If you parents are your abusers, then their 'real world' will be unyieldingly bad no matter what social controls the internet employs.
You have said that 'feeling safe' is 'unhealthy' because it's not 'real'. But constantly feeling and being unsafe, even if it is warranted by circumstance, is worse in every way.
We, as a society, do not support the agency to children to escape horrific circumstances. These online communities are a stop-gap against this active failure.
Ideally, they wouldn't need to escape at all, but that's not the conversation we're having.
No, I have the feeling that “feeling safe” is “unhealthy” because these online communities children get access to are full of predators who wish them harm.
The online communities in question do more damage than good. They encourage isolation and spread social contagion.
We should do more as a society, absolutely! But these places are not “stop gaps” because they’re NOT helping.
But making children (and adults, because how else can you tell without checking) give their biometrics to companies (and by extension the highest bidder (palantir, paramilitaries, and police)) that helped create and then exacerbated this crisis is like asking the drug dealer association to help folks quit by giving them new exotic chemicals heretofore undiscovered.
You 'win' the war on pollution by making companies actually pay for their externalities, repeat offenders cease to exist, their assets seized, and their executives are jailed, rather than just 'paying fines' for the thousand of corpses they leave in their wake.
Likewise, if social media companies produce informational or social 'pollution' so defined, we can do likewise and insist they defray the cost of the damage. If they are no longer profitable when the cost is not paid by society, then they'll have to learn to innovate again.
Technologists are not going to solve this with a startup, it requires organized political and social movements, then the legislation and re-allocation of public funds for the public's good.
Quoting from elsewhere in this thread: "I have made big inroads solving my old-age isolation with AI. Personally, I prefer Claude."
The people who most exacerbated this epidemic were forged here in this culture and were rewarded with trillions in investment to step between every social interaction, to monetize our connections, to maximize our 'engagement' and capitalize on the damage they caused. They will not stop until there are laws and enforcement mechanisms that address these perverse incentives.
Building American cities around the whims of car manufacturers is, to my mind, as bad as any social media. We've foreclosed casual connection in so many ways, and social media stepped into that gap and wrenched as hard as it could. Lower real wage growth also matters, free time and funds are required for a full social calendar.
It's multifaceted, but none of these issues can be solved without real political power that counters the whims of capital, venture or otherwise.
> Building American cities around the whims of car manufacturers is, to my mind, as bad as any social media.
I think your framing of history is wrong. Trains, and later cars were extraordinarily convenient compared to former methods of travel. We adapted infrastructure to maximize this convenience, not to profit companies. In fact, it's the other way around: companies profited off the demand for convenience they provided.
The same could be said for social media. People wanted small, low-risk interactions with other people over the internet. Companies capitalized on this, and realized that increasing dopamine is the only way to increase capital.
> it requires organized political and social movements, then the legislation and re-allocation of public funds for the public's good
I would reverse the first two, or maybe even remove the "political movement" part. Why is it necessary? It always starts with (a) one person taking concrete action on some principle, then (b) one small group of people joining that person on principle, then (c) this turning into a movement on principle and snowballing momentum until the change is exponentially impactful on society. Later, when the public agrees it's a good thing, they may choose to publicly fund it. Only a-c are necessary for it to make a meaningful impact.
Ridiculous counterfactual. The LLM started failing 100% of the time 60! orders of magnitude sooner than the point at which we have checked literally every number.
This is not even to mention the fact that asking a GPU to think about the problem will always be less efficient than just asking that GPU to directly compute the result for closed algorithms like this.
Is it your assertion that an 'infinite' percentage! of the businesses will use AI on a long enough time scale?
If you need everything to be math, at least have the courtesy to use the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function and not unbounded logarithmic curves when referring to on our very finite world.
Genuinely sociopathic to happily admit that you used the good faith and labour of others for self-aggrandizement. Doubly so when you lack the social grace and understanding to comprehend how bad you come off in every exchange.
Smiles, exclamations, and faux-interest won't prevent people from noticing you are utterly inconsiderate and self-obsessed. Though they may be too polite to say it to your face.
Hello there (new-account){name}{number}! When did you discover that {you, a real person} believed that the only way to protect the {women!} and {children!} was this new agency founded under Bush in the wake of 9/11?
Did you know that all {women!} (over 12 million every year) are actually most endangered by their intimate partners, who are predominately within their same race and class?
Do you think this is more or less concerning than this inflammatory anecdata you've created an account to provide? Do you think that domestic violence prevention (less than 1 billion) should be more or less well-funded than ICE (170 billion)?
> (Under the Trump admin): Teams responsible for violence prevention have been decimated, and a reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services has eliminated divisions wholesale.
You are making an ethical judgment when you say, in essence, that 'it is wrong for businesses (and non-profits) to attempt to act in an ethical manner, aligned with their mission statement'.
Making an ethical argument about the purposelessness and futility of ethics is... interesting to say the least. Please, consider stopping the internet today and instead spend time with a book on ethics that you think agrees with you sensibilities, and then look at this situation again.
Do you see a difference between 'signaling virtue' and 'having virtue and living in accordance with those virtues'?
People that use the former like a slur seem to need to believe that the latter cannot be true.
I wouldn't want to live in a world like that personally, assuming nefarious intention behind every good act (people in positions of highest power excepted). It seems exhausting.
Andrew Kelley means what he says and says what he means (in an on-the-spectrum way). It makes him off-putting and charming in equal measure, depending on the issue. But you shouldn't assume that this is a mere 'signal', it is what he believes.
Speaking for myself, I do disassociate myself from unethical products and people. It's not always as soon as I'd like, Amazon being a good example. I've never regretted doing so.
It's not even worth bragging about, who would even care? I just despise lying, and if I want to believe that I behave ethically without lying to myself, this is the natural consequence.
The body yearns for its prior homeostasis. This is true when you lose weight with a strict diet. It's true when you lose it using a medication.
The struggle doesn't stop when you stop losing. My personal experience was that it takes about 2 years for the new 'normal' to kick in. (I lost 60lbs when I was in my early 20s and kept it off until today. The 'after' period was as taxing as the 'losing' period, but in a different way)
At that point only can you 'relax' a bit around your body's cravings for calories.
It's not the worst thing in the world to be on a medication for a couple years rather than a few months, but long-term study of this class of drugs is certainly warranted and necessary.
You scream with your brand new account that only talks in conspiratorial tones about how climate change isn't dangerous.
reply