to rectify the issue, because there are health implications which represent a legitimate material harm to their customer base and the safety issue takes priority over the shop owner's bottom line.
An AI menu, assuming it offers a reasonable representation of what the shop offers, has no safety issue.
AI stealing their jobs isn't a "legitimate material harm"?
It doesn't matter anyway, because "using AI" doesn't make somebody a protected class. If people don't want to patronize businesses that use AI, there's nothing wrong with that.
> AI stealing their jobs isn't a "legitimate material harm"?
No, if you have to make several indirect causal leaps, to get from "shop owner uses ChatGPT instead of MS Word to generate a menu" to "somewhere a graphic designer loses their employment" it is not legitimate. And if that is how you interpret the world, virtually any harmful or even violent action can be rationalized in the name of stopping some probabilistic harm.
Sticking with your cow's milk analogy, serving the wrong milk to the wrong customer with a dairy allergy can cause immediate harm to their health. Generating an AI menu cannot be reasonably interpreted as causing direct harm to anyone.
> If people don't want to patronize businesses that use AI, there's nothing wrong with that.
I completely agree. But making a personal choice to not visit a business and undertaking a coordinated effort to organize a boycott against a business is in a different category altogether.
Did you not read the article? She was unaware of the controversy and had just had a baby - which tends to be quite a stressful and time consuming thing.
The milk comparison is specious and irrelevant, because consumers are there for the product. Coffee shops sell coffee, not jpegs.
But aside from that - bullying and threatening a working mother with a newborn is not the moral high ground you seem to believe it is.
She's not a witch, and your assumed right to burn her is not a good look.
"It would be a pity if I were to tarnish jlarocco's reputation within my network. I even have his GitHub from his profile. I'll just talk shit about him to all the CTOs on the block and ensure he doesn't get a job again..."
See how that works? That's why you should care. The so-called influencer-orienter culture has become a plague after social media. And these F&B businesses are the ones hit hardest - remember all those movies in the 90s and 00s about how some up and coming entrepreneur or chef had to win the approval of some hoity-toity food journalist?
Also, rest assured, I'm not serious about badmouthing you or anyone here for that matter - just trying to illustrate a point.
In that analogy, you SHOULD assume the person is an influencer.
In the case of this shop, we're talking about local retail. If you are a retail small business owner you have to assume that any customer can be an "influencer" and cause significant harm if they seek to trash your business online.
As a rule, small business owners (as well as HN's population of temporarily embarrassed tech workers) treats being asked to not take as much profit as possible like being stabbed with a knife
Nobody threatened the business owner. Somebody offered the business a chance to change up the ad (and help doing so) before it got shared, and the owner figured it would be better to go viral with the slop ad. Now there’s an article in Business Insider painting the business as the victim of mean customers that assaulted it by not liking the slop poster, so it looks like it all worked out for them.
I think a lot of people that can "see" in their mind are over-estimating their ability and a lot of people who can't are under-estimated their ability.
It's probably a spectrum like a lot of things are, except in this case it is exceptionally hard to to know where you fall on it. The gap may not be as wide as it sounds. Almost everyone is still a functioning thinking human afterall. If the gap were so wide it seems like there would be more obvious giveaways in human behavior.
> If the gap were so wide it seems like there would be more obvious giveaways in human behavior.
There was a couple who streamed on youtube who reacted to meme compilations, and years ago one of the things they reacted to referenced a similar topic. During that stream everyone learned the woman has no inner voice (including herself, she'd never even thought about it before and had no idea an inner voice was a thing).
While he was asking her what it was like, he brought up the voiceovers in tv and movies that were supposed to represent a character's thoughts. She had no idea that's what it was supposed to be, and always just thought it was some nebulous narrator describing what was going on.
I think any such signals would be a similar "wrong mental model" situation where you can usually only tell by poking at it with very specific questions or actions.
I spent an enormous percentage of my life very frustrated with other people because they couldn't just see the answer to things.
For example, I can put an engine into a car, and still tell you where every part of that engine is located relative to every other part, without being able to see it, including the internals, and describe, for example, over the phone how to troubleshoot it without being able to see it at all in person - just a mental model. And, for reference, I have almost no fundamental knowledge or experience with engines besides taking one or two apart - and it would not extend to other engines. It's been at least 20 years and I could still do it verbatim.
I'm way out on the end of that bell curve, but I'm not unique. I've worked with people who found that ability completely baffling, and would have to break out diagrams and blueprints to do that.
The gap is a lot wider than you think it is, it's not subtle, and this is known as the typical mind fallacy.
Edit: And funnily enough, further down there's a comment about Feynman realizing that his friend counts visually and he counts verbally - and I'm on the verbal side on that one, unless it gets complicated, and then I end up tallying mentally - but I have to count them verbally at the end.
But there are obvious giveaways. Among your friends and colleagues there are people who can’t sing and people with perfect pitch perception despite no training, ones that can barely coherently speak but can write beautiful prose and vice versa, some can stare at code for 12h straight while others find the sheer idea of it horrifying. There’s people who believe in ghosts or even believe they’ve seen ghosts while others are grounded and rational. People with photographic memory and people who cannot recall what they were doing 5 minutes ago (me). The list of distinctions could keep going forever. Everyone’s good at something and shit at something because everyone’s mind is different. It’s silly how most people completely underestimate the diversity of human internal experience - maybe this type of close-mindedness is part of it too.
I don't see how people being different from one another (uncontroversial, obvious basic fact) means that people have fundamentally different phenomenal experiences. You're conflating ability with experience when they are not the same thing.
Do you know the anecdote about Feynman and John Tukey doing a mental counting task and the one being able to talk while he's doing it and the other not, and then the reveal is they are using a completely different mental representation:
worth a read, to me it kinda indicates that different abilities can be enabled by differences in how to mentally represent something. but yeah its debatable how much of difference in ability comes from/with a difference in experience but I my gut feeling is a lot more than you'd think. feels really hard to prove it as we only know what it's like to be us.
But abilities (and inabilities) are intrinsically tied to phenomenal experiences. And you can even shape your experience by learning. It feels different to look at code, speak a language, play an instrument or do a kickflip when you’re an expert (or exceptionally (un-)talented). Some people are biologically or developmentally predisposed to different abilities, and if you talk to them enough, you’ll learn that the way they experience these abilities is different from yours. I am conflating it because this is conflated in reality. This should be obvious in hindsight - your brain doesn’t have separate ability and qualia compartments, you know.
When I was a kid, I could visualize things so vividly, I could almost overlay the visual signal onto my real visual field.
The visual cortex signal was "loud" enough that I could trick the propioceptive parts of my brain.
E.g. I could visualize falling so vividly that I would actually feel the stomach drop sensation.
As I get older, I still have a very visual mind, but not nearly what I used to have as a kid. It also feels more "far away" from my actual visual field.
Though some days if I'm stressed, I don't seem to have as much control/access to the visual side of things.
So I kinda get where aphantashisa people come from.
I have aphantasia, figured out after a vivid dream which I’ve told my wife about so happily. She was not really amused. She sees these things ALL THE TIME. Like whenever she wants, or from time to time even when she doesn’t want to. She saw his father on the street one day. Two months after he had died.
We have a hard time communicating about things. She sometimes can’t express herself at all, she sees things she thinks I should be able to see. I have very good ability to remember schemata, maps. I move really quickly in pages and pages of text. I can summarize the pages and pages of llm output in less time than it is generated. She can easily put 8 grammatical mistakes in a 5 word sentence. We can communicate easily when i write the code quickly and she can checks the visual output in the browser, this is really fluid.
I imagine it's tougher to do. My friend who has become a well known tattoo artist has exceptional visual recall of minute details. I have to believe it contributed to his ability(tho he grinded hard, used to borrow anatomy textbooks to learn from)
Not to say someone with poor visual recall can't make great art, it just may be tougher to make something closely representative from memory.
I'm not sure if people overestimate it either, some people just have strong memory and powerful mind's eye. My memory is probably from early trauma and represents the extreme other end. If anything it can be a detriment sometimes, I'm not sure a super powerful ability to picture stuff really impacts day to day living for the average human in history. There's no reason for it to disappear evolutionary if it's not a big disadvantage.
As examples I don't listen to music that frequently, I just listen in my head. I can hear songs pretty much completely in my imagination. I'll forget lyrics consciously but letting it play and zoning out the proper music and words appear at the right time. I can also watch days of kindergarten(or any grade) like it's video.
If people are trying to do that and can't tell a single visual detail from a memory or hum a passage from a tune I don't think it's a communication problem, there's just a real difference in experience. To be clear from my personal experience not being able forget stuff or not picture stuff you dont want to sucks. And I have some pretty bad tunes upstairs.
I feel you, in the same boat, though I can't actually isolate any trauma or anything like that, reliving unpleasant experiences verbatim is no fun. And the early 2000s was not a fun time with all the pop earworms running around.
It's funny, I've never met anyone but my family who can do this like I can, so cheers! I always say I don't have a perfect memory, but I don't know anyone I can test myself against except my mother, who can "relive a trail ride she took 45 years ago down to the plants and opening and closing the gates". Having to remind people about significant shared life events is a real downer.
5 years old is crazy, but by the time they are 15-16 it becomes difficult to restrict them from things their peers all do. There needs to be a wider push from all parents or more of a consensus from society that these platforms are dangerous.
You're not going to achieve coordinated, collective action by placing the burden of acting on the individual. It never works.
If collective action has to happen to solve some problem, it needs to either 1. be so strongly incentivized such that it's the only sensible thing for individuals to do, or 2. be mandated top-down and enforced.
You can't just shout "My solution relies on everyone independently doing X!" It never works.
I agree that probably won't happen that way. There also won't be much in the way of regulation until society slowly realizes the dangers.
I think we are currently in the process of finding out now that there have been people on social media from birth and are now adult members of society.
Yes, the platforms need to be regulated more for minors.
But also, prohibition has never been a very effective method with teens.
Just look at how college kids drink when they get to college. The sudden removal of parental restriction has a lot to do with that if you ask me.
I think this is better approached with broad education, and stronger regulations on the platforms themselves.
Part of the problem is that many parents aren’t educated themselves about what is good and bad for their kids. Examples include things like nutrition, screen time, even simple stuff like when to wean from bottles and keeping suffocation risks out of cribs.
> Part of the problem is that many parents aren’t educated themselves about what is good and bad for their kids. Examples include things like nutrition, screen time, even simple stuff like when to wean from bottles and keeping suffocation risks out of cribs.
I would argue that more is being asked now of parents than in previous decades at least. You’re asking every parent to fight multi-billion dollar international addiction platforms on top of working, parenting, etc.
I totally agree with you, and that’s where platform regulation and privacy regulation has been failing parents.
Most people really can’t fathom the amount of data that tech platforms are slurping up, and they can’t fathom the sophistication of the data science that goes on involving their content feeds and data and metadata collection/targeting.
Drinking is down for young adults and teens. My pet theory is that Covid broke the chain of party and drinking culture being passed down. (This is entirely speculative, and based on a single chart I saw.)
The relevance to your point being that removal of parental restrictions don't seem to be doing that anymore.
Education is definitely a good idea, but do note any plan that depends on education gives up the next 5-10 years before results are seen. Works great for societies and countries that think that far ahead.
America in particular has an extra challenge, since Big Tech is based here, and threats to revenue streams will be met with immense opposition.
It used to be close to 0 (wasn't a super festival goer though) for me, so anything will feel like way more ppl using n2o.
But you're comparing 30-60s dissosiative high that gets fully metabolized in seconds to fucking alcohol - 30 days of poisonous metabolites and 50% of all killed and killers being high on that. And there's MUCH more to mention.
Even weed is not as bad as alcohol, though due to symptoms being somewhat harder to spot, the risk of functioning addiction is way higher. And it often ends up as the substance ADHD spektrum folks use for self medication (self administered action/substance aimed at equivaling naturally out of homeostasis neurotransmitter balance in brain). OTOH, two generations ago ppl used alcohol for that instead.
I see them all the time on the side of the road from people tossing them out of their cars. Massive tanks too like bigger than a 2 liter of coke with all sorts of flavors, even with a hand strap.
Yeah, okay, I made the same mistake as Sony. I wrote "buy", but what I meant was "spending money" in a general sense (regardless if it's buying ownership or paying a license fee). Second hand customers simply can't afford (or willing to pay) the price of a new copy. Trying to force these people to the Sony shop is a really bad move and won't work.
Otherwise you're right, it's absurd that license fee is the same as the price of an owned copy.
I inherently disagree with the ad model of business. Intentionally worsening a product with ads to convince people to pay to remove them is just rewarding them for enshitification.
So on that front I'd prefer YouTube go out of business so that something like Nebula can take its place. Or the only videos left at\re the ones doing it as a hobby and not as a job.
reply