I suspect there is a lot of selection bias going on as well.
Forums like this, reddit, X, readers of news sites etc tend to be filled with people that don’t have much going on in their lives, have a lot of free time to comment, are less likely to exploit the benefits of AI, and more likely to have simpler skills sets that are replaceable with AI.
Talking to people in real world, I would say the overwhelming majority are excited by AI and interesting in using it more rather than less.
You really do want breadth-first exploration, because once a group has identified and explored a few scenarios of high likelihood, the brain is already biased towards those events and more exotic scenarios are less likely to be imagined.
Only after that first exploration should you narrow it down according to likelihood. Then, if those likely scenarios appear to be dead ends, you can circle back to the earlier less likely scenarios. But trying to come up with less likely scenarios after your brain has already explored a different scenario in-depth takes a lot more effort.
> If someone started out with crazy low-discernment ideas, I’d probably ask them to leave to stop distracting everyone else.
Then you'd be doing it wrong. Valuing an idea (i.e. rating it in terms of relevance, likelihood, discernment, whatever you want to call it) is not part of the brainstorm, it's part of the post-brainstorm evaluation. Creativity and logic exercise the brain differently, trying to do both at the same time does not give the best results.
People opposed to data centres remind me of people opposed to mask wearing.
Both are attempting to dismiss something useful and important, over trivial and manageable issues, mostly for culture war reasons rather than rational reasons.
They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky.
Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming.
This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.
The problem is they can't really say it, because if their stance is that Musk's management deserves such rejection, then they are cutting their nose to spite their face, and if the abhorrent ones are X users in general, they show themselves to be only on one side of the aisle, removing any legitimacy to their principles.
>They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky.
Is this the right metric? Or would having 98% of their impressions lopped off by the platform factor in? What if they were 100% suppressed? Would it still be "political" for them to leave? If not, then what's the threshhold?
And, if the platform is suppressing them, then isn't it the platform that's playing politics? How are they absolved, and why should EFF stick around to give them its imprimatur of legitimacy / neutrality?
It’s worth keeping in mind that 16 hours was their single highest day of use ever, not their typical daily use.
I’m sure I’ve spent 16 hours on Netflix or League of Legends in a 24 hour period before, yet my median daily usage is 0 hours, and it wouldn’t be reasonable to describe my usage as an addition either.
I’m not saying people don’t get addicted to social media, they do, but in this particular case I think his description of problematic is adequate, and this headline is unnecessarily confrontational.
Now do “Mosseri said he did not think it was possible to say how much Instagram use was too much.”
The guy doesn’t have a red line when it comes to children. That’s self serving and dangerous. (It’s also against a mounting pile of evidence, much of which Facebook has tried to lie about.)
I’m not defending him at all, but why does it matter what Mosseri thinks? It doesn’t surprise me at all that [tobacco executive/drug dealer/social media executive] is downplaying their negative effects on society.
Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
> why does it matter what Mosseri thinks? It doesn’t surprise me at all that [tobacco executive/drug dealer/social media executive] is downplaying their negative effects on society
It might not surprise me. But if Philip Morris started arguing nicotine isn't addictive, I'd assume they're no longer able to run their organisation without increased public oversight.
> Isn’t it up to the parents to limit social media use?
Sure. One way parents can do that is by encouraging their represenatatives to pass laws to protect their children.
But you aren't being realistic, you're shifting blame.
Let's play a little game of replacement to see how we feel. Suppose he is selling cigarettes, since you made the comparison. He's targeting children and teens for marketing and making it difficult for parents to detect when their kids smoke; after all, Instagram has no smell.
Do your feelings remain the same?
Do your feelings remain the same if you look back at the history of the tobacco industry, recognize they also targeted teens because teen smokers were far more likely to become lifelong users? When you realize that effective change didn't happen until actual regulation came into place along with vocal public discussion?
Do your feelings remain the same when you recognize that teens are human beings who have their own autonomy? That parents cannot watch them at all times NOR should they? We transition teens into having greater autonomy and independence. The only way your "it's up to the parents" claim actually works is with helicopter parenting and where they go from 0 autonomy when they are 17 years and 364 days old to complete autonomy the next day.
You don't sound very realistic.
You sound like you're dismissive of the parents. You sound dismissive of the very thing you claim to advocate for. Realistically parents try to solve things by themselves, like most people. Then they turn to peers and family for help. Then they turn to local communities. There is a natural escalation of these things. That's the reality most people live in. Maybe that's not your reality, but it is that of most people. Are you really surprised that people have to escalate and take collective action? Otherwise it's a million battles of one set of parents vs a multitrillion dollar organization with supercomputers and experts on psychology and addiction. I'm just being realistic here, but it seems to me that it is more effective to combine forces, to form a coalition.
> I’m not defending him, I’m just being realistic here
The term is over-used, but this is actual victim blaming. Nobody is surprised when a serial killer serial kills. But if a bystanders starts then arguing that we shouldn't be surprised at that, and that the victims shouldn't have gone into a neighbourhood with a serial killer, they're just being realistic...they're defending the serial killer. That's what their lawyer would be expected to argue. (It's literally what Mosseri and his supporters are saying.)
It's really just not there yet. I've been in medical school for >3 years now and have been using the latest models with good prompting. They have gotten much better, but I still see misses that my classmates would easily catch. This is not acceptable in healthcare. It's certainly not getting 100% on all my assignments, which are a step below the complexity of real-world clinical practice.
Before medical school, I was not so sure of the quality of your average doc. Now having spent a year in clinical practice across various settings, I am extremely reassured. I can say with certainty that a US trained doctor is miles ahead of AI right now. The system sucks really bad though and forces physicians to churn patients, giving the impression that physicians don't pay attention/don't care/etc.
Because it's a UK fine. The "monopoly" is driven by Apple making very good products for a long period of time and the UK putting its money almost anywhere but into people who might invent the next iPhone-like thing and make people's lives better worldwide.
Why? You probably know just how long these cases take, so it is not like all other countries are now going to do the same.
If that's the case then using their total profit seems the only proper measure. What it says is that these companies lose these cases but it's so infrequent that they can just price it in. It's a cost of doing business.
If we were to fine Tim Cook 1000$ for doing something that paid him 1M would that have the 'effect' of keeping him from doing that again?
Countries with similar laws might very well consider doing the same after reviewing the case and considering how well it matches their own situation.
Other than that I agree with you - the fine doesn't make much of a difference unless the risk becomes so significant that it effectively threatens the jobs of people not to address it, and it will only threaten jobs if it becomes more expensive to continue ignoring these laws than paying fines if/when individual countries take them to court.
Limiting it to App Store profit doesn’t make sense. The App Store is not an independent corporation (although it’d be great if some regulator forced it to be!) Apple makes the decisions about its behavior.
Forums like this, reddit, X, readers of news sites etc tend to be filled with people that don’t have much going on in their lives, have a lot of free time to comment, are less likely to exploit the benefits of AI, and more likely to have simpler skills sets that are replaceable with AI.
Talking to people in real world, I would say the overwhelming majority are excited by AI and interesting in using it more rather than less.
reply