cynicalpeace

If/when civilization collapses, flights will be the first thing to go

Just sayin

Most people haven't even started with the biblical. How bout we start there before “widening it beyond biblical”?

The moral and spiritual depth of our society has only shallowed after centuries of doing this.

It hasn’t worked!

If you cannot tell a story why humans are more valuable than machines or animals, then you will begin to treat humans like machines and animals, or treat machines and animals like humans.

There are many modern examples leading to disastrous results.

I'm not convinced text is more modifiable and extensible than straight bits for a "superintelligence"

The benefit would be that the AI would have true hardware access. It would be unconstrained by gatekeeper protocols.

Would be very powerful, and thereby, potentially dangerous.

when the model predicts the next token, it doesn't predict the next bit.

I'm saying, eventually, it will... perhaps :)

i think the main blocker to this are the owners of the App Stores themselves. Apple won't let this happen if it can help it.

token efficiency could become irrelevant in the long term

Scams are bad. But cold-calling selling a genuine B2B product is a beautiful right-of-passage for anyone doing sales.

Teaches you grit, rejection, tonality, relationship-building, and the elation of closing a sale all-in-one.

It's also one of the few outbound marketing channels that isn't yet swallowed up by Meta/Google, and can be done by any scrappy teenager.

Unpopular opinion here, I'm sure.

I've long suspected that LLMs will just output pure bits eventually

Regardless of the content on the screen, the screen time is bad for kids.

Even desiring pixel-represented "data" for this fact that is obviously observable irl is itself perhaps a result of excessive screen-time, leading to spreadsheet brain, but I can gratify you with these studies: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Of course, no study will exactly disprove the claim that there is some possible content that is a net positive for kids, akin to how no study can prove that unicorns don't exist. But this is exactly the kind of brain-melt, culturally destructive kind of thinking you could expect for demanding "data" for every obvious fact.

Screen time is simply bad for kids. Don't give your kids a screen. Give them a ball, a stick, a book, etc

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... [3] https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002... [4] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/... [5] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32202633/

The fastest, most surefire way to nuke your child's brain is to give them a screen.

There is certainly room for software to design a curriculum for the parent or teacher to use. We have tried (and failed) to find such a thing for our homeschool curriculum.

But giving the kid a screen? If you're even a midge honest with yourself, a screen will de-educate your child, leading to the opposite of the intended consequence.

parent-to-parent: this is slippery slope territory

just imo, I can't control you. God bless your family :)

"Don't take away agency!" proceeds to recommend the government take away agency

the best thing that can be done right now, rather than waiting for a broken government to fix our problems, is to admit to ourselves and parents that kids should not receive phones or iPads

it's not a good thing! taboos serve a purpose and it absolutely should be a cultural taboo.

"don't do drugs, kids" is essentially my message, do you agree or not?

idc how potentially beneficial screens may be, in the future (now?) we will start treating screens like smoking

Some of us are still in the "smoking can be good for you stage"

The best defense is to not introduce it to them.

not a perfect defense, but a very good one.

"If we can make cocaine healthier for everyone, that's a big deal" technically true, but also, don't use cocaine.

I get parents use it to babysit their kids. That's bad parenting. I'm a parent. I know it's not easy, and tempting to use it.

But you're not supposed to yield to those temptations. Part of being a leader, which is what being a parent is, is sucking it up.

"rural homeschooling Christians"

Hey i like that!

Hm, what do you mean by "extremely limited and supervised"?

I think absolute 0 is best for as long as possible. If you never introduce them to the drug, they'll never have the craving for it.

That's obviously difficult, practically, and we like movies, so we'll watch about a movie a week... but even I feel that is too much.

Actually, you can. If parents are somehow powerless by the time their kids achieve some independence, again, that's bad parenting.

yes, several, lmao

kids simply shouldn't be looking at a screen, AI-generated or not.

Screen time for kids (and adults for that matter!) should be way way scaled back. That falls on the parents.

Bad parents give their kids phones and tablets and that's a hill I will die on.

This is what's called "Majoring in the Minors" in Christianity. Neanderthals are no longer around. What's important is treating humans with a special dignity. If you start equating humans with anything else, like plants or animals, you get nihilism at best, and atrocities at worst.

Mainstream Christian thought has only permitted humans to be imago dei.

Animals, plants, and objects made by humans, like computers, certainly do not qualify.

There is the open question of extraterrestrial lifeforms, however. Ray Bradbury's short story, "The Man" is imo the best "treatise" on this idea.

The low point of Christianity after the council of Nicaea was the "Dark Ages" (early middle ages) and the high point is circa 2000.

The exact opposite of what we tend to think.

Culpability is and always will be the limiting factor in AI adoption.

As humans, we need another human to blame when things go wrong.

Especially in situations that are catastrophic when things go wrong.

"For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them"

- Socrates, decrying the invention of writing

Again, that is a simple observation of fact. No counterfactual needed. I said it had confounding factors, and I offered hypotheses

I asked you for alternative hypotheses and you've offered none.

I'm not even proposing that growth would have been higher without "technology". I said information technology has not increased productivity growth compared to the past. This is an observation of fact.

There is no counterfactual needed. Productivity growth has declined, despite the expectation that software would accelerate productivity. I'm asking you why this didn't happen.

The data clearly shows that productivity growth is flat or even declining. What is your accounting of why software hasn't offset those numbers?