5 ms·

Anyone born in the next few decades will disagree with you. They will find this new world comfortable and rich with content. They will never understand what you

Anyone born in the next few decades will disagree with you. They will find this new world comfortable and rich with content. They will never understand what your problem is.

mouse_ 2y ago
What makes you think that? That's what the last generations said about us and it turned out to not be true.
- hcurtiss 2y ago
  Relative to them, we most certainly are. By every objective metric, humanity has flourished in "the last generations." I get it that people are stressed today -- people have always been stressed. It is, in a sense, fundamental to the human condition.
  - jmcgough 2y ago
    Easy for you to say that. The political party running this country ran on a platform of the eradication of me and my friends. I can't legally/safely use public restrooms in several states, including some which have paid bounties for reporting. Things will continue to improve for the wealthy and powerful, but in a lot of ways have become worse for the poor and vulnerable. When I was a kid, there was this grand utopian ideal for the internet. Now it's fragmented, locked in walled gardens where people are psychologically abused for advertising dollars. AI could be a force for good, but Google has already ended its ban on use in weapons and is selling it to the IAF, and Palantir is busy finding ways to use it for surveillance.
    - hcurtiss 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - jmcgough 2y ago
        Sure. Their word, not mine: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/cpac-transgenderism-daily-wire-michael-knowles-b2294252.html https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
        hcurtiss 2y ago
        Eradication of an ideology is not the same as eradication of people. It's also a stretch to say Michael Knowles, a famous shock-jock, speaks for the Republican party.
        deltaburnt 2y ago
        Saying their identity is "ideology" is part of the problem. There's plenty of violent movements that can be framed as just "eradicating ideology", when in reality that is just a culture, condition, religion, or trait that you don't understand or accept.
        jmcgough 2y ago
        > Eradication of an ideology is not the same as eradication of people. We have as much (if not more) documented historical evidence of gender non-conformance as we do homosexual behavior. To me, "eradicating transgenderism" is a threat no different than if someone were to endorse "eradicating homosexuality". Back in the 1980s, both homosexuality and gender non-conformance were considered "ideology", and likely thousands of unnecessary deaths occurred during the AIDS crisis because of the federal government's efforts to encourage stigma, keep people in the closet, and a complete failure to treat AIDS as a genuine healthcare crisis. What we're going through now may not be as dramatic as the 80s AIDS crisis, but there are clear comparisons, and people in my community will suffer and die because of lack of access to medical treatment. There are/were maybe a dozen trans athletes in college sports. No one is performing surgeries (or causing irreparable damage) to minors. Personally, I don't care what people call me as long as they're respectful. I want to live my life without the government trying to control my personal choices, or ban life-saving treatment that is endorsed by multiple major medical institutions. > It's also a stretch to say Michael Knowles, a famous shock-jock, speaks for the Republican party. Fair, but the fact that no one denounced it after he said it on stage at CPAC is a tacit endorsement.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      A reminder that it's only been 22 years since sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional in US in the first place
      - gecko6 2y ago
        And it was 1971 when the last chemical castration as a 'treatment' for homosexuality was performed in the US.
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
I'm not so sure. My parents were born well after the hydrogen bomb was developed, and they were never comfortable with it.
- bluGill 2y ago
  There are always a few things that people don't like. However your parents likely are comfortable with a lot of things that their parents were not.
- stackedinserter 2y ago
  Would they prefer that only USSR had an H-bomb, but not USA?
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Do two wrongs make a right?
    - xp84 2y ago
      That's not the point, GP is pointing out how we only control (at least theoretically, lol) our own government, and basic game theory can tell you that countries that adopt pacifist ideas and refuse to pursue anything that might be dangerous will always at some point be easily defeated by others who are less moral. The point is that it's complicated, it's not a black and white sound bite like the people who are "against nuclear weapons" pretend it is.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        And people don't have to feel comfortable with complicated things. The GP posted "would you prefer" as a disingenous point to invalidate the commenter's parents' feelings. I eat meat. I know some vegans feel uncomfortable with that. But personally I feel secure in my own convictions that I don't need to run around insinuating vegans are less than or whatever.
throwup238 2y ago
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things. - Douglas Adams
Telemakhos 2y ago
> They will find this new world comfortable and rich with content. I agree with the first half: comfort has clearly increased over time since the Industrial Revolution. I'm not so sure the abundance of "content" will be enriching to the masses, however. "Content" is neither literature nor art but a vehicle or excuse for advertising, as pre-AI television demonstrated. AI content will be pushed on the many as a substitute for art, literature, music, and culture in order to deliver advertising and propaganda to them, but it will not enrich them as art, literature, music, and culture would: it might enrich the people running advertising businesses. Let us not forget that many of the big names in AI now, like X (Grok) and Google (Gemini), are advertising agencies first and foremost, who happen to use tech.
- psytrancefan 2y ago
  You don't know this though with even a high probability. It is quite possible there is a cultural reaction against AI and that we enter a new human cultural golden age of human created art, music, literature, etc. I actually would bet on this as engineering skills become automated that what will be valuable in the future is human creativity. What has value then will influence culture more and more. What you are describing seems like how the future would be based on current culture but it is a good bet the future will not be that.
sharemywin 2y ago
I guess your right here's how it happens: Alignment Failure → Shifting Expectations People get used to AI systems making “weird” or harmful choices, rationalizing them as inevitable trade-offs. Framing failures as “technical glitches” rather than systemic issues makes them seem normal. Runaway Optimization → Justifying Unintended Consequences AI’s extreme efficiency is framed as progress, even if it causes harm. Negative outcomes are blamed on “bad inputs” rather than the AI itself. Bias Amplification → Cultural Reinforcement AI bias gets baked into everyday systems (hiring, policing, loans), making discrimination seem “objective.” “That’s just how the system works” thinking replaces scrutiny. Manipulation & Deception → AI as a Trusted Guide People become dependent on AI suggestions without questioning them. AI-generated narratives shape public opinion, making manipulation invisible. Security Vulnerabilities → Expectation of Insecurity Constant cyberattacks and AI hacks become “normal” like data breaches today. People feel powerless to push back, accepting insecurity as a fact of life. Autonomous Warfare → AI as an Inevitable Combatant AI-driven warfare is seen as more “efficient” and “precise,” making human involvement seem outdated. Ethical debates fade as AI soldiers become routine. Loss of Human Oversight → AI as Authority AI decision-making becomes so complex that people stop questioning it. “The AI knows best” becomes a cultural default. Economic Disruption → UBI & Gig Economy Normalization Mass job displacement is met with new economic models (UBI, gig work, AI-driven welfare), making it feel inevitable. People adjust to a world where traditional employment is rare. Deepfakes & Misinformation → Truth Becomes Fluid Reality becomes subjective as deepfakes blur the line between real and fake. People rely on AI to “verify” truth, giving AI control over perception. Power Concentration → AI as a Ruling Class AI governance is framed as more rational than human leadership. Dissent is dismissed as “anti-progress,” consolidating control under AI-driven elites.
- sharemywin 2y ago
  In fact we don't even need UBI either: "Lack of Adaptability" AI advocates argue that those who lose jobs simply failed to "upskill" in time. The burden is placed on workers to constantly retrain, even if AI advancement outpaces human ability to keep up. Companies and governments say, “The opportunities are there; people just aren’t taking them.” "Work Ethic Problem" The unemployed are labeled as lazy or unwilling to compete with AI. Hustle culture promotes side gigs and AI-powered freelancing as the “new normal.” Welfare programs are reduced because “if AI can generate income, why can’t you?” "Personal Responsibility for Economic Struggles" The unemployed are blamed for not investing in AI tools early. The success of AI-powered entrepreneurs is highlighted to imply that struggling workers "chose" not to adapt. People are told they should have saved more or planned for disruption, even though AI advancements were unpredictable. "It’s a Meritocracy" AI-driven success stories (few and exceptional) are amplified to suggest anyone could thrive. Struggling workers are seen as having made poor choices rather than being victims of automation. The idea of a “deserving poor” is reinforced—those who struggle are framed as not working hard enough. "Blame the Boomers / Millennials / Gen Z" Economic shifts are framed as generational failures rather than AI-driven. Older workers are told they refused to adapt, while younger ones are blamed for entitlement or lack of work ethic. Cultural wars distract from AI’s role in job losses. "AI is a Tool, Not the Problem" AI is framed as neutral—any negative consequences are blamed on how people use it. “AI doesn’t take jobs; people mismanage it.” Job losses are blamed on bad government policies, corporate greed, or individual failure rather than automation itself. "The AI Economy Is Full of Opportunity" Gig work and AI-driven side hustles are framed as liberating, even if they offer no stability. Traditional employment is portrayed as outdated, making complaints about job loss seem like resistance to progress. Those struggling are told to “embrace the new economy” rather than question its fairness.
the_duke 2y ago
Lets talk again after AI causes massive unemployment and social upheaval for a few decades until we find some new societal model to make things work. This is inevitable in my view. AI will replace a lot of white collar jobs relatively soon, years or decades. And blue collar isn't too far behind, since a major limiting factor for automation is general purpose robots being able to act in a dynamic environment, for which we need "world models".

Anyone born in the next few decades will disagree with you. They will find this new world comfortable and rich with content. They will never understand what your problem is.

mouse_ 2y ago

What makes you think that? That's what the last generations said about us and it turned out to not be true.

hcurtiss 2y ago
Relative to them, we most certainly are. By every objective metric, humanity has flourished in "the last generations." I get it that people are stressed today -- people have always been stressed. It is, in a sense, fundamental to the human condition.
- jmcgough 2y ago
  Easy for you to say that. The political party running this country ran on a platform of the eradication of me and my friends. I can't legally/safely use public restrooms in several states, including some which have paid bounties for reporting. Things will continue to improve for the wealthy and powerful, but in a lot of ways have become worse for the poor and vulnerable. When I was a kid, there was this grand utopian ideal for the internet. Now it's fragmented, locked in walled gardens where people are psychologically abused for advertising dollars. AI could be a force for good, but Google has already ended its ban on use in weapons and is selling it to the IAF, and Palantir is busy finding ways to use it for surveillance.
  - hcurtiss 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jmcgough 2y ago
      Sure. Their word, not mine: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/cpac-transgenderism-daily-wire-michael-knowles-b2294252.html https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
      - hcurtiss 2y ago
        Eradication of an ideology is not the same as eradication of people. It's also a stretch to say Michael Knowles, a famous shock-jock, speaks for the Republican party.
        deltaburnt 2y ago
        Saying their identity is "ideology" is part of the problem. There's plenty of violent movements that can be framed as just "eradicating ideology", when in reality that is just a culture, condition, religion, or trait that you don't understand or accept.
        jmcgough 2y ago
        > Eradication of an ideology is not the same as eradication of people. We have as much (if not more) documented historical evidence of gender non-conformance as we do homosexual behavior. To me, "eradicating transgenderism" is a threat no different than if someone were to endorse "eradicating homosexuality". Back in the 1980s, both homosexuality and gender non-conformance were considered "ideology", and likely thousands of unnecessary deaths occurred during the AIDS crisis because of the federal government's efforts to encourage stigma, keep people in the closet, and a complete failure to treat AIDS as a genuine healthcare crisis. What we're going through now may not be as dramatic as the 80s AIDS crisis, but there are clear comparisons, and people in my community will suffer and die because of lack of access to medical treatment. There are/were maybe a dozen trans athletes in college sports. No one is performing surgeries (or causing irreparable damage) to minors. Personally, I don't care what people call me as long as they're respectful. I want to live my life without the government trying to control my personal choices, or ban life-saving treatment that is endorsed by multiple major medical institutions. > It's also a stretch to say Michael Knowles, a famous shock-jock, speaks for the Republican party. Fair, but the fact that no one denounced it after he said it on stage at CPAC is a tacit endorsement.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    A reminder that it's only been 22 years since sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional in US in the first place
    - gecko6 2y ago
      And it was 1971 when the last chemical castration as a 'treatment' for homosexuality was performed in the US.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

I'm not so sure. My parents were born well after the hydrogen bomb was developed, and they were never comfortable with it.

bluGill 2y ago
There are always a few things that people don't like. However your parents likely are comfortable with a lot of things that their parents were not.
stackedinserter 2y ago
Would they prefer that only USSR had an H-bomb, but not USA?
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Do two wrongs make a right?
  - xp84 2y ago
    That's not the point, GP is pointing out how we only control (at least theoretically, lol) our own government, and basic game theory can tell you that countries that adopt pacifist ideas and refuse to pursue anything that might be dangerous will always at some point be easily defeated by others who are less moral. The point is that it's complicated, it's not a black and white sound bite like the people who are "against nuclear weapons" pretend it is.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      And people don't have to feel comfortable with complicated things. The GP posted "would you prefer" as a disingenous point to invalidate the commenter's parents' feelings. I eat meat. I know some vegans feel uncomfortable with that. But personally I feel secure in my own convictions that I don't need to run around insinuating vegans are less than or whatever.

throwup238 2y ago

I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things. - Douglas Adams

Telemakhos 2y ago

> They will find this new world comfortable and rich with content. I agree with the first half: comfort has clearly increased over time since the Industrial Revolution. I'm not so sure the abundance of "content" will be enriching to the masses, however. "Content" is neither literature nor art but a vehicle or excuse for advertising, as pre-AI television demonstrated. AI content will be pushed on the many as a substitute for art, literature, music, and culture in order to deliver advertising and propaganda to them, but it will not enrich them as art, literature, music, and culture would: it might enrich the people running advertising businesses. Let us not forget that many of the big names in AI now, like X (Grok) and Google (Gemini), are advertising agencies first and foremost, who happen to use tech.

psytrancefan 2y ago
You don't know this though with even a high probability. It is quite possible there is a cultural reaction against AI and that we enter a new human cultural golden age of human created art, music, literature, etc. I actually would bet on this as engineering skills become automated that what will be valuable in the future is human creativity. What has value then will influence culture more and more. What you are describing seems like how the future would be based on current culture but it is a good bet the future will not be that.

sharemywin 2y ago

I guess your right here's how it happens: Alignment Failure → Shifting Expectations People get used to AI systems making “weird” or harmful choices, rationalizing them as inevitable trade-offs. Framing failures as “technical glitches” rather than systemic issues makes them seem normal. Runaway Optimization → Justifying Unintended Consequences AI’s extreme efficiency is framed as progress, even if it causes harm. Negative outcomes are blamed on “bad inputs” rather than the AI itself. Bias Amplification → Cultural Reinforcement AI bias gets baked into everyday systems (hiring, policing, loans), making discrimination seem “objective.” “That’s just how the system works” thinking replaces scrutiny. Manipulation & Deception → AI as a Trusted Guide People become dependent on AI suggestions without questioning them. AI-generated narratives shape public opinion, making manipulation invisible. Security Vulnerabilities → Expectation of Insecurity Constant cyberattacks and AI hacks become “normal” like data breaches today. People feel powerless to push back, accepting insecurity as a fact of life. Autonomous Warfare → AI as an Inevitable Combatant AI-driven warfare is seen as more “efficient” and “precise,” making human involvement seem outdated. Ethical debates fade as AI soldiers become routine. Loss of Human Oversight → AI as Authority AI decision-making becomes so complex that people stop questioning it. “The AI knows best” becomes a cultural default. Economic Disruption → UBI & Gig Economy Normalization Mass job displacement is met with new economic models (UBI, gig work, AI-driven welfare), making it feel inevitable. People adjust to a world where traditional employment is rare. Deepfakes & Misinformation → Truth Becomes Fluid Reality becomes subjective as deepfakes blur the line between real and fake. People rely on AI to “verify” truth, giving AI control over perception. Power Concentration → AI as a Ruling Class AI governance is framed as more rational than human leadership. Dissent is dismissed as “anti-progress,” consolidating control under AI-driven elites.

sharemywin 2y ago
In fact we don't even need UBI either: "Lack of Adaptability" AI advocates argue that those who lose jobs simply failed to "upskill" in time. The burden is placed on workers to constantly retrain, even if AI advancement outpaces human ability to keep up. Companies and governments say, “The opportunities are there; people just aren’t taking them.” "Work Ethic Problem" The unemployed are labeled as lazy or unwilling to compete with AI. Hustle culture promotes side gigs and AI-powered freelancing as the “new normal.” Welfare programs are reduced because “if AI can generate income, why can’t you?” "Personal Responsibility for Economic Struggles" The unemployed are blamed for not investing in AI tools early. The success of AI-powered entrepreneurs is highlighted to imply that struggling workers "chose" not to adapt. People are told they should have saved more or planned for disruption, even though AI advancements were unpredictable. "It’s a Meritocracy" AI-driven success stories (few and exceptional) are amplified to suggest anyone could thrive. Struggling workers are seen as having made poor choices rather than being victims of automation. The idea of a “deserving poor” is reinforced—those who struggle are framed as not working hard enough. "Blame the Boomers / Millennials / Gen Z" Economic shifts are framed as generational failures rather than AI-driven. Older workers are told they refused to adapt, while younger ones are blamed for entitlement or lack of work ethic. Cultural wars distract from AI’s role in job losses. "AI is a Tool, Not the Problem" AI is framed as neutral—any negative consequences are blamed on how people use it. “AI doesn’t take jobs; people mismanage it.” Job losses are blamed on bad government policies, corporate greed, or individual failure rather than automation itself. "The AI Economy Is Full of Opportunity" Gig work and AI-driven side hustles are framed as liberating, even if they offer no stability. Traditional employment is portrayed as outdated, making complaints about job loss seem like resistance to progress. Those struggling are told to “embrace the new economy” rather than question its fairness.

the_duke 2y ago

Lets talk again after AI causes massive unemployment and social upheaval for a few decades until we find some new societal model to make things work. This is inevitable in my view. AI will replace a lot of white collar jobs relatively soon, years or decades. And blue collar isn't too far behind, since a major limiting factor for automation is general purpose robots being able to act in a dynamic environment, for which we need "world models".