How exactly would you use technology to raise that limit?
From my experience, direct 1:1 attention is the single most important thing for children. I would (and am) actively paying for childcare not to use technology to increase that attention.
From my experience, direct 1:1 attention is the single most important thing for children. I would (and am) actively paying for childcare not to use technology to increase that attention.
I say "socializing" because I want to distinguish it from either imparting academic knowledge or providing for material needs/safety. I think those three categories are very different in terms of how easily--or wisely--they might be handled by automation.
For example, a robot that changes diapers and stops your child from falling over cliffs: Awesome. An endlessly patient software tutor for teaching algebra: Cool. An AI that serves as virtual aunt/uncle/best-friend? Uh oh.
Simply adding distractions like tablets and laptops is already doing plenty of damage.
The "distractions" are harmful because suddenly kids are getting their world views and expectations from too-ficticious characters or "influencers" with perverse incentives.
It's good that you have the option and disposable income to pay a premium for a private nanny or however else you're maximizing that direct 1:1 attention, instead of an ordinary daycare. For the rest of us, we mostly need someone to watch the kids while we're at work, and paying that much would probably make it cheaper overall to just watch them ourselves.
Transcript: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-06/transcrip...
Yeah, very dystopian... Bonus if the AR overlay allows eye contact, we don't want the kids staring into the soulless face of an Apple Vision Pro ;)