4 ms·

> Educate them and their parents. Children need to learn how to manage trust with strangers in the offline and online world anyway and the internet doesn't chan

> Educate them and their parents. Children need to learn how to manage trust with strangers in the offline and online world anyway and the internet doesn't change that. I'm not sure this is even possible. I understand children are smart but I don't think they are this smart. We can educate children to be cautious but i don't think we should expect them not to get out witted by an adult.

vaylian 2y ago
Children are smart enough to understand that no stranger except for a doctor should request to see their private parts. Children are smart enough to learn that they should not respond to sharing names, ages and locations when asked about it on the internet. Also: Children are a lot smarter than AI, which is allegedly the super-magical protection against child grooming.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > Children are smart enough to learn that they should not share names, ages and locations with strangers on the internet. I'm old enough to remember when that was the norm. But it's been along time now since Facebook etc. came along, and they spent the entire time since then insisting on a real-name policy and asking us to give details of our age, our location, which school we go to, and post a continuous stream of photos of ourselves. > Also: Children are a lot smarter than AI, which is allegedly the super-magical protection against child grooming. By what measure are children smarter?
  - kaba0 2y ago
    Any measure? ChatGPT still can’t solve a sudoku, let alone do any form of reasoning. It’s more of a search engine than “intelligence”, while humans obviously can reason and solve novel tasks.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > ChatGPT still can’t solve a sudoku, Now you've got me wondering, if there's even an appropriate test set to find out. When I do a sudoku, it's either printed and then I don't know if I made a mistake until the very end; or it's on a computer which tells me about mistakes as soon as I make them. I do know I make mistakes when doing them, but I don't know how often — more or less frequently than ChatGPT. (Also, at least one LLM has been demonstrated to do Turing-machine-like operations[0], and there were Sudoku-solving AI well before LLMs). > let alone do any form of reasoning. It’s more of a search engine than “intelligence”, while humans obviously can reason and solve novel tasks. I am aware of Clever-Hand and that I may be making the same mistake, but it sure looks like it can do those things as well as humans. Humans aren't that great either when it comes to genuinely novel tasks, which is why we have to be trained to do science and use the method of falsification. [0] I'm not sure if I need the "-like" caveat? https://manifold.markets/DanMan314/will-anyone-win-victortaelins-10k-a https://manifold.markets/DanMan314/will-anyone-win-victortae...
      - kaba0 2y ago
        I have never seen an example where it didn’t basically just rehash some answer already found in its training data. Where it excels is language tasks, and retrieving knowledge can be looked at as a language task - it has some internal representation of some textual form of the repeating parts of its training data set, and it can translate it into an answer appropriate for a question. It fundamentally can’t come up with a novel reply, unlike a human. It breaks spectacularly the instant you go off its training set, which is very easy to notice if you ask it about a topic you are knowledgeable about.
        ben_w 2y ago
        It has to generalise just to be able to fill in the gaps within-domain. If it was not so, I could copy-paste lines from this into google and find out where it was quoting from: https://chatgpt.com/c/3105db2c-b88d-42c6-83bb-ea2b9d6d65a1 https://chatgpt.com/c/3105db2c-b88d-42c6-83bb-ea2b9d6d65a1 > unlike a human You know the phrase "thinking outside the box"? It's a thing people look for specifically because it's rare. I can't tell how good or bad LLMs are at this compared to a human due to LLMs having a ridiculous advantage when it comes to breadth of knowledge. My guess is they are indeed worse than us at generalising. But they do generalise. They have to generalise even to be at this level.
- CJefferson 2y ago
  I'm sure you don't mean this, but it sounds a lot like you are saying that it is a child's fault when they get sexually abused and don't tell anyone about it. That happens all the time to children, they are groomed both offline and online. It's a real problem, and it isn't going to be solved by saying we just need smarter children.
  - vaylian 2y ago
    > I'm sure you don't mean this, but it sounds a lot like you are saying that it is a child's fault when they get sexually abused and don't tell anyone about it. That is valuable feedback. Thank you. I'll try to improve my choice of words. > it isn't going to be solved by saying we just need smarter children. Agree. We need better education, which does not require smarter children. And to achieve a better education, we as a society need to talk more about how abuse can happen and where red lines, that our children can understand, have to be drawn
    - CJefferson 2y ago
      You are right, while we might disagree one some things (do children need end-to-end encryption), I do, I think, all want to figure out how to make sure all children end up happy and safe, and I don't think we know the best way to achieve that.
  - ugly1kenowbi 2y ago
    I'm guessing this mismatch is a question of differing life views/philosophies; as a general rule, for me, it is absolutely my responsibility as a parent to educate my daughter to make sure she can evaluate risk "properly" and then, it is on her* to decide how to manage that, always knowing that are people out there that will attempt to harm you. This clearly means that we sometimes will get it wrong but, in my mind, you will not reduce those risks with a technical solution as this applies to all facets of your life, online or otherwise, and you will be opening doors that can backfire too much. *age matters a lot but that is a different discussion by itself
    - 2y ago
- newswasboring 2y ago
  I feel like you are just asserting things because it feels right. I don't have children myself but I have a gaggle of nieces and nephews and I just can't bring myself to be convinced that they can be trained to thwart the plans of an adult. Add to that all the cases I've heard about, no parent said they didn't try to train their child not to talk to strangers. The predators are using tools designed by billion dollar companies and very refined grooming tactics. It will take some evidence before I'm convinced children can combat all that with training from over worked and underpayed parents.
  - abofh 2y ago
    It however requires no evidence to suggest that the problem is having children without sufficient time and resources to support them will lead to poor outcomes. If you want to protect your children, you have to be able to take those steps, not outsource the responsibility to someone else with time and money. Predators are bad, but most of them are known to the child before the injury -- that suggests parents are way more responsible for child abuse than randos on the internet, it's just that randos have more opportunities.
    - newswasboring 2y ago
      > It however requires no evidence to suggest that the problem is having children without sufficient time and resources to support them will lead to poor outcomes. This is such an infuriatingly bad victim blaming comment that I can't believe it's on this forum.
      - abofh 2y ago
        Nobodies blaming the victim - that was the assertion of the problem by you. If you have children you can't support, don't blame society that you're having trouble supporting them. It's callous maybe, but remember the victims are the children, not the parents. The parents created the problem
        newswasboring 2y ago

vaylian 2y ago

Children are smart enough to understand that no stranger except for a doctor should request to see their private parts. Children are smart enough to learn that they should not respond to sharing names, ages and locations when asked about it on the internet. Also: Children are a lot smarter than AI, which is allegedly the super-magical protection against child grooming.

ben_w 2y ago
> Children are smart enough to learn that they should not share names, ages and locations with strangers on the internet. I'm old enough to remember when that was the norm. But it's been along time now since Facebook etc. came along, and they spent the entire time since then insisting on a real-name policy and asking us to give details of our age, our location, which school we go to, and post a continuous stream of photos of ourselves. > Also: Children are a lot smarter than AI, which is allegedly the super-magical protection against child grooming. By what measure are children smarter?
- kaba0 2y ago
  Any measure? ChatGPT still can’t solve a sudoku, let alone do any form of reasoning. It’s more of a search engine than “intelligence”, while humans obviously can reason and solve novel tasks.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > ChatGPT still can’t solve a sudoku, Now you've got me wondering, if there's even an appropriate test set to find out. When I do a sudoku, it's either printed and then I don't know if I made a mistake until the very end; or it's on a computer which tells me about mistakes as soon as I make them. I do know I make mistakes when doing them, but I don't know how often — more or less frequently than ChatGPT. (Also, at least one LLM has been demonstrated to do Turing-machine-like operations[0], and there were Sudoku-solving AI well before LLMs). > let alone do any form of reasoning. It’s more of a search engine than “intelligence”, while humans obviously can reason and solve novel tasks. I am aware of Clever-Hand and that I may be making the same mistake, but it sure looks like it can do those things as well as humans. Humans aren't that great either when it comes to genuinely novel tasks, which is why we have to be trained to do science and use the method of falsification. [0] I'm not sure if I need the "-like" caveat? https://manifold.markets/DanMan314/will-anyone-win-victortaelins-10k-a https://manifold.markets/DanMan314/will-anyone-win-victortae...
    - kaba0 2y ago
      I have never seen an example where it didn’t basically just rehash some answer already found in its training data. Where it excels is language tasks, and retrieving knowledge can be looked at as a language task - it has some internal representation of some textual form of the repeating parts of its training data set, and it can translate it into an answer appropriate for a question. It fundamentally can’t come up with a novel reply, unlike a human. It breaks spectacularly the instant you go off its training set, which is very easy to notice if you ask it about a topic you are knowledgeable about.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        It has to generalise just to be able to fill in the gaps within-domain. If it was not so, I could copy-paste lines from this into google and find out where it was quoting from: https://chatgpt.com/c/3105db2c-b88d-42c6-83bb-ea2b9d6d65a1 https://chatgpt.com/c/3105db2c-b88d-42c6-83bb-ea2b9d6d65a1 > unlike a human You know the phrase "thinking outside the box"? It's a thing people look for specifically because it's rare. I can't tell how good or bad LLMs are at this compared to a human due to LLMs having a ridiculous advantage when it comes to breadth of knowledge. My guess is they are indeed worse than us at generalising. But they do generalise. They have to generalise even to be at this level.
CJefferson 2y ago
I'm sure you don't mean this, but it sounds a lot like you are saying that it is a child's fault when they get sexually abused and don't tell anyone about it. That happens all the time to children, they are groomed both offline and online. It's a real problem, and it isn't going to be solved by saying we just need smarter children.
- vaylian 2y ago
  > I'm sure you don't mean this, but it sounds a lot like you are saying that it is a child's fault when they get sexually abused and don't tell anyone about it. That is valuable feedback. Thank you. I'll try to improve my choice of words. > it isn't going to be solved by saying we just need smarter children. Agree. We need better education, which does not require smarter children. And to achieve a better education, we as a society need to talk more about how abuse can happen and where red lines, that our children can understand, have to be drawn
  - CJefferson 2y ago
    You are right, while we might disagree one some things (do children need end-to-end encryption), I do, I think, all want to figure out how to make sure all children end up happy and safe, and I don't think we know the best way to achieve that.
- ugly1kenowbi 2y ago
  I'm guessing this mismatch is a question of differing life views/philosophies; as a general rule, for me, it is absolutely my responsibility as a parent to educate my daughter to make sure she can evaluate risk "properly" and then, it is on her* to decide how to manage that, always knowing that are people out there that will attempt to harm you. This clearly means that we sometimes will get it wrong but, in my mind, you will not reduce those risks with a technical solution as this applies to all facets of your life, online or otherwise, and you will be opening doors that can backfire too much. *age matters a lot but that is a different discussion by itself
  - 2y ago
newswasboring 2y ago
I feel like you are just asserting things because it feels right. I don't have children myself but I have a gaggle of nieces and nephews and I just can't bring myself to be convinced that they can be trained to thwart the plans of an adult. Add to that all the cases I've heard about, no parent said they didn't try to train their child not to talk to strangers. The predators are using tools designed by billion dollar companies and very refined grooming tactics. It will take some evidence before I'm convinced children can combat all that with training from over worked and underpayed parents.
- abofh 2y ago
  It however requires no evidence to suggest that the problem is having children without sufficient time and resources to support them will lead to poor outcomes. If you want to protect your children, you have to be able to take those steps, not outsource the responsibility to someone else with time and money. Predators are bad, but most of them are known to the child before the injury -- that suggests parents are way more responsible for child abuse than randos on the internet, it's just that randos have more opportunities.
  - newswasboring 2y ago
    > It however requires no evidence to suggest that the problem is having children without sufficient time and resources to support them will lead to poor outcomes. This is such an infuriatingly bad victim blaming comment that I can't believe it's on this forum.
    - abofh 2y ago
      Nobodies blaming the victim - that was the assertion of the problem by you. If you have children you can't support, don't blame society that you're having trouble supporting them. It's callous maybe, but remember the victims are the children, not the parents. The parents created the problem
      - newswasboring 2y ago