4 ms·

Why is child care something that should be automated? Doesn't it make sense to spend a lot of high-value human attention on small children? Humans are not a pr

Why is child care something that should be automated? Doesn't it make sense to spend a lot of high-value human attention on small children? Humans are not a product. They are an end in themselves. It's like trying to automate your friends or your spouse.

tptacek 11y ago
No, it doesn't make sense to spend lots of high-value human attention on small children. For a pretty huge part of the day, small children are better off exploring the world on their own, and making social connections on their own. What's needed is safety, comfort, and some degree of monitored structure. Again: once your kid turns 5 (4, if you're rich and you send your kid to private all-day preschool), you're generally sending them somewhere where one adult will watch as many as 30 kids concurrently, all the while educating them to the point where they can creditably pass standardized tests. That's a harder job than just making sure kids are happy and engaged, and yet we pay far less for it than we do for child care. Child care is a huge part of why people get crappier jobs than they might. You can't go back to school if you have no savings and need to pay at least $15/hr for child care; in fact, you can't even speculatively take a lower-paying job for career advancement if that job doesn't pay enough to offset child care.
- jacobush 11y ago
  This is one of the scariest posts I have read. Infants and small children definitely need high-value human attention. I don't even know where to begin, just wanted to let the world know that I'm horrified by your comment.
  - Retric 11y ago
    High-value human attention, but not High-value human attention 24/7. Sure, if we want to subsidize stay at home parents for young children that's a reasonable choice. But, pushing daycare out of reach of most low income family's pushes people into poverty which also has significant long term negative impacts on those same children.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Are you horrified by all the parents who put their kids in day care while they work?
    - aidenn0 11y ago
      Not who you're asking, but this is clearly a problem for infants and young toddlers (the data is fairly strong for under 18 months, and gets less clear the older you get from there), though it still gives the children the human interaction they need. Results are best when there is a single primary care-giver and a small number of other regular care-givers, and day-care tends to not allow for this. Things get much worse, however, when the staff of the day-care is either too few or too neglectful, as human contact and interaction is so important for early development. It is possible that we could create a sufficient facsimile of a human to allow for automated care of a child that would fulfill these needs, but there is a creep factor in that, and there remains the question of how one would ethically test the efficacy of such a system.
    - rimantas 11y ago
      And who takes care of the kids in the day care, robots?
    - ben0x539 11y ago
      I'm horrified by a economic systems that works out to requiring that, yeah. Aren't you?
  - csn 11y ago
    "Any sufficiently advanced AGI is indistinguishable from parent" just crossed my mind and I wanted to share.
- jsankey 11y ago
  You state things with conviction but no evidence. There is a big difference between the brain and therefore needs of a 4-5 year old and a 0-3 year old. I'm not sure why you assume you can infer anything about the needs of a toddler based on the way school works for older kids. Here in Australia child care is also very expensive, and I agree this is a problem for disadvantaged families (there is some means-tested subsidisation but it only helps to a degree). However: the government has recently lowered the required educator:child ratios, despite the extra cost, because research shows it is important for education (and health, not just when young but into later life). More than this: the research suggests these improvements are most significant for disadvantaged kids. For more info start here: http://archive.acecqa.gov.au/research-and-publications/ http://archive.acecqa.gov.au/research-and-publications/.
- mbesto 11y ago
  It might not make sense to you, but do a little research and you'll find your conclusion is unfounded. By law (usually state), the ratio of caregiver to child is much lower when the child is under 5. There's documented rationale for it too.[0] Also, there is a ton of research now suggesting the importance of education at that age as a function of interaction of words with parents.[1] So to suggest that "small children are better off exploring the world on their own, and making social connections on their own" is IMHO a very dangerous conclusion without understanding all of the implications associated with it. [0] - http://cfoc.nrckids.org/StandardView/1.1.1 http://cfoc.nrckids.org/StandardView/1.1.1 [1] - https://www.versame.com/research/ https://www.versame.com/research/
- panglott 11y ago
  Direct personal interaction is how small children acquire language. This is the only way that children can acquire language, and a language-rich environment is crucially important for children. This is something that simply cannot be automated.
Retric 11y ago
People often automate human interaction. Getting an email reminder a few days before a wedding anniversary or a friend's birthday is hardly dehumanizing. If a scheduling assistant means a daycare worker can care for 4 infants instead of just 3, that's a huge savings for many working families. How about dippers that can wireless notify you when there wet? Or for something that exists, a baby monitor so a caretaker can keep up with a crying child while another sleeps. PS: Don't forget it's not just daycare workers who can use assistance, actual parents are also run raggid while caring for infants.
- panglott 11y ago
  Yea, automating social coordination is fine, and technology and automation clearly enables use to increase our level of communication. Which is great. That's different from automating the content of our relationships. It is dehumanizing to have to navigate an automated phone tree rather than speak to an actual person. Now, sometimes it is more efficient to not deal with people, but when you are talking about real human relationships, then dealing with real human people is the point. Child care isn't just changing the diapers, it's about talking, interacting, and playing with children. Personal interaction is the only way that infants acquire language and language skills, for example.

tptacek 11y ago

No, it doesn't make sense to spend lots of high-value human attention on small children. For a pretty huge part of the day, small children are better off exploring the world on their own, and making social connections on their own. What's needed is safety, comfort, and some degree of monitored structure. Again: once your kid turns 5 (4, if you're rich and you send your kid to private all-day preschool), you're generally sending them somewhere where one adult will watch as many as 30 kids concurrently, all the while educating them to the point where they can creditably pass standardized tests. That's a harder job than just making sure kids are happy and engaged, and yet we pay far less for it than we do for child care. Child care is a huge part of why people get crappier jobs than they might. You can't go back to school if you have no savings and need to pay at least $15/hr for child care; in fact, you can't even speculatively take a lower-paying job for career advancement if that job doesn't pay enough to offset child care.

jacobush 11y ago
This is one of the scariest posts I have read. Infants and small children definitely need high-value human attention. I don't even know where to begin, just wanted to let the world know that I'm horrified by your comment.
- Retric 11y ago
  High-value human attention, but not High-value human attention 24/7. Sure, if we want to subsidize stay at home parents for young children that's a reasonable choice. But, pushing daycare out of reach of most low income family's pushes people into poverty which also has significant long term negative impacts on those same children.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Are you horrified by all the parents who put their kids in day care while they work?
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    Not who you're asking, but this is clearly a problem for infants and young toddlers (the data is fairly strong for under 18 months, and gets less clear the older you get from there), though it still gives the children the human interaction they need. Results are best when there is a single primary care-giver and a small number of other regular care-givers, and day-care tends to not allow for this. Things get much worse, however, when the staff of the day-care is either too few or too neglectful, as human contact and interaction is so important for early development. It is possible that we could create a sufficient facsimile of a human to allow for automated care of a child that would fulfill these needs, but there is a creep factor in that, and there remains the question of how one would ethically test the efficacy of such a system.
  - rimantas 11y ago
    And who takes care of the kids in the day care, robots?
  - ben0x539 11y ago
    I'm horrified by a economic systems that works out to requiring that, yeah. Aren't you?
- csn 11y ago
  "Any sufficiently advanced AGI is indistinguishable from parent" just crossed my mind and I wanted to share.
jsankey 11y ago
You state things with conviction but no evidence. There is a big difference between the brain and therefore needs of a 4-5 year old and a 0-3 year old. I'm not sure why you assume you can infer anything about the needs of a toddler based on the way school works for older kids. Here in Australia child care is also very expensive, and I agree this is a problem for disadvantaged families (there is some means-tested subsidisation but it only helps to a degree). However: the government has recently lowered the required educator:child ratios, despite the extra cost, because research shows it is important for education (and health, not just when young but into later life). More than this: the research suggests these improvements are most significant for disadvantaged kids. For more info start here: http://archive.acecqa.gov.au/research-and-publications/ http://archive.acecqa.gov.au/research-and-publications/.
mbesto 11y ago
It might not make sense to you, but do a little research and you'll find your conclusion is unfounded. By law (usually state), the ratio of caregiver to child is much lower when the child is under 5. There's documented rationale for it too.[0] Also, there is a ton of research now suggesting the importance of education at that age as a function of interaction of words with parents.[1] So to suggest that "small children are better off exploring the world on their own, and making social connections on their own" is IMHO a very dangerous conclusion without understanding all of the implications associated with it. [0] - http://cfoc.nrckids.org/StandardView/1.1.1 http://cfoc.nrckids.org/StandardView/1.1.1 [1] - https://www.versame.com/research/ https://www.versame.com/research/
panglott 11y ago
Direct personal interaction is how small children acquire language. This is the only way that children can acquire language, and a language-rich environment is crucially important for children. This is something that simply cannot be automated.

Retric 11y ago

People often automate human interaction. Getting an email reminder a few days before a wedding anniversary or a friend's birthday is hardly dehumanizing. If a scheduling assistant means a daycare worker can care for 4 infants instead of just 3, that's a huge savings for many working families. How about dippers that can wireless notify you when there wet? Or for something that exists, a baby monitor so a caretaker can keep up with a crying child while another sleeps. PS: Don't forget it's not just daycare workers who can use assistance, actual parents are also run raggid while caring for infants.

panglott 11y ago
Yea, automating social coordination is fine, and technology and automation clearly enables use to increase our level of communication. Which is great. That's different from automating the content of our relationships. It is dehumanizing to have to navigate an automated phone tree rather than speak to an actual person. Now, sometimes it is more efficient to not deal with people, but when you are talking about real human relationships, then dealing with real human people is the point. Child care isn't just changing the diapers, it's about talking, interacting, and playing with children. Personal interaction is the only way that infants acquire language and language skills, for example.