Tesla, Falcon 9, Starlink, Mechazilla, SolarCity, Colossus, Neuralink, Starship, Optimus...
1,143 karma · joined July 27, 2023
I have no idea how this wasn't the end of Anthropic's positive public perception.
Congratulations, everyone, at being alive at the best point in human history so far!
Bad argument, bad outcomes. These are exactly the "bad parents" I was referring to in my original comment. The government HAS no responsibility in raising your child, but they would LOVE to change that. It's absolutely imperative for the human race that that does not happen.
Citizens that want these laws are unthinking drones who don't want to raise their children, and instead want legislators to do it for them.
Politicians that want these laws are the people who, ideally, want to track your every move online for a multitude of reasons, not least of which are censoring speech and controlling narratives.
The future of your family and your legacy is up to you, not the government. We don't need age verification to restrict the social darwinism of raising children.
> Specifying an objective to the model is not enough. Directing how the work is constructed is what counts.
No, that’s preposterous. You are not responsible for the actions of others simply because your actions put them in a place to perform said actions. That seems like a very stressful way to go through life.
This is why we elect competent (hopefully) leaders to worry about these things for us. Mob rule democracy about every national secret would mean they’re not secrets for very long!
But, “…doing this kind of work with the federal government.” is added context that was not there and is based on your own interpretation.
The language of the parent comment charges that simply working at a company that is engaging in this makes one complicit in an immoral act, and the complicity itself is immoral. I disagree with all of that.
>Any AI researcher who continues to work here is morally compromised.
Also, promoting a specific documentary from a production company doesn’t mean they agree with all the other things PragerU says. Even if they did, it literally doesn’t matter, because X isn’t actively restricting alternate opinions the way Bluesky does. I know, because I see awful takes on X nearly everyday! ;)
“Think of the children” is the exact tool fascists use to erode liberties. Governments worldwide salivate at the idea of having a registry of what every individual is doing online at any given moment.
Nobody is getting banned for that, that’s just another Bluesky-ism!
Promoting failed parents and children, not in spite of their failures but because of them, is suicidal empathy, a modern mental illness that was never able to fully take root in the past, because the world was always much smaller, divided, and cutthroat.
If given the binary choice between “being an individual” or a “civilization”, I would choose to burn down the civilization in a moment IF it meant the eradication of the individuality of those that I love. I would hope every single person with a heart beating in their chest would feel the exact same way, or else THAT is when a society truly collapses.
To borrow your analogy, the Indians became alcoholics because “they were genetically predisposed to it”? Okay, well why would we want to increase genetic predisposition to alcoholism in the gene pool by denying someone their freedom to drink themselves stupid?
You can argue that it wouldn’t be fair to their children, but those who aren’t drunkards could become wealthy casino owners whose children will prosper more than even you or I, while those whose genes, according to your perspective, apparently don’t allow them to control their own urges will fail, and their lineage will end, along with their hereditary alcoholism.
I see no reason for society to bear any level of responsibility for individuals regardless of context, as society is built by successful individuals , and it is torn apart by failed ones. We must allow the natural outcomes, which is that failed people will fail.
Evolution, if guided by humans, would quickly devolve into chaos, as we can’t accurately select for the correct pressures for success. It simply has to occur. Society is a living organism in the same way.
The basis for its existence is to supply a platform for people who want to isolate from ideas and narratives they find uncomfortable, so they self-select into echo chambers that cater to their preexisting ideologies. That's their whole business model!
You mean the fine folks over at Bluesky, the social media network built around isolation, intolerance, and refusing to listen to other’s POV, exhibit these same character flaws?!
Who’d’ve thunk? :)
We used to say, “If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?”.
Now we say, “Well, the kids are going to jump off a cliff anyway, I can’t stop them, so the government should make a law about it!”
I don’t think that’s the way to handle things. Parents who are bad at parenting will raise kids that fraternize with kids who jump off of cliffs. Maybe theirs will too, one day. Unfortunate, but the kids at the top of the cliff, who were actually raised, will excel.
Social Darwinism > Government Regulation
It sounds cruel, but if someone is set on allowing their children to be raised by strangers on the internet and the government, they need to be ready to accept any outcomes that come along with that.
Nobody under 16 should be on social media for their own good, but it’s their parent’s job to prevent them from rotting their brains, not some governing body.
Lonely children aren’t the fault of the government, they’re the fault of parents who let them scroll TikTok in their rooms all day, because actually parenting would be difficult or inconvenient.
That’s why these laws happen to begin with. It starts as “Think of the children”, and ends with the death of the anonymized internet.
Governments crave that, and scared, hapless citizens who refuse to learn how to raise a child want Daddy Gubament to do it for them, and so push these laws into existence.