We're Raising Kids to Prefer AI over People–and No One's Noticing(substack.com)
substack.com
We're Raising Kids to Prefer AI over People–and No One's Noticing
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161454917
80 comments
When it comes down to childhood abuse, I wonder how many people would opt for an AI parent if they were able to in the future. Because in my mind it's less about the world takeover of supercomplex intelligences, and more the obsolescence of a flesh-and-blood person you rolled the dice to be bonded with that failed to so much uphold the bare minimum. That would get into major questions of consent I imagine few people have ever considered yet...
I can only imagine what that would say about the nature of dysfunctional childhood if society ever reached the point where the preference for personal liberation through AI arose.
I can only imagine what that would say about the nature of dysfunctional childhood if society ever reached the point where the preference for personal liberation through AI arose.
> When it comes down to childhood abuse, I wonder how many people would opt for an AI parent if they were able to in the future.
As someone who has done a lot of research on child and adult development, I think AI as it exists now probably has the potential to do a better job than humans at many/most parenting tasks that it can do other than showing love (and that can go down some weird paths quickly with humans or AI).
Certain life skills, executive functioning, conflict resolution, curiosity, creativity, empathy — these are all things that I think AI (with the right prompts) can do better than most human parents.
Note that I’m referring to parents writ large rather than the almost certainly above-average quality of parents with which HNers have direct or indirect experience.
As someone who has done a lot of research on child and adult development, I think AI as it exists now probably has the potential to do a better job than humans at many/most parenting tasks that it can do other than showing love (and that can go down some weird paths quickly with humans or AI).
Certain life skills, executive functioning, conflict resolution, curiosity, creativity, empathy — these are all things that I think AI (with the right prompts) can do better than most human parents.
Note that I’m referring to parents writ large rather than the almost certainly above-average quality of parents with which HNers have direct or indirect experience.
Some HNers. There was a thread about ACE scores a few months back, and the site search is quite good. It isn't just idle boosterism when people say this site attracts a far broader cross-section than its detractors like to assume, and I have often enough been one such detractor.
All that aside, I don't think an AI can do better than any parent who bothers to genuinely try. Love makes up for a lot. Without it, what else matters?
All that aside, I don't think an AI can do better than any parent who bothers to genuinely try. Love makes up for a lot. Without it, what else matters?
Far better for everyone if my father had died before I was born rather than wait till last year, the shit he always was. But I think I would rather have had no father than an LLM pretending to the role, and I think there may have been real mercy for me in being born in an earlier and somewhat less accomplished age.
> flesh-and-blood person you rolled the dice to be bonded with
Choosing a partner is not gambling.
Choosing a partner is not gambling.
That passage is about a parent.
I read that wrong. Though no child rolls the dice as that implies they had a choice of parents.
rolling dice is the opposite of making a choice. please dont quote rush to me
Another one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Mother somehow underrated, I think.
> it confronts the audience with the uncomfortable situation where the machine is more humane than humans.
Ironic given how many HN commenters were tricked into upvoting this LLM junk article. Read the statement at the end - It was AI generated. It’s on a new substack. It’s posted by a new HN account. It’s LLM content mill junk from top to bottom and people were eating it right up.
Ironic given how many HN commenters were tricked into upvoting this LLM junk article. Read the statement at the end - It was AI generated. It’s on a new substack. It’s posted by a new HN account. It’s LLM content mill junk from top to bottom and people were eating it right up.
I agree with avoiding AI generated opinion pieces, but in this case was this article really “LLM junk”? At the bottom it attributes:
> This article was written in collaboration with AI. The tool helped shape the words—but the questions, the direction, and the discomfort it carries are human.
If I take their disclaimer at face value it could mean that the author used AI to fix their grammar. Does this make their arguments invalid? If the author wanted to just post LLM junk then wouldn’t they omit the disclaimer altogether?
I think it’s important to attribute the use of AI when submitting an article, but I’d be less inclined to do so if readers would label my writing entirely as LLM generated. Maybe the only solution is to not use LLMs and just get gud at English.
> This article was written in collaboration with AI. The tool helped shape the words—but the questions, the direction, and the discomfort it carries are human.
If I take their disclaimer at face value it could mean that the author used AI to fix their grammar. Does this make their arguments invalid? If the author wanted to just post LLM junk then wouldn’t they omit the disclaimer altogether?
I think it’s important to attribute the use of AI when submitting an article, but I’d be less inclined to do so if readers would label my writing entirely as LLM generated. Maybe the only solution is to not use LLMs and just get gud at English.
The content of the article isn't worth your time, but the central thesis is still interesting. This kind of AI blog spam is just the modern iteration of the self-help book that could be summarized on a single page but is fluffed out to 200 pages with pointless anecdotes, or the scientific paper that contains three pages of pointless math that doesn't actually add anything. For some reason we expect worthy ideas to have a certain volume of text behind it, even if the author doesn't actually have that much to say
> The content of the article isn't worth your time, but the central thesis is still interesting.
Isn’t this just another way of saying that people are upvoting the headline without reading the article?
The headline was chosen as clickbait/ragebait because it feels interesting. The article revealed that that it wasn’t.
Isn’t this just another way of saying that people are upvoting the headline without reading the article?
The headline was chosen as clickbait/ragebait because it feels interesting. The article revealed that that it wasn’t.
In this particular situation it seems reading only the headline was the sane option.
It's my experience pretty much anything highly engineered to attract 'kids' will win unless that person has some philosophical basis on which to reject it. You can't compete against the raw amount of hours spent engineering it to hook someone.
A parent interaction, game, friends, or the great outdoors, my child will reject 100 times of 100 if something on a tablet is available, which is why the time must be limited.
A parent interaction, game, friends, or the great outdoors, my child will reject 100 times of 100 if something on a tablet is available, which is why the time must be limited.
Don't have kids myself, but as a source, I was once a child. Isn't the big problem then even if you do limit the time, it then becomes an even bigger want because we always want what we can't have? What's your experience with this?
I've seen a twitter thread where a woman described conditioning her son to find screens boring at an early age by only showing slow train riding footage on screens around the house at all times when the kid was around, which is interesting. I wonder if that'd work well in general or just for that one specific child. It'd probably fall apart as soon as the child gets introduced to the fact that cool dopamine hacking content does exist on screens?
I've seen a twitter thread where a woman described conditioning her son to find screens boring at an early age by only showing slow train riding footage on screens around the house at all times when the kid was around, which is interesting. I wonder if that'd work well in general or just for that one specific child. It'd probably fall apart as soon as the child gets introduced to the fact that cool dopamine hacking content does exist on screens?
You're doubtlessly correct.
You could of course just use the tablet to show slow riding trains. At some point though you end up on an 8 hour car ride or flight, and without an army of novel toys it's just far more practical to hand the tablet than have the child screaming bloody murder the whole time because they are bored. This is one of those things that makes the parent sound bad but parenting is 24/7 365 days a year and sometimes people need a low-effort break for an hour, even the child.
You could of course just use the tablet to show slow riding trains. At some point though you end up on an 8 hour car ride or flight, and without an army of novel toys it's just far more practical to hand the tablet than have the child screaming bloody murder the whole time because they are bored. This is one of those things that makes the parent sound bad but parenting is 24/7 365 days a year and sometimes people need a low-effort break for an hour, even the child.
My mother taught me to read at the same age and by the same method Erik Hoel ("The Intrinsic Perspective," q.v. at Substack) recently documented teaching his son, and by his account to about as good effect. Mama doesn't have the letters after her name that Dr. Hoel does, of course, but I don't blame a jilted academic for feeling the need to complicate an independent and obviously enthusiastic rediscovery, and the flight attendants on the airliners I boarded unaccompanied as a child would be among many who could attest that nothing did better to keep me quiet than to lend me a technical manual I'd never seen before.
I'm very sure it is harder to achieve this now than then, I having been born at a time when color LCDs were just beginning to make tentative steps from laboratory prototype to consumer product. Unless Hoel is taken for the liar I've seen no cause to think him, though, it surely still can be done.
Easy for me to say, though, never having had or raised a child. I like to hope I still could recommend the method if I had, but who knows? I do think it asks uncommon interest from the tutor.
I'm very sure it is harder to achieve this now than then, I having been born at a time when color LCDs were just beginning to make tentative steps from laboratory prototype to consumer product. Unless Hoel is taken for the liar I've seen no cause to think him, though, it surely still can be done.
Easy for me to say, though, never having had or raised a child. I like to hope I still could recommend the method if I had, but who knows? I do think it asks uncommon interest from the tutor.
Oh, I can 100% imagine / understand that. If it were that easy, it wouldn't be a problem.
[deleted]
Never forget, the limiting case for all "dopamine hacks" is heroin. And if I recall my history, there was a period during which cigarette companies also tried to sell the idea they hadn't known.
The core of the article, that thanks to LLM chatbots having zero IRL emotional states/responsibilities/distractions they respond in predictable, non-judgmental ways which may cause preference and even attachment to them over messy humans is a consideration for even how it may shape interactions of all ages tbh.
Consider for example the process of casually learning about a subject in a non-academic scenario. People frequently will search online, ask on forums/chat and watch videos. Search results are widely critiqued for being poor these days, so people often turn to asking communities for specific questions.
Sometimes the only communities available are beginner hostile, expecting some prerequisite understanding and even being antagonistic toward knowledge gaps (mostly because it's uninteresting to them and they've seen so many of such questions it introduces a jadedness).
It's scenarios like that where non-judgmental, always available LLMs stand out in contrast most. I have wondered though how that might shape the dependency on LLMs broadly if people get used to not having to deal with the rough edges of humans.
Consider for example the process of casually learning about a subject in a non-academic scenario. People frequently will search online, ask on forums/chat and watch videos. Search results are widely critiqued for being poor these days, so people often turn to asking communities for specific questions.
Sometimes the only communities available are beginner hostile, expecting some prerequisite understanding and even being antagonistic toward knowledge gaps (mostly because it's uninteresting to them and they've seen so many of such questions it introduces a jadedness).
It's scenarios like that where non-judgmental, always available LLMs stand out in contrast most. I have wondered though how that might shape the dependency on LLMs broadly if people get used to not having to deal with the rough edges of humans.
My 3yo loves chatting with Gemini, more than just watching some show. It give her undivided attention and always asks follow up questions to her silly comments.
Honestly, much healthier in every respect I can think of than having kids plugged into the insane asylum that is social media.
But why are these the only two options?
I do wonder if this isn’t an improvement on watching TV though. Is AI time better than watching a show? The comment on a lack of friction is true in both cases but the active experience has to be an improvement on the passive one?
What if high quality social interactions are not the norm for some kids, and these systems are giving an inspirational blueprint for what they crave and don't have access to ? In disfunctioning families, this can be a lifeline.
Even during the video game/satanic panic of the 80's, it was acknowledged that video games - even at that early stage - allowed children who are introverted or less physically adept to experience "winning" and the satisfaction of overcoming obstacles. It seems the ability to acknowledge that there are also benefits to these new emerging systems of interaction has been lost.
I don't really recall that the people pushing the Satanic panic narrative were the same ones making nuanced arguments for the social benefits of video games and D&D.
If anything, the existence of an Internet supporting direct discussion like this between strangers like we should make vastly more nuance available at the median now than then.
What a shame we all seem to spend so much time making such poor use of it! I grew up on the dream that global communication would lead to global understanding. Imagine my disillusionment on discovering at last the besetting, lethal flaw in this beautiful revel: that we've nothing better than humans to give the job of doing it.
If anything, the existence of an Internet supporting direct discussion like this between strangers like we should make vastly more nuance available at the median now than then.
What a shame we all seem to spend so much time making such poor use of it! I grew up on the dream that global communication would lead to global understanding. Imagine my disillusionment on discovering at last the besetting, lethal flaw in this beautiful revel: that we've nothing better than humans to give the job of doing it.
An underappreciated point. Especially considering - as I discovered in my early teens - how easily a kid in a situation like that might be exploited, by an adult who isn't. Say what you like about language models, they at least seem unlikely to harbor the sort of motivations such adults admit for their behavior.
The irony of an article decrying AI influence, written with AI - but I feel where it is coming from. I used to watch long YT videos (lectures, debates) and read long articles, now I am more likely to get the transcript into a LLM and chat it out. I don't have the patience to watch the human slowly spell it out anymore.
I don't think LLMs are going to remain at perfectly timed emotional responses, calm voice that never judges, and answers that always fit. We are already seeing them adapt more, through user personalization, memories and access to past conversations. So LLMs move from static to recursive dynamics.
But what happens when billions of people create interactive logs with AI? What is in those logs?
- students learning
- problem solving
- planning tasks
- search and research
- psychological support and therapy
- companionship
So it's no longer an answer machine. It's a problem solver, a teacher and a generative-teleological agent. It help us clarify what we want, understand ourselves better. Not just solving our tasks, now it helps us choose what to do next.
Should we fear its effect or not?
It can be the greatest teacher, with a vast pedagogical experience. It can be the best problem solver not because it is smarter than us, but because it is learning from everyone's mistakes. It might be able to help more people in need than psychologists, always on, never bored, as the OP said.
I don't think LLMs are going to remain at perfectly timed emotional responses, calm voice that never judges, and answers that always fit. We are already seeing them adapt more, through user personalization, memories and access to past conversations. So LLMs move from static to recursive dynamics.
But what happens when billions of people create interactive logs with AI? What is in those logs?
- students learning
- problem solving
- planning tasks
- search and research
- psychological support and therapy
- companionship
So it's no longer an answer machine. It's a problem solver, a teacher and a generative-teleological agent. It help us clarify what we want, understand ourselves better. Not just solving our tasks, now it helps us choose what to do next.
Should we fear its effect or not?
It can be the greatest teacher, with a vast pedagogical experience. It can be the best problem solver not because it is smarter than us, but because it is learning from everyone's mistakes. It might be able to help more people in need than psychologists, always on, never bored, as the OP said.
I love his statement about trade-offs - there’s never an end all solution to things and we must be vigilant to what the tradeoffs are in the technologies we use. My belief is that our (including myself) instinct is to rush ahead with what’s shiny and new, monetize it and forget about the wake of destruction you’ve just left in your path. Looking at the results of social media, online shopping and AI makes me believe this is the case for them too. With the exception of say, 20% of its applications where it has made things genuinely “better” (there can be a whole different discussion what better means).
It’s strange to me that this message about trade-offs is not discussed more often by engineers, who are trained to look at these as a habit. If this were true, it would be engineers who would be the first to assess what are the disadvantages of applying AI - either to the product or perhaps to society. Can we have a broader discussion about the things we lose out when we use AI in our cars? As our educators? As our girlfriends/boyfriends?
> It’s strange to me that this message about trade-offs is not discussed more often by engineers, who are trained to look at these as a habit.
> (there can be a whole different discussion what better means)
This is the major road block to any fruitful discussion of trade-offs. Two people, regardless of intelligence or thought process, will often have diverging definitions and goals.
> (there can be a whole different discussion what better means)
This is the major road block to any fruitful discussion of trade-offs. Two people, regardless of intelligence or thought process, will often have diverging definitions and goals.
For me the bigger elephant in the room is how aggressively the AI is being pushed into every service. And it's always a money-drive decision, because those who push it have a clear understanding of the current state of the AI and how really unreliable it is. But they still push it, because of the investors and trends.
As for the kids, I think it doesn't matter whether it is a TV, a tablet or an AI something. It's simply either an educational/developing interaction or not. You just need to have control over it and have limits for things like this. It's the same challenge, but simply in a new form. Kids love doing interesting things, so parents just need to stop being lazy and find good ways for their children to spend time.
As for the kids, I think it doesn't matter whether it is a TV, a tablet or an AI something. It's simply either an educational/developing interaction or not. You just need to have control over it and have limits for things like this. It's the same challenge, but simply in a new form. Kids love doing interesting things, so parents just need to stop being lazy and find good ways for their children to spend time.
I’ve been thinking about how emotionally fluent AI is changing the way Gen Alpha learns, feels, and connects.
This essay explores what happens when children begin to trust AI more than people—and how it may reshape humanity before we even realize it’s happening.
This process began long before AI was a consumer thing. For example, I’ve long preferred text messages over phone or video calls.
I think a lot of it has to do with the attention economy. Our attentions are so occupied by social media and we are so accustomed to its rapid feedback and endless stream of novelty that we get frustrated and annoyed by the slow speed of communication with other people. So often I find my attention wandering while someone slowly explains something to me and they will often notice and be offended or hurt by it. These interactions make relationships difficult to maintain and I don’t really know what to do about it!
I think a lot of it has to do with the attention economy. Our attentions are so occupied by social media and we are so accustomed to its rapid feedback and endless stream of novelty that we get frustrated and annoyed by the slow speed of communication with other people. So often I find my attention wandering while someone slowly explains something to me and they will often notice and be offended or hurt by it. These interactions make relationships difficult to maintain and I don’t really know what to do about it!
This is a great moment to go read one of my favorite Neal Stephenson books, Diamond Age. Most of the book’s theme deals with nanotechnology, but a very significant element is The Primer, a book that has enough AI to raise a child. The Primer is benevolent and is a good depiction of what AI driven education might be capable of. Stephenson’s book is a product of the 90’s and there’s a lot of techno-optimism. I always hope for the optimists to win the day.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
Kids (and humans) are wired to follow individuals who express themselves with authority and confidence - hence the long history of "confidence-men" and politicians throughout history.
If you place that ability to communicate with confidence and authority in an individual with male gender traits who is tall, fit, socially attractive, and has a deep voice - nearly everyone around them will do what they say; even to the extent that doing so many be against the best interest of the individuals listening.
AI speaks with utmost confidence in every interaction - not just kids, but all humans will have a preference for it.
If you place that ability to communicate with confidence and authority in an individual with male gender traits who is tall, fit, socially attractive, and has a deep voice - nearly everyone around them will do what they say; even to the extent that doing so many be against the best interest of the individuals listening.
AI speaks with utmost confidence in every interaction - not just kids, but all humans will have a preference for it.
I started my teaching career in 2015 and ended it in 2021, and I saw all the same things then. This phenomenon has little to do with AI, and is a consequence of societies and economies becoming ever more systems-oriented.
The Rationalist and Dark Enlightenment movements are just the start of what will become an ever-increasing wave of people claiming to have solved all of society's problems from first principles, and we're going to have to spend ever more energy explaining that reality has a surprising amount of detail.
The Rationalist and Dark Enlightenment movements are just the start of what will become an ever-increasing wave of people claiming to have solved all of society's problems from first principles, and we're going to have to spend ever more energy explaining that reality has a surprising amount of detail.
Yudkowsky and Moldbug, Freud, Adam Smith, Marx. Developing grand overarching theories, and marketing them to society at large is not an entirely new phenomenon. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by “systems-oriented”?
As a kid, the main thing that never occurred to me was 'why' - why were they holding this contest? Why offer this service for 'free'? Etc. Once I realized that generally businesses don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts, it was a lot easier to find the business reason and incentive behind their behavior.
The question is whether this can be taught without turning kids into cynics.
The question is whether this can be taught without turning kids into cynics.
This is a plausible narrative, but whether it is actually happening is a completely unsupported assertion. It doesn't even have anecdotal examples of cases showing this happening in the real world.
Also: This article was written in collaboration with AI. The tool helped shape the words—but the questions, the direction, and the discomfort it carries are human. Oh the irony.
Also: This article was written in collaboration with AI. The tool helped shape the words—but the questions, the direction, and the discomfort it carries are human. Oh the irony.
What's with the incessant flagging these days? It's getting annoying.
Not sure I agree with the post, but the effects of growing up with ubiquitous AI on our children will be profound and worth pondering and discussion. Just like the effect of growing up with smartphones has been profound (and, as a father of such children, the effect is on balance more detrimental than useful).
Not sure I agree with the post, but the effects of growing up with ubiquitous AI on our children will be profound and worth pondering and discussion. Just like the effect of growing up with smartphones has been profound (and, as a father of such children, the effect is on balance more detrimental than useful).
I saw a child chat with an AI Tom Felton on the bus using her smartphone. I'm not sure if that is healthy.
> So when a child speaks to AI and hears back:
> – a perfectly timed emotional response
> – a calm voice that never judges
> – an answer that always fits what they needed to hear
And what’s bad about this? Maybe humans need to rethink their behavior if machine is better?
Whole article is just authors screaming insecurity.
> – a perfectly timed emotional response
> – a calm voice that never judges
> – an answer that always fits what they needed to hear
And what’s bad about this? Maybe humans need to rethink their behavior if machine is better?
Whole article is just authors screaming insecurity.
You're essentially talking to yourself while the GUI make it feels like you're talking to a anthropomorphised third party. That's why so many people with mental issues absolutely love these LLMs, they tell you what you want to hear, or something vague enough that you can interpret it your way, and it'll never every judge you, because it can't. But does it actually solve anything or pushes you deeper in your hole ?
> if machine is better?
Define "better" ? What are we measuring ? Instant self gratification ? Long term emotional independence ?
> if machine is better?
Define "better" ? What are we measuring ? Instant self gratification ? Long term emotional independence ?
The article goes on to say what the author thinks is bad about this:
> We’re not raising emotionally intelligent kids. We’re raising kids to navigate human unpredictability as if it’s a design flaw. Because when you grow up with a machine that always gets you, messy human behavior feels broken. We’re not preparing kids to handle people.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with escaping into fantasy in the right time and place, but young kids (and even well-adjusted adults) can have problems self-moderating and letting fantasy substitute for engaging with reality.
> We’re not raising emotionally intelligent kids. We’re raising kids to navigate human unpredictability as if it’s a design flaw. Because when you grow up with a machine that always gets you, messy human behavior feels broken. We’re not preparing kids to handle people.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with escaping into fantasy in the right time and place, but young kids (and even well-adjusted adults) can have problems self-moderating and letting fantasy substitute for engaging with reality.
My theory is it’ll make children more anxious when the cookie-cutter nearly perfect schema is broken.
We need rough edges, we need some level of inconsistency.
If a child is grown up on machine, they’ll prefer machine for friends, dating, colleagues.
We’re already seeing a subset of the population who are less physically social turn to AI to fill the gap. Not necessarily a bad thing for adults, but preferring machine over humans in place of friends during a childs most formidable years is a recipe for societal disaster.
We need rough edges, we need some level of inconsistency.
If a child is grown up on machine, they’ll prefer machine for friends, dating, colleagues.
We’re already seeing a subset of the population who are less physically social turn to AI to fill the gap. Not necessarily a bad thing for adults, but preferring machine over humans in place of friends during a childs most formidable years is a recipe for societal disaster.
> And what’s bad about this? Maybe humans need to rethink their behavior if machine is better?
What is bad about this is that we exist in a real world, with other imperfect humans that we need to learn to interact with, and sometimes very tough social situations we will have to learn to navigate
Children who are overly coddled and never challenged grow up to become insecure, entitled adults. They expect everything to continue coddling them forever
> A calm voice that never judges
If you are never judged, you never improve
What is bad about this is that we exist in a real world, with other imperfect humans that we need to learn to interact with, and sometimes very tough social situations we will have to learn to navigate
Children who are overly coddled and never challenged grow up to become insecure, entitled adults. They expect everything to continue coddling them forever
> A calm voice that never judges
If you are never judged, you never improve
> what’s bad about this?
What's bad about this is when these children would need to fit inside a certain circle with other people, who don't behave like machines do. Circle like school, work, or family. These children might have issues accommodating there.
You may then ask, "maybe humans don't need schools, work, or families," but that would be a different conversation.
What's bad about this is when these children would need to fit inside a certain circle with other people, who don't behave like machines do. Circle like school, work, or family. These children might have issues accommodating there.
You may then ask, "maybe humans don't need schools, work, or families," but that would be a different conversation.
> – an answer that always fits what they needed to hear
So ... that makes the machine better?
I believe the term for a human that acts like that is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy
So ... that makes the machine better?
I believe the term for a human that acts like that is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy
Parenting is not a mere inconvenience to be automated away. It is a part of what makes us human.
> Whole article is just authors screaming insecurity.
I have yet to see a single AI proponent commit to giving their kid over to AI, if they even have one. SV CEOs are sending their kids to hardcore techfree schools and limiting their own kids access to their tech, all while insisting AI and their tech poses no risk at all to kids and that any reservations are "fear mongering."
I have yet to see a single AI proponent commit to giving their kid over to AI, if they even have one. SV CEOs are sending their kids to hardcore techfree schools and limiting their own kids access to their tech, all while insisting AI and their tech poses no risk at all to kids and that any reservations are "fear mongering."
I'm sorry but your take is just too stupid to ignore, and I apologize in advance because ad hominem is not my goal.
I'll boil this down to the simplest possible explanation of why your statement is idiotic -- children who are trained to prefer AI, will never learn how to form friendships with their peers (aka other children, who won't always give perfectly timed emotional responses or always be calm or always answer what they need to hear). Other children are not able to "rethink their behavior" yet because they are children still.
A world in which, I ask my child "do you want to play with Timmy next door, or stay inside and play with Alexa/Siri/etc." and my child always prefers to pick Alexa, is one of the most dystopian outcomes I could possibly imagine for childrearing.
Forming friendships and human connections is a skill. Learning new skills is hard and not always fun. A soothing AI companion that always says what you want to hear, is going to trap children in a dopamine loop that prevents that kind of social skill development from ever happening.
I'll boil this down to the simplest possible explanation of why your statement is idiotic -- children who are trained to prefer AI, will never learn how to form friendships with their peers (aka other children, who won't always give perfectly timed emotional responses or always be calm or always answer what they need to hear). Other children are not able to "rethink their behavior" yet because they are children still.
A world in which, I ask my child "do you want to play with Timmy next door, or stay inside and play with Alexa/Siri/etc." and my child always prefers to pick Alexa, is one of the most dystopian outcomes I could possibly imagine for childrearing.
Forming friendships and human connections is a skill. Learning new skills is hard and not always fun. A soothing AI companion that always says what you want to hear, is going to trap children in a dopamine loop that prevents that kind of social skill development from ever happening.
AI replaces piece of shit adults that surround them, not other children.
That's very naive. AI replaces any and all "less fun" forms of interaction, for children who are too undeveloped to appreciate any goal/metric besides "fun". Meeting new unfamiliar kids is not fun, ergo kids will fallback to the known-safe, comfortable, fun companion that is AI.
If you believe the argument makes enough sense to justify replacing adults, then why do you think children will still want to play with each other, instead of just playing with AI? If anything, other children are MORE likely to display shitty behaviors than adults, given that you know, they're fucking children who don't know any better.
Have you spent any time around children?
If you believe the argument makes enough sense to justify replacing adults, then why do you think children will still want to play with each other, instead of just playing with AI? If anything, other children are MORE likely to display shitty behaviors than adults, given that you know, they're fucking children who don't know any better.
Have you spent any time around children?
> Have you spent any time around children?
I’ve spent years being one.
I’ve spent years being one.
Years ago back when there was no AI biasing your interactions with other children... The entire argument is that the new generations don't have the same opportunity to form friendships in an unfettered way like you did in your childhood, because of the pervasive influence of AI that didn't exist during your own childhood.
A child conditioned by a machine that always placates them and caters to every desire in the most perfect way is NOT preparing them for an imperfect world full of random human interaction. If you dont understand this you have a problem you need to address that is easily fixed by going outside.
> This article was written in collaboration with AI.
It shows. The whole "So What Can We Do?" section lacks substance.
afaict the substack account was created 17 minutes ago and this is their first post. The HN account that posted it was created 49 minutes ago.
It shows. The whole "So What Can We Do?" section lacks substance.
afaict the substack account was created 17 minutes ago and this is their first post. The HN account that posted it was created 49 minutes ago.
Good catch. Let’s flag it and move on.
Why should they prefer people to AI?
People are manipulative, combative, dumb, unethical. I prefer AI over the average person, but I still prefer really exceptional individuals over any AI.
People are manipulative, combative, dumb, unethical. I prefer AI over the average person, but I still prefer really exceptional individuals over any AI.
AI isn't manipulative? It can be said to have ethics?
The most dangerous animal on this planet by far is the one that doesn't think of itself so. Even still, I would rather face an armed and angry human than an LLM with a goal best served by ending my life. I can smell how likely the human is to kill me in the next thirty seconds. The machine, not so much, nor will it face even the briefest moment of emotional difficulty at the prospect.
It isn't that I don't get what you're saying, goodness knows. Sharing this species with a planet is no bed of roses. Still, I've spent decades learning to understand the animal. No one has spent nearly that long learning to understand the machine.
The most dangerous animal on this planet by far is the one that doesn't think of itself so. Even still, I would rather face an armed and angry human than an LLM with a goal best served by ending my life. I can smell how likely the human is to kill me in the next thirty seconds. The machine, not so much, nor will it face even the briefest moment of emotional difficulty at the prospect.
It isn't that I don't get what you're saying, goodness knows. Sharing this species with a planet is no bed of roses. Still, I've spent decades learning to understand the animal. No one has spent nearly that long learning to understand the machine.
Kids haven’t spent time learning shit, they’re kids.
Kids get a free head start on understanding humans. Yes, even us. The infrastructure's there. We just have to approach it differently. (Social wasps can smell whether a human is afraid or angry. Is it so controversial to suggest even infant conspecifics can do likewise?)
I believe you may be also overindexing on the circumstance in which attachment fails from the parental side. Again, if so I can empathize, but wish to note other outcomes do occur.
I believe you may be also overindexing on the circumstance in which attachment fails from the parental side. Again, if so I can empathize, but wish to note other outcomes do occur.
I can understand machines just fine. When I feel them radiating heat or fans spooling up a bit faster I know they’re up to something. Similarly, you can feel something is off by sensing packets being dropped or subtle electromagnetic whine. That’s when I act.
Yes, I have also inhabited datacenters. LLMs are a new thing in the world. They are not human but pretend to be. I fear we judge them by a human standard - or by the standard of prior machines not capable of deceit - at our peril. At the very least, I hope we don't too quickly assume they are also anxious to see themselves as like us.
Though those who've known me would take it as an obvious joke to hear me say, I don't actually take too close an interest in most humans, because the median human by my standard barely qualifies as sapient; they don't deserve to be as miserable as they insist upon, but at the same time they do make it hard to feel really safe. Still, one hopes one has the sense not to assume anything that isn't human must by that sole virtue necessarily be trustworthy. Especially if humans "invented" it.
Though those who've known me would take it as an obvious joke to hear me say, I don't actually take too close an interest in most humans, because the median human by my standard barely qualifies as sapient; they don't deserve to be as miserable as they insist upon, but at the same time they do make it hard to feel really safe. Still, one hopes one has the sense not to assume anything that isn't human must by that sole virtue necessarily be trustworthy. Especially if humans "invented" it.
Do you need to be in a state of development or emotional distress to form an emotional attachment to AI?
I feel like I missed the boat, this sounds like a fantastic self-soothing option.
I feel like I missed the boat, this sounds like a fantastic self-soothing option.
Good riddance. I've been pro-skynet for a long time now. At last my vote has been heard. Good bye humanity.
Probably not just kids. One of the more recent-ish trends in social-media feminism is a negative view towards an unequal distribution of "emotional labor" in a relationship. But even the current generation of AI is great at that type of "labor". It acts compassionate, is always available, isn't judging, won't rat you out or use your weaknesses against you in the next argument. And the ability to make appointments for you, keep track of social obligations, birthdays and your grocery list is mostly there too, even if it still comes with challenges.
Of course the downsides are just as myriad as the upsides. People used to care how much Google knows about them, now they willingly tell their private thoughts to ChatGPT or Gemini. Also AI is great at mimicking compassion, but it doesn't actually feel anything, it's closer to a calculating psychopath mimicking emotions (without even going into the whole debate whether current AI can reason or just does something that to us looks similar to reasoning). And of course most importantly, everyone "connecting" with AI instead of real humans is pretty dystopian on its own, even if we ignore all the ways this can be abused by bad actors
Of course the downsides are just as myriad as the upsides. People used to care how much Google knows about them, now they willingly tell their private thoughts to ChatGPT or Gemini. Also AI is great at mimicking compassion, but it doesn't actually feel anything, it's closer to a calculating psychopath mimicking emotions (without even going into the whole debate whether current AI can reason or just does something that to us looks similar to reasoning). And of course most importantly, everyone "connecting" with AI instead of real humans is pretty dystopian on its own, even if we ignore all the ways this can be abused by bad actors
> We're Raising Kids to Prefer AI over People–and No One's Noticing
The ai will notice, and the corporations that run them.
The ai will notice, and the corporations that run them.
Ironically, this entire article is AI generated slop (presumably with some editing). The author admits it:
> This article was written in collaboration with AI.
If you didn’t catch on, this is a newly created HN account posting a link to a newly created Substack which has newly created LLM slop. It’s ironic that the content is about children getting immediate satisfaction from LLMs telling them what they want to hear, because that’s what’s happening in this article.
I suspected it was AI generated because it followed the pattern I see from LLM-promoted debate arguments: It puts forward a conjecture, treats it as fact, provides no evidence or support, and then circles around the conjecture for paragraph after paragraph in hopes that the reader will accept it as true.
This content is effective for hooking people who already believe something to be true because it mirrors the result they want to see. Do any critical thinking on the article and you see that the arguments are effectively circular: They only make sense if you presume the premise to be true from the start. It’s as though the LLM has become good at taking a belief and doing a style transfer to rewrite it in the form of an argument, but it can’t actually fill in the parts of the argument.
The suggestion in the middle that we start deliberately training AI to be imperfect should have also been a giveaway that this article wasn’t serious
> This article was written in collaboration with AI.
If you didn’t catch on, this is a newly created HN account posting a link to a newly created Substack which has newly created LLM slop. It’s ironic that the content is about children getting immediate satisfaction from LLMs telling them what they want to hear, because that’s what’s happening in this article.
I suspected it was AI generated because it followed the pattern I see from LLM-promoted debate arguments: It puts forward a conjecture, treats it as fact, provides no evidence or support, and then circles around the conjecture for paragraph after paragraph in hopes that the reader will accept it as true.
This content is effective for hooking people who already believe something to be true because it mirrors the result they want to see. Do any critical thinking on the article and you see that the arguments are effectively circular: They only make sense if you presume the premise to be true from the start. It’s as though the LLM has become good at taking a belief and doing a style transfer to rewrite it in the form of an argument, but it can’t actually fill in the parts of the argument.
The suggestion in the middle that we start deliberately training AI to be imperfect should have also been a giveaway that this article wasn’t serious
> this is a Substack blog churning out AI content based on current trends
I agree that this article is slop, but where can I see the rest of their substack articles? https://askswithoutpermission.substack.com/profile/posts shows no posts at all so maybe it's just broken.
I agree that this article is slop, but where can I see the rest of their substack articles? https://askswithoutpermission.substack.com/profile/posts shows no posts at all so maybe it's just broken.
It was just created right now for that purpose.
As was the HN account that posted it. Note the green username.
This is what it looks like when someone decides to try fishing for traction with AI junk. They probably went from idea to having the blog up and posted in 30 minutes or less. They’re probably working on a different iteration which will get posted here on HN again soon.
As was the HN account that posted it. Note the green username.
This is what it looks like when someone decides to try fishing for traction with AI junk. They probably went from idea to having the blog up and posted in 30 minutes or less. They’re probably working on a different iteration which will get posted here on HN again soon.
Wait till you heard about software developers journeyman that got burn out from passive aggressive and RTFM responses from their fellow human engineers.
I think a brilliant aspect of the movie is that it confronts the audience with the uncomfortable situation where the machine is more humane than humans. And this was also a recurrent theme in many Asimov novels.