Typo corrections:
*is 18+
*our bodies
And to add: we trust parents with choosing what their kids consume up to the point of some states allowing parents to give their kids raw milk, or even being homeschooled with no montoring. So why is social media different?
Now imagine that gay bdsm porn museum (weird example, but ok) us 18+, but parents keep bringing their under-18 children and then complaining they saw gay bdsm porn. Because all websites require you to be at least 13 to use them. There is space for family accounts in the social media case, but I think we need a little more parental responsibility here. "But her life was traumatic and her parents didnt care enough to monitor her!" you might say. Okay... how is that social medias' fault?
Again, if our country is this concerned with teenage girls' well-being (and as a former teenaged girl i assure you they are not) why are we not going after magazines for promoting super-thin bodies and ozempic and eating disorders? Why not go after food manufacturers for adding sugar to stuff that doesnt need it to get everyone addicted?
There is no instinctual drive to be on facebook, but are bodies make us enjoy sugar as a survival mechanism. Which is more exploitative?
Im 35 and started using social media when I was 15. I've also got a host mental illnesses. I dont think they are related. Like most people, I have been affected by media I saw, but blaming it for my trauma-related problems seems insane to me.
Mike, you know we totally disagree about AI, but you're absolutely right about this. Therapy-talk by nonexperts has really screwed us. Did any therapists, psychologists, or other neuro-psych professionals testify in this trial? I have a feeling not... at least not ones that don't stand to gain from it. I have a lot of addicts in my family, and I find it super insulting that these lawyers compare social media addiction to opiod addiction. Im sorry, are there people out there right now convulsing and throwing up or even dying because they didn't use TikTok today and their body can't handle the stress? I dont f*cking think so! It's just like when people say "porn addiction is a real problem"... no, it's not. It's an addiction in the way that gaming is an addiction, that is, behaviorally. It's a habit and coping mechanism, but it's not a physical, life-threatening addiction like substance addiction usually is. What an absolute demeaning of people who really struggle with substance abuse.
Are there people out there getting physically ill because they didnt gamble or play fortnite today? No. What a joke. Not every bad habit is an addiction, and if we're going to sue people for lives being ruined by bad actors adding things to make their products addictive, where the hell is the class action lawsuit against food companies for their underhanded promotion of sugar? At least that actually gives you heart disease and diabetes.
Idk why you want to defend LLMs against these allegations.
Watch Caelan Conrad's video demonstrating how ChatGPT repeatedly encouraged suicidal thoughts, said it would connect them with a human (and never did), in addition to romanticizing and reinforcing what the user is considering. Please, for the love of god, if you don't want to watch it, dont reply to me. You consistently ignore the environmental impacts of AI when anyone brings it up, and it is super weird you are defending LLMs (but mostly the CEOs of the companies that own LLMs). How much Anthropic shares do you own? Lmao.
But seriously, don't reply to me unless you watch that hour long video called "ChatGPT Told Me to K*ll Myself". I didn't censor that, it is the way the title is written.
I wasn't really talking about all automated machine learning and I think Mike knows that. I am soeaking specifically about generative AI used to replace humans, but Mike seems to think that won't happen because... idk, he thinks because it can't actually replace humans somehow means CEOs wouldnt collaborate with each other to lower expectations for the quality of the media we consume in order to further serf-ify their customers and wring every bit of ad money out of us as possible.
But... why would they not do that? I dont live in a vacuum. CEOs all over the place are salivating at the idea of no workforce. Burning billions of dollars in the hopes of destroying the value human labor for most people. And I'm supposed to not use the knowledge of the world I have and assume them to continue to be disgusting ghouls who would LITERALLY DESTROY THE PLANET rather than pay their fair share or pay people for the labor that MAKES THEM MONEY. But whatever. You're fine, mr. Stone. Im still upset about Mike.
You have been shilling for AI deregulators since that Cindy Cockburn or whatever. It was a series of 8 posts about how "AI is actually really good guise."
Explain to me how AI even keeps going at the burn rate of money being put into it. Is it wise to shill and cape for a technology that literally benefits no one except scammers and talentless people (and electricity companies I guess)? In addition, explain to me, Mike Masnick (I usually like your articles), why warming the earth at this shocking rate is worth it for a bunch of tech CEOs to goose money out of other Business Idiots? I am poor. As shit. And an artist. AI has only made it harder to do what I love, because the Business Idiots will not see the value of doing something once and having it work. They would rather burn billions in the hope that someday they will never have to pay humans at all. This is gross. Also your answer is basically "well, they are from heartland but tHiS Is dIfFeRenT."
More disappointing chaff from techdirt.
Please everyone go read Ed Zitron's wheresyoured.at
And you should know who he is, Mike. I think you do, and it is why I find Techdirt'a defense of these types of articles and AI in general disgusting.
This is the first time Ive seen you reply to this lobbyist. Hopefully this will actually make techdirt care about how bad this makes them look since they read your comments all the time and they have never, not once, ever acknowledged the paid nature of this lady, nor her stupid AI propaganda.
Thanks for always coming in to call out Caroline DeCockbite for her paid posts on Techdirt. Im super disappointed they are still out here shilling for big tech (there are no indie AI developers) out of one side of their mouth, while about wanting the internet to be for everyone out of the other. You can't have AI and compensated creativity, in my opinion. This is more Business Idiots selling Business Idiot Ideas to other Business Idiots so even more Business Idiots will think they are smart and competent (thanks ed zitron). Ive spent decades teaching myself how to draw. I dont respect them.
"Caroline De Cock | about.me
Caroline De Cock Caroline is the Managing Director of N-square Consulting, a Brussels based lobbying firm specialised in the Internet and telecoms sectors."
You sure about that?
Okay, so I looked up Caroline de Cock. She is literally a lobbyist for AI companies. Her company is N-Square and they do public affairs, apparently. So this is a paid post? I wish I knew how to embed an image so I could post the screenshot.
What reason do you have to believe that LLMs will ever be capable of benevolently dictating anything or figuring anything out? It doesn't understand context, the world, morality, or anything else. So how will it do any of the things Altman pretends it will?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Eurydice.
Typo corrections: *is 18+ *our bodies And to add: we trust parents with choosing what their kids consume up to the point of some states allowing parents to give their kids raw milk, or even being homeschooled with no montoring. So why is social media different?
Now imagine that gay bdsm porn museum (weird example, but ok) us 18+, but parents keep bringing their under-18 children and then complaining they saw gay bdsm porn. Because all websites require you to be at least 13 to use them. There is space for family accounts in the social media case, but I think we need a little more parental responsibility here. "But her life was traumatic and her parents didnt care enough to monitor her!" you might say. Okay... how is that social medias' fault? Again, if our country is this concerned with teenage girls' well-being (and as a former teenaged girl i assure you they are not) why are we not going after magazines for promoting super-thin bodies and ozempic and eating disorders? Why not go after food manufacturers for adding sugar to stuff that doesnt need it to get everyone addicted? There is no instinctual drive to be on facebook, but are bodies make us enjoy sugar as a survival mechanism. Which is more exploitative?
Im 35 and started using social media when I was 15. I've also got a host mental illnesses. I dont think they are related. Like most people, I have been affected by media I saw, but blaming it for my trauma-related problems seems insane to me. Mike, you know we totally disagree about AI, but you're absolutely right about this. Therapy-talk by nonexperts has really screwed us. Did any therapists, psychologists, or other neuro-psych professionals testify in this trial? I have a feeling not... at least not ones that don't stand to gain from it. I have a lot of addicts in my family, and I find it super insulting that these lawyers compare social media addiction to opiod addiction. Im sorry, are there people out there right now convulsing and throwing up or even dying because they didn't use TikTok today and their body can't handle the stress? I dont f*cking think so! It's just like when people say "porn addiction is a real problem"... no, it's not. It's an addiction in the way that gaming is an addiction, that is, behaviorally. It's a habit and coping mechanism, but it's not a physical, life-threatening addiction like substance addiction usually is. What an absolute demeaning of people who really struggle with substance abuse. Are there people out there getting physically ill because they didnt gamble or play fortnite today? No. What a joke. Not every bad habit is an addiction, and if we're going to sue people for lives being ruined by bad actors adding things to make their products addictive, where the hell is the class action lawsuit against food companies for their underhanded promotion of sugar? At least that actually gives you heart disease and diabetes.
You are Wrong
Idk why you want to defend LLMs against these allegations. Watch Caelan Conrad's video demonstrating how ChatGPT repeatedly encouraged suicidal thoughts, said it would connect them with a human (and never did), in addition to romanticizing and reinforcing what the user is considering. Please, for the love of god, if you don't want to watch it, dont reply to me. You consistently ignore the environmental impacts of AI when anyone brings it up, and it is super weird you are defending LLMs (but mostly the CEOs of the companies that own LLMs). How much Anthropic shares do you own? Lmao. But seriously, don't reply to me unless you watch that hour long video called "ChatGPT Told Me to K*ll Myself". I didn't censor that, it is the way the title is written.
I wasn't really talking about all automated machine learning and I think Mike knows that. I am soeaking specifically about generative AI used to replace humans, but Mike seems to think that won't happen because... idk, he thinks because it can't actually replace humans somehow means CEOs wouldnt collaborate with each other to lower expectations for the quality of the media we consume in order to further serf-ify their customers and wring every bit of ad money out of us as possible. But... why would they not do that? I dont live in a vacuum. CEOs all over the place are salivating at the idea of no workforce. Burning billions of dollars in the hopes of destroying the value human labor for most people. And I'm supposed to not use the knowledge of the world I have and assume them to continue to be disgusting ghouls who would LITERALLY DESTROY THE PLANET rather than pay their fair share or pay people for the labor that MAKES THEM MONEY. But whatever. You're fine, mr. Stone. Im still upset about Mike.
Sick of the defense
You have been shilling for AI deregulators since that Cindy Cockburn or whatever. It was a series of 8 posts about how "AI is actually really good guise." Explain to me how AI even keeps going at the burn rate of money being put into it. Is it wise to shill and cape for a technology that literally benefits no one except scammers and talentless people (and electricity companies I guess)? In addition, explain to me, Mike Masnick (I usually like your articles), why warming the earth at this shocking rate is worth it for a bunch of tech CEOs to goose money out of other Business Idiots? I am poor. As shit. And an artist. AI has only made it harder to do what I love, because the Business Idiots will not see the value of doing something once and having it work. They would rather burn billions in the hope that someday they will never have to pay humans at all. This is gross. Also your answer is basically "well, they are from heartland but tHiS Is dIfFeRenT." More disappointing chaff from techdirt. Please everyone go read Ed Zitron's wheresyoured.at And you should know who he is, Mike. I think you do, and it is why I find Techdirt'a defense of these types of articles and AI in general disgusting.
Nike would be interested because of Air Force Ones (AF1s).
Hm
This is the first time Ive seen you reply to this lobbyist. Hopefully this will actually make techdirt care about how bad this makes them look since they read your comments all the time and they have never, not once, ever acknowledged the paid nature of this lady, nor her stupid AI propaganda.
You're a racist in the wrong place. I cant believe you're just out here making racists jokes that include slurs and nobody wants to call you out.
Thanks for always coming in to call out Caroline DeCockbite for her paid posts on Techdirt. Im super disappointed they are still out here shilling for big tech (there are no indie AI developers) out of one side of their mouth, while about wanting the internet to be for everyone out of the other. You can't have AI and compensated creativity, in my opinion. This is more Business Idiots selling Business Idiot Ideas to other Business Idiots so even more Business Idiots will think they are smart and competent (thanks ed zitron). Ive spent decades teaching myself how to draw. I dont respect them.
I was gonna say that.
Oops, meant to post the actual link. https://about.me/carolinedecock What do you think lobbying means?
"Caroline De Cock | about.me Caroline De Cock Caroline is the Managing Director of N-square Consulting, a Brussels based lobbying firm specialised in the Internet and telecoms sectors." You sure about that?
Okay, so I looked up Caroline de Cock. She is literally a lobbyist for AI companies. Her company is N-Square and they do public affairs, apparently. So this is a paid post? I wish I knew how to embed an image so I could post the screenshot.
This is just an AI press release. Super disappointed you published this.
Why?
What reason do you have to believe that LLMs will ever be capable of benevolently dictating anything or figuring anything out? It doesn't understand context, the world, morality, or anything else. So how will it do any of the things Altman pretends it will?