I don't understand that this argument. Why does the net improvement of the technologies listed imply that AI will also have a net improvement? Are you just arguing that there's no such thing as technology that is harmful on net?
For people worried about their livelihoods, there's value in slowing AI adoption to give our economy time to transition rather than just throwing a lot of people out of work all at the same time.
Did slowing down factory build-outs stop globalization from gutting the midwest? I think there are direct parallels here. We either automate ourselves or someone else will automate us and we will have no control.
I grew up in Illinois in the 80s and 90s, so I had a front-row seat to that gutting. Watching my dad move from factory to factory, go to night school to learn tool-and-die and then see all the tool-and-die jobs move overseas.
So no, it didn't stop it. But the fact that it didn't happen overnight did allow my dad to feed his family and make sure my brother and I had better opportunities. If that gutting had happened over a couple years rather than a couple decades, we would have starved, and the knowledge that we did it "ourselves" rather than have it forced upon us by globalization wouldn't have stocked our pantry.
So, yes, there are direct parallels here. I want to give US families a chance to adapt.
> Not a single social media restriction experiment has included people under the age of 16. We do not know how social media bans will affect the young people being targeted by them because we have never tested this with them!
I've also never tested my ability to survive a 100ft fall. Maybe I can! We have no way of knowing!
> Virtually all schools in the United States report that they use social media for communications, including for key announcements such as making families aware of upcoming opportunities, educational programming, and key deadlines. The reliance on social media for communication and resource sharing, while banning youth from these same platforms, sends mixed messages to young people and limits their access to health promoting information and resources.
That's a good point. There's no other way that schools could communicate such things. My childhood in the 80s and 90s certainly didn't include Scouts, 4-H, Band, Drama, Cross-Country, etc! I'm sure with social media bans for youth, schools will just continue to use social media to try to communicate to kids rather than adapting.
I have to assume the authors of this paper know how dumb it is and just don't care since most people will only read the headline.
The title of the paper this blog post is based on, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/developmental-psycholog..., is "We don't know how social media bans will affect youth but we're doing it anyway!" Which is a little cheeky for my taste given the seriousness of the issue these bans are trying to address.
Yeah, the "but they use the socials to communicate!" is laughable. Basically none of the parents I know want school comms to be via Meta or Tweet or whatever.
Email lists work great for the type of comms schools need to make. And/or an RSS feed on the schools homepage.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I find AI to be very effective. It can do nearly all coding tasks many OOMs faster than I can. And I'm able to get it to produce high-quality code in the process. Using AI, our codebase actually has less tech debt than any time I can remember. I would be less effective if I wasn't using AI and if I wasn't finding new ways to leverage it.
That doesn't mean I enjoy it using AI. I loved coding. I was really good at it! I spent decades honing my abilities, and while some of those skills are still applicable when working with AI, many are not.
I want my company to be successful, so I work as effectively as I can. Unfortunately, the most effective method of working no longer scratches the creative/craftsman itch that it used to.
Right now I'm mitigating it by taking up creative writing in the evenings. That's difficult and creative in a way that coding used to be. Identifying and solving character and story problems feels like debugging and designing used to. Learning to craft effective prose feels like it used to when I was picking up a new programming language and learning its idioms.
It’s pretty simple. People think that AI will take their jobs and maybe murder them, probably because the people developing AI have said it’s going to take their jobs and maybe murder them.
Opposing data centers is the biggest lever most people have to impede AI development.
Yeah, it makes me wonder about their planned rollout to more of Southern California, where flooded roads aren't uncommon, especially in some of the valleys.
I think this disconnect is based on the ambiguity in the term "AI".
"AI" as tech - the models, how to train them, etc. Isn't going to go anywhere short of a Library-of-Alexandria-type catastrophe. We know how to do it and it's useful, so why would we forget?
However, "AI" as the thing that is enveloping our culture - the slop everywhere, the mandates to use it at work regardless of its usefulness, the constant talk about it being the future, the machine-dominated future that's been promised/threatened by the heads of the labs - we do still have a chance to put that onto the scrapheap.
> We read a bunch of content online and then use it in our work product.
We also have societal norms around plagiarism.
Additionally, the claim that because people have the right to do something then we should extend that right to machines is strong. (And one I certainly reject).
reply