"Even today I can burn hours clicking around the Wii"

I mean, the menu's fine but its not that exciting

I can burn hours clicking around the PS5 UI.

No seriously, I’m lost. Send help.

It's our cereal box and shampoo...

If you think youre such a great parent that you or your kid is safe from the insidious danger of social media, I think youre being naive.

I don’t think that at all. I just make sure they get to experience the rest of the world first. Literature, art, music, games, conversation, meeting people in real life, jumping on a plane and going places and seeing things.

There’s a lot to do in the world. Social media isn’t very attractive if you go and do those things. I’d you don’t then it becomes a portal to a narrow view of the world and then there is trouble.

With that I agree. But it comes down as society as a whole to create that environment for children, not individual parenting.

Half of me worries about the nanny/surveillance state aspect of this.

Half of me wants us to ban it for adults too.

The problem is a framed as a question of protection (who doesn't want to be protected?) with the intended effect of over-reach (spying).

The coordinated track that governments around the world are on (sponsored by corporations), is that governments and corps will be able to monitor and track individuals online - people will be deanonymised (via OS logins, no side loading, 'protect the children'). The ostensibly kind desires are just sugar.

Even if you accept that fact that people are online too much (by choice), teens are drinking/smoking less. When you push one thing another pops out. Forcing 'good' conformity on others, is actually psychological meddling. In my view meddling with another's desires (even if it's for their own good, in your opinion) is a form of psychological abuse. Inner re-engineering of others should not be normalised or accepted because it is done by government.

Are the social media companies not meddling with our desires through all the psychological tricks they use? I think their overreach should be feared as much as, if not more than, state overreach.

Everyone is meddling all the time.

Having corporations in the role of 'bad cop', allows the illusion that the government is 'good cop', and that they can manage reality for the greater good.

However, the only entity that can manage reality, is the individual for themselves. Working with a constrained subset of reality, means you do not actually have the full picture.

Perversely, not having the full picture, means that people pretend that someone else has got this for us (government). Seeking an external authority, rather than working through reality personally, prevents the individual from building up the correct understanding: only you can manage yourself correctly. Having information hidden from you supports the idea that individuals are not capable of managing themselves, and encourages 'looking outside for help' aka nannying to manage one's difficulties. It puts people into a state of neoteny - prolonged adolescence - which benefits those who use psychopathic/narcissistic tricks. It's a choreographed, incremental ballet, that is intended to get 'the people' to a destination (technocratic governance) that no one would choose.

Corporations are not in the role of bad cop, they exist to exploit us for profit and have many nasty tactics they can use to do that. To put the blame at the feet of individuals for that exploitation underestimated how much power they have.

The state can, at least in theory, be structured to serve rather than exploit us.

On top of that, the idea that individuals have the time, energy, or inclination to completely manage their own "reality" rather than relying on external authorities is daft imo. At some point we need to trust and rely on eachother and there are various entities beyond nation states that are set up specifically for that too.

> Corporations are not in the role of bad cop, they exist to exploit us for profit and have many nasty tactics they can use to do that.

.. and governments are the same.

I believe we already live in a form of fascism where business and governments are aspects of the same entity.

> The state can, at least in theory, be structured to serve rather than exploit us.

I disagree. It can soak up believers energy though, forcing people against others who they have no personal issues with.

> On top of that, the idea that individuals have the time, energy, or inclination to completely manage their own "reality" rather than relying on external authorities is daft imo.

It might be daft in your opinion, but assuming the answers you want will be provided externally could be a working definition of insanity, imo.

The UK and US maybe. I'm not so sure about all governments around the world.

And so do you not trust health advice from the WHO? Do you do your own controlled trials instead?

No, not the WHO, pharmaceutical companies or Bill Gates. These folk only have humanity's interests at heart, nothing to do with money and power. At all. You should absolutely trust your children to these folks.

So you're an antivaxxer? That makes a little more sense now.

Way to (dis) engage with a discussion.

Banning it is tackling the problem at the wrong end. Social media, and Big Tech in general, should be heavily regulated, and certain behavior strongly fined, including criminal prosecution and prison sentences for repeat offenders.

But we all know this is not happening because governments profit greatly and have much to gain from their symbiotic relationships with tech companies. So it's easier to hassle tax payers, or in this case children to gain political points.

I can already hear people piss and moan about censorship then too though.

Pretty much. There is a very narrow middle way but I doubt we can take that.

Spot on.

Well isnt the point humans wouldn't need to do basically anything?

It would be 'desirable' because the value is in the product of the labour not the labour itself. (Of course the resulting dystopian hellscape might be considered undesirable)

As I keep pointing out, if the model ever stops needing you to complete ambitious goals, then what does the model actually need you for?

People somehow imagine an agent that can crush the competition with minimal human oversight. And then they somehow think that they'll be in charge, and not Sam Altman, a government, or possibly the model itself.

If the model's that good, nobody's going to sell it to you.

A Dark Factory is a lot more work than the model, and often perpendicular to the goal of general model improvement. A Dark Factory specializes in building one particular thing, whereas the AI labs care about generalization and what you can do absent such advanced scaffolding.

It is so named because we have literal Dark Factories in the real world, run by robotics instead of AI, producing cellphones without any need for humans.

None the less, said literal Dark Factory that actually exists, in the real world, is still owned by the corporation that built it. The robots did not take over, the government did not seize it.

> None the less, said literal Dark Factory that actually exists, in the real world, is still owned by the corporation that built it. The robots did not take over, the government did not seize it.

It's probably worth pointing out that hardware and software are two completely different things. At least until the day we have robots that can create and put to work other robots with 0 or minimal human intervention.