Is this a serious argument in favor of doing nothing to protect children because they're already being screwed up? "Why not let it get worse"?
Plenty of stuff is already restricted as "adults only", it wouldn't be unprecedented to also restrict this. I can imagine various arguments for it - for example, "since it's generated by AI nobody can be held accountable if the content is inappropriate for children and there is no way to ensure the AI adheres to content restrictions, so it can't be shown to children"
I mean, they SHOULD BE. I as a man am still unpacking unhealthy ideas about sex and women some twenty fucking years on because I got access to pornography WAY too fucking soon and it warped my views of sex when I was too young to properly process it, much less do so with the help of understanding adults who could give me context?
I agree that it's bad. I'm just saying that there is no way to stop it without some sort of massive government intervention, and even then it's going to happen anyway.
And you can say the government SHOULD do that, but the government is so split that it never gets anything done.
AI is coming, and I'm sure it's going to continually erode what's left of what we call a society.
> I agree that it's bad. I'm just saying that there is no way to stop it without some sort of massive government intervention
"Massive Government Intervention" used to have a much less scary sounding name called "Public Policy" or "The Law" and it gave us all kinds of good shit, things like the highway system, the National Park system, an electrical grid, building codes and standards, a currency that is practically the world standard, on and on. We have tons of things that would not exist without lawmakers who were well advised by experts coming together and putting pen to paper. Was it always good? No, nothing human made ever is. But their track record beats Silicon Valley's output by MILES.
> AI is coming, and I'm sure it's going to continually erode what's left of what we call a society.
Yeah and the frustrating thing is everyone working on it seems to believe this to one degree or another, and yet they're all still building it.
If you think a technology is fundamentally corrosive to society, then STOP BUILDING IT.
If you think your product will further the divides between people for profit, STOP BUILDING IT.
Like YOU CAN THINK. You can choose what to do based on what you believe will lead to a better tomorrow. Maybe if you did more of that and less soullessly chasing whatever some rich asshole wants you to build for a bag of money you'd be both A) more personally fulfilled and B) not furthering the collapse of civilization in your children's lifetimes you absolute cretins.
> What's the alternative? The government banning AI TV for 30 years until the long term studies are done?
YES!
YES. Holy shit yes. We don't allow medicines or food additives that are substantially different from previous ones into our food supply FOR THIS EXACT REASON.
You know what would be even better than a ban? If these tech companies gave even the slightest ghost of a shit and maybe didn't immediately sprint to market with half-finished products the effects of which are completely unknown simply because there is no law that is explicitly preventing them from doing so and getting some goddamn information first about them and then bringing them to market. And that would be even better for this, what with a whole bunch of these companies also funneling money into think tanks dedicated to making sure the AI's they are burning money to build don't fucking kill us.
Holy. Actual. Shit. Like imagine being this incredulous at the notion of taking some fucking time to research the effects short term and long term of a new kind of entertainment BEFORE we just shotgun it out into the fucking world to our most impressionable and vulnerable population. Heaven forbid a modicum of reasonable caution, we have INNOVATION TO DO!!!
So you want to ban AI for 30 years, that's just completely impractical. It's also the government insisting that they can know whats good for you better than you can.
We allow all sorts of food additives that are only now being banned because they turned out to be bad. I'm not saying we should allow them, but in general we do.
All of your complaints may be valid but you are living in some sort of fantasy land if you think that is going to happen. That's just not the way the world works.
> So you want to ban AI for 30 years, that's just completely impractical.
Yeah I'm sure there was a legion of corporate whining when they said the same thing about banning children working in coal mines. We'll adjust.
> It's also the government insisting that they can know whats good for you better than you can.
I mean most AI researchers seem at best unsure about the technology they're building. That being said, I don't know if AI is bad for us long term, but I know damn well AI driven by profits is terrible for us right now and I'm cool with banning that for eternity.
> All of your complaints may be valid but you are living in some sort of fantasy land if you think that is going to happen. That's just not the way the world works.
Just because you can't imagine a better world doesn't mean everyone else can't.
Young kids already have access to the internet at a young age and that's screwing them up royally anyway