“Young people increasingly don’t appear to be incredibly dumb, survey finds.”
Maybe the kids are gonna be alright, after all.
AI is just one of several serious existential threats the kids will have to deal with. They’re far from alright.
The Epstein class is their biggest threat by far. AI and what they do on private islands are just two of many reasons to get rid of billionaires.
I agree. I really don’t understand why society tolerates, let alone promotes and idolizes, billionaires, while median net worth remains below $200,000, and probably much lower in most of the rest of the world. I don’t think everyone should be forced to be exactly equal but the current disparity between median and Elon is more than 6 orders of magnitude, depending on the day of the week, and even to your average barely a billionaire it is more than 3 orders of magnitude. It’s excessive, and looking at how society is going, fairly clearly unhealthy for everyone involved.
“The kids are alright” does not mean that the world where the kids live is alright, it means that the kids are alright. 😅
We got THIS close to being done with nicotine and bullshit in the air in daily life, and then the kids discovered vaping.
At best, the kids are in the aggregate no better or worse than the generations before them. No generation is going to save us from stupid when stupid is part of our species’ DNA.
Bro. The kids are alright. Not pristine perfect beings who will being about a new era of prosperity.
Besides, why you putting it on “the kids discovered vaping”? That sounds like something a billionaire would say to deflect from the huge lobbying campaign they made to distinguish vapes from cigarettes.
As an old person I can also say that old people don’t trust AI, or the leaders of those companies, or the current administration…
In reviewing your message, it seems like you’ve been faced with some difficulties because of AI. But as young people, I believe AI is the future of humans. We should develop and improve AI in various types of parts, even though the current result is not as good as we expected initially.
No, that can’t be. The internet has told me that old people are stupid and love Trump and fascism and it’s totally acceptable to mock and hate people based on their age even though they have no control of their age.
The internet assures me it’s a bastion of welcoming care for all, so the hate against old people must be universally deserved. It’s not like the good people of the internet would just latch on to whatever trends they think will be supported and make them look like good people while allowing them to vomit hate at anyone they in their infinite wisdom determine to be bad people.
Old people were the biggest voter block FOR the current (US) administration. You might not like it, but “old people” certainly have some other opinions.
I’m not monolithic.
You started making claims about what “old people” like or do.
Sure. All people have their own opinions. Grouping people by a specific trait doesn’t give you a monolith that shares the same opinions on everything. There are Blacks, Latinos, Gays, and Trans for Trump.
The comment was refuting the insinuation in the headline that only young people feel this way because older people are stupid and awful. Somehow while trying to appear to be welcoming and not discriminate against minorities, the internet has become full of ageist discrimination. Age is another trait people can’t control or change. Discriminating or mocking people based on that is as wrong as doing the same based on skin color or sexuality.
Older people aren’t stupid and awful, they are just generally more set in their ways, and factually ARE more vulnerable to misinformation and lies, which is why they’re the most vulnerable to scams.
The previous generation, at least in America, was far more repressed and had far less access to information than we do today, which results in more narrow-minded beliefs. Not all old people are like this, but the comment you’re talking about said “old people don’t trust ai” which is not true. Old people as a group do, this person as an individual in that group does not.
Old people as a group don’t exist. There is no monolith based on simple traits like age, or race, or gender. While more members of one specific group sharing any of these traits can be likely to trust or mistrust or agree with anything, boiling them down to a singular opinion or mental state is always wrong. It’s discriminatory.
You saying old people as a group do trust AI is as fucked up as saying that black people as a group do love watermelon.
All groupings are arbitrary, it just (sometimes) provides utility to group on some shared attributes. It would be more accurate to say boomers trust ai more, not because they’re necessarily stupider (though lead poisoning was extremely common through leaded gasoline), but being older does mean you had less access to multiculturalism, less inundation with scams and technology growing up, and more propaganda that is harder to find counterpoints to.
It’s fully accurate to say “older people generally are more close-minded and trust AI more” without that being an attack on any particular old person. That’s a reality old people and young people need to be aware of, whether it’s for an older person to reflect if that’s happening to them, or a younger person to help an older person with.
It’s fully accurate to say “older people generally are more close-minded and trust AI more” without that being an attack on any particular old person.
Depending on the area you live in and the the total range of the statistics it can be fully accurate to say that “black people generally love watermelon and fried chicken and are more likely to steal your bike” and for that to not be an attack on any individual person, but also fuck you. Get it? Just because statistics show a thing doesn’t mean you’re not being a piece of shit for using those statistics to denigrate a massive group of people.
Using statistics chosen because they do denigrate a group of people and then acting like it’s not your fault these are what the statistics show is pretty common from hater assholes towards any group.
It would be more accurate to say boomers trust ai more, not because they’re necessarily stupider (though lead poisoning was extremely common through leaded gasoline)
This one is fantastic, since several studies have come out showing that Gen Z is the first generation to be less cognitively capable than the one that came before it. They don’t even have leaded gasoline to point to as an excuse. Somehow I don’t think they’d be super happy to see the internet flooded with people assuming anyone in that age range is an idiot.
You have to live in reality idk what to say, if black people commit more crime in an area I want to have that information so I can figure out why so I can prevent it (outreach programs specifically targeted at black kids for instance), if you say it as a dogwhistle to other racists that’s a different story.
I think genZ is absolutely cooked for different reasons (AI, social media, tiktok, covid lockdowns during a critical part of development) and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re also an at-risk group to scams.
If your goal is to dogwhisle or denigrate based on identity then yes that’s wrong, but old people are the majority of the voting block and they majority voted for Trump. Saying “old people are racist and closed-minded” is false. Saying “old people are NOT racist and closed-minded” is even more false.
All my members hate fucking AI and majority of them are over 60. Hell one had me take his payment because he flat out wasn’t going let a clanker take it. Dont trust the automated system rather talk to a human.
My dad died last fall and when I called the funeral home to arrange for his body to be picked up, their answering service was fucking AI. However angry you think that might make you feel, it’s worse than that.
I don’t just think AI should be regulated, I think everyone at the hyperscaler companies should be criminally indicted. Every employee at OpenAI and Anthropic working on AI development should be indicted on 8 million counts of child endangerment.
The relevant statute is California 273a.
It is a crime in the state of California to allow a child to be placed in a position where great harm could come to them. For example, people have been indicted under this statute because they had drugs in the same house as young children. Even if no children are actually hurt, simply putting them in a situation where harm is likely is the crime.
It would normally be quite difficult to prove that the actions of OpenAI and others are endangering children. But the very words of these companies would be the first exhibit of the prosecution. They’ve openly confessed to their crimes! These very same companies and their leaders have repeatedly said that they’re building machines that they themselves believe have a reasonable chance of destroying humanity. And the children of California are a subset of humanity.
Whether their claims are realistic or not, I cannot say. But I simply cannot believe that it is legal to build a machine that you yourself believe could destroy the world. We’re so glazed over by the novelty of AI that we forget to treat it like any other threat. In most places it is a crime to perform some action that you believe has a realistic chance of hurting people, even if you have no intention or desire to hurt people.
Well, according to OpenAI, the machines they are building represent a very real risk to the life and safety of every child in the State of California. I see no reason that they shouldn’t be charged with millions of counts of child endangerment. According to their own words, they are literally putting the lives of children at risk. That is a crime. That is not legal. And we should stop pretending it is.
If this argument worked fossil fuel companies wouldn’t exist
If people didn’t consume oil, fossil fuel companies wouldn’t exist either.
I mean, the marketing people should have been able to tell management that too.
Never underestimate me how out of touch business management can be.
There’s a saying- corporate consultants are people who charge millions to tell you what your employees and customers have been trying to tell you for free.
I don’t trust anyone who is impressed by LLMs enough to consider them to be in any way adjacent to intelligence.
How do you define intelligence? If LLMs are not intelligent NO other animal could ever be considered intelligent and many humans in the lower percentiles too. And that percentile is only going up.
I mean, if your argument is just semantics, that’s just… pedantic.
You could draw that line anywhere. The NPCs I play against in a strategy game could be “intelligence.”
You know what people mean. People are talking about ~anthropic cognition, which is clearly not what’s going on in current LLMs. They can do intelligent things, maybe they are an “intelligent” by some definition you define, but they are not even close to animalistic cognition.
You and others here act as if this is some clear cut thing, while actually defining it is extremely hard and everything but clear cut.
I find it scary how many people here are blindly against LMMs directly (not the big companies behind them or whatever) with about as much irrational hate as the people they despise, like Trump. They act the same way. Saying LMMs are not intelligent is so absurd I am not sure how to go forward, such a statement is oozing with bias.
I’m not againt LLMs. They’re usefull tools, and I’ve been tinkering with them since 2021, and generative ML before that. I have one loaded on my desktop pretty much all the time; DeepseekV4 0731 is running, right this second.
I use them all the time. I hack at them as a hobby; I know how useful they can be.
But you’re stopping just short of calling them “alive.” They’re not even close, not even in the same universe. They do tasks with intelligence or some variant of that, but they are not intelligent. And I’m not trying to be pedantic, that is a loaded term that implies cognition and adaptability they do not have.
They’re basically the same thing as weather prediction models, but for text output. They’re just a model.
And I think its very dangerous when people fall into the trap of thinking they are, fundamentally, more than that. That’s the fantasy Altman and such are selling the public, to con them.
Hence, the article above ^. What’s coming out of these leaders’ mouths does not match what people are getting, and they can tell. And that’s because the premise they’re being sold, of “artificial intelligence,” is a lie.
It is not alive, why do you suspect I think that way?
And again, if those LLM are not intelligent we set an extremely high bar that even some humans will not reach. And it only gets higher.
with about as much irrational hate as the people they despise, like Trump.
Thanks for outing yourself. Makes it easy to just skip the conversation and not bother trying to open up a conversation made in bad faith.
Thanks for proving my point, your service is invaluable.
LLMs are explosively imprecise, statistically luke-warm, grey goo extrusion sphincters. They can’t produce anything novel, at best they can reveal potentially plausible information from the data they were trained on, which then requires proven domain expertise to validate.
Intelligence requires comprehension, a trait LLMs are intrinsically incapable of performing.
Define comprehension then.
For starters, an LLM wouldn’t even survive in the body of a small insect. They’re incompetent at everything.
Prove me wrong. Make an LLM-powered insect that buys more LLM-powered insects. Have it demonstrate any fitness at all.
If you train an AI to do it, I am sure it would completely destroy nature. It would find “bugs” like getting on an aircraft to reach new areas, teamwork to destroy any enemy etc.
I’m sure it wouldn’t. Prove it, you’re wrong. Existing bugs already do that stuff better. And “if you train it” is doing a lot of heavy lifting, since actual bugs can handle novel situations.
Intelligence can be defined as sentience or sapience. LLMs lack both (they just regurgitate information and have neither understanding nor self-awareness).
How can you tell they lack all of these things when people testing it shows these have it? So it appears as if, but you say that is not actually the case. How do you tell?
I can write a bash script in five minutes that will say it’s alive if you ask, does that make it so?
Most people don’t consider animals to have intelligence (outside of some apes) which is why they’re readily used as food.
If you’re old enough you likely learned in school that animals aren’t intelligent or capable of consciousness or self-awareness. None of those things are true.
They’re used as food because that’s how people have been socialized. Nobody would willingly eat a dog, but they would eat a pig. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs.
I could imagine they increasingly don’t trust politicians either.
It’s almost as if there is a pattern there isn’t it?
Maybe we are being filled with more bullshit all around than we have ever been!The same poll showed:
According to the CNBC Generation Lab poll, which received responses from 1,088 people earlier this month, 46% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 now hold either a “favorable” or a “very favorable” view of democratic socialism. An additional 23% held “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinions, according to the poll, which had a margin of error of 2.97 percentage points.
and
Almost half of respondents, 45%, said they believe AI will have a negative impact on their careers, while 10% believe it will help them with their careers. An additional 40% said they believe “the federal government” must set rules for AI, while 36% said they believe “an independent expert body” should set the rules of the game. Just 8% said they think AI “shouldn’t be regulated.” A majority, 60%, believe data center construction “must be slowed,” while 15% favor “speeding it up.”
While they may or may not distrust current politicians, it does not appear that they’re significantly distrustful of politicians in general.
very favorable” view of democratic socialism.
Maybe there is hope for USA at some point in the future.
Well, not even a majority of 18 to 34s (smallest voting block) have a favorable view of something that has shown to work for in 36 of 37 “developed economies”. I don’t know how optimistic that is…
I’m so blackpilled on the average person. These stats mean nothing because the average person not trusting a tech company does absolutely nothing to push them away from it. 80% distrust AI but 50% use it and the stat is growing.
Indeed. The average person seems to need instagram, whatsapp and xitter to fill their meaningless little isolated lives with distractions to feel… something. However on a more positive note, once people get suspicious about AI slop they tend to notice the slop patterns more easily, which is a good development. It’s something that can’t be unseen.
Counterpoint: once they notice some patterns it makes the more gullible for the ones they don’t notice, because “now they can detect AI”.
