Why just teens though? Getting manipulated by algorithms crafted to maximize screentime and ad revenue is bad for anyone.
These platforms rely on ads to survive. Which means it should be easy to regulate them. You can prevent them from selling ads at which point they will be forced to comply. If they don't, someone else will get the ad revenue. Europe is already hostile towards american tech giants anyways.
The possibilities are endless. Pass a law that forces all social media with more than x users to not implement constant scrolling, make their ranking algorithm open source, allow people to use their own algorithms, employ robust moderation etc.
Instead we have a blanket ban that requires id checks but leaves the manipulation machine intact so it can prey on adults. Mental health is not the real issue here. They want to be able to track people and destroy anonimity online. Children are a convenient excuse.
If the main purpose of this was to satisfy people's morbid curiosity that makes a lot of sense. Maybe they made up some juicy deaths in slow news weeks even.
I don't see how selecting the Lion, the Robot or the Scarecrow at random is going to help with any of the issues you mentioned. Now some rando (or group of randos) that you didn't even know existed gets power based on pure luck. You will still need media to learn about them and they could still be made up.
At least elections have a veneer of consent since people are asked which of the available options they prefer. Can you imagine anyone going to war because people chosen by a lottery wheel asked for it?
This is a problem of scale. The Greeks back then lived in small city-states where random selection meant that every able bodied male had a good shot at holding an important office at least once in their lifetime. You didn't need to hatch devious schemes to come to power. You couldn't abuse your fellow men because they would be in charge tomorrow. That's the true power of random selection and it's completely inapplicable to today's society at large.
I think the point they're making is "Walter White is a well-behaved chemistry teacher who resorts to manufacturing and selling drugs after he gets cancer" would still be true even if he stopped dealing drugs after he was offered money.
The Czech Republic changed its official name but many places still use the old name. Same with Eswatini, Côte d'Ivoire, Cabo Verde, etc. I suspect name changes aren't that reliable for dating globes since some of them probably have modern borders and former official names.
What's even worse would be enforcing the wrong solution that will cause more damage. The French have a saying, fuite en avant (lit. escape forwards) when someone insists on doing something knowing full well that it will not work but they do it anyways because it's better than inaction.
Considering the rise of the far right in the last EU elections, anyone who's seriously considering weakening public encryption must be out of their minds.
Excession is literally the next book on my reading list so I won't click on that yet :)
> With this metaphor you seem to be saying we should, if possible, learn how to control AI? Preferably before anyone endangers their lives due to it?
Yes, but that's a big if. Also that's something you could never ever be sure of. You could spend decades thinking alignment is a solved problem only to be outsmarted by something smarter than you in the end. If we end up conjuring a greater intelligence there will be the constant risk of a catastrophic event just like the risk of a nuclear armageddon that exists today.
Bears can't use their strength to make even stronger bears so we're safe for now.
The Unabomber was clearly an intelligent person. You could even argue that he was someone worth listening to. But he was also a violent individual who harmed people. Intelligence does not prevent people from harming others.
Your analogy falls apart because what prevents a human from becoming an emperor of the world doesn't apply here. Humans need to sleep and eat. They cannot listen to billions of people at once. They cannot remember everything. They cannot execute code. They cannot upload themselves to the cloud.
I don't think agi is near, I am not qualified to speculate on that. I am just amazed that decades of dystopian science fiction did not innoculate people against the idea of thinking machines.
I know nothing about physics. If I came across some magic algorithm that occasionally poops out a plane that works 90 percent of the time, would you book a flight in it?
Sure, we can improve our understanding of how NNs work but that isn't enough. How are humans supposed to fully understand and control something that is smarter than themselves by definition? I think it's inevitable that at some point that smart thing will behave in ways humans don't expect.
Why wouldn't it be? A lot of super intelligent people are/were also "destructive and evil". The greatest horrors in human history wouldn't be possible otherwise. You can't orchestrate the mass murder of millions without intelligent people and they definitely saw things as a zero sum game.
>Since the last ice age we've been dropping like flies. In fact, we're the only humans left.
I was under the impression that was our doing. All of these human varieties were outcompeted by homo sapiens who replaced them. Modern humans don't need to worry about another hominid taking their place because we're the last one standing.
The middle class thinks about its survival and keeping their assets intact. Building wealth is not possible for most people. But if you have money laying around, buying assets is the way to go, yes. Which is why the price of housing, cars, etc. skyrocketed. That in turn made buying assets even more attractive. Real estate prices grew in absolute terms (as in dollars) for the last few years.
The cheap loans I talked about aren't constant, for example you can't get them right now. They were available when the government artificially depressed the interest rate. A lot of people bought houses and cars that way and they are paying peanuts atm. The banks were/are still turning a profit because the interest rate was low, so the price of money was low for them as well. The government printed money to bankroll this growth until finally the lira crashed down. Basically everyone who earned in the local currency paid the price.
You get used to it. You get used to seeing a different price tag every time you get groceries. You get used to real estate prices doubling almost every year. You use dollars or other metrics for comparing prices year on year. You might even see some benefits. High inflation is great if you're in debt. Ideally you get a huge raise once a year too. The few months following your raise are the easiest. The minimum wage was raised 60 pc this month which is why the monthly inflation picked up speed.
Right now the interest rate is about 40 percent in Turkey which reins in the inflation a bit. Originally the crisis started b/c the president refused to raise interest rates like the rest of the world. Now that he appears to have returned to his senses things calmed down a bit. There's also municipal elections in a month and the gov't has been generous with public sector wages and the minimum wage to shore up support. Some sort of devaluation against the dollar following the elections is inevitable. The talk here is that the gov't will impose severe austerity measures after the elections since there won't be another one for the next three years. It's possible that the things get really grim after that.
>Biodiversity doesn't "benefit" anyone so much as it comprises, entirely, the world from which we're inextricable.
Is it though? There's been several extinction events that wiped out the biodiversity of the planet and they were all natural too. We might be inextricable from the world but we can and do manipulate it to our benefit.
I don't understand what is the problem with anthropocentrism. Given the chance, I'd prefer more biodiversity for sure, but if it's objectively bad for human beings I think human interests should come first. It's just that the current cycle of overproduction and global warming isn't benefiting humans either. That's not the fault of human-centered thinking, it's the fault of profit-centered short-term thinking.
> In real-world software design, violations of this rule of thumb are common. For example, the FAT16 file system imposes a limit of 65,536 files to a directory.
If the rules of software design apply to the universe, what is to stop us from assuming that our almighty creators are storing an $intelligent_life_form_count variable in a single byte somewhere and there can only be 255 of us ?
These platforms rely on ads to survive. Which means it should be easy to regulate them. You can prevent them from selling ads at which point they will be forced to comply. If they don't, someone else will get the ad revenue. Europe is already hostile towards american tech giants anyways.
The possibilities are endless. Pass a law that forces all social media with more than x users to not implement constant scrolling, make their ranking algorithm open source, allow people to use their own algorithms, employ robust moderation etc.
Instead we have a blanket ban that requires id checks but leaves the manipulation machine intact so it can prey on adults. Mental health is not the real issue here. They want to be able to track people and destroy anonimity online. Children are a convenient excuse.