2 ms·

Very nice. Just yesterday I wrote about the 13-18 age group using ChatGPT and how I think it should be disallowed (without guardian consent), this was in the co

Very nice. Just yesterday I wrote about the 13-18 age group using ChatGPT and how I think it should be disallowed (without guardian consent), this was in the context of suicide cases. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45733618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45733618 On a similar note, I was completing my application for YC Startup School / Co-Founder matching program. And when listing possible ideas for startups I straight out explicitly mentioned I'm not interested in pursuing AI ideas at the moment, AI features are fine, but not as the main pitch. It feels like at least for me the bubble has popped, I have talked also recently about the way in which the bubble might pop would be due to legal liability collapse in the courts. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45727060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45727060 This added with the fact that AI was always a vague folk category of software, it's being used for robotics, NLP and fake images, I just don't think it's a real taxon. Similar to the crypto buzz from the last season, the reputable parties will exit and stop associating, while the grifters and free-associating mercenaries will remain. Even if you are completely selfish, it's not even hugely beneficial to be in the "AI" space, at least in my experience, customers come in with huge expectations, and non-huge budgets. Even if you sell your soul to implement a chatbot that will replace 911 operators, at this point the major actors have already done so, or not, and you are left with small companies that want to be able to fire 5 employees and will pay you 3 months of employee salary if you can get it done by vibe code completing their vibe coded prototype within a 2-3 deadline.

iteria 1y ago
If parental consent is all that's necessary then you might as well blanket allow it. I'm a parent and interacting with a lot of parents of young children, the vast majority of them can't be bothered to deal with whining or inconvenience. Which is why I see 8 year olds with cash app even though that's not allowed any many abandon or extremely weaken parental controls on basically every advice. My personal favorite story is when I talk my youngest aunt about a videogame my cousin wanted. She said no absolutely not. Then proceeded to buy the game for ehr 10 year old. A game she was carded for. A game that has that it's M rated and has adult themes and whatnot on the box. She called me later in horror about how inappropriate this game I told her about 2 weeks earlier was. How could they make games like that for children she says about the game she was carded for because it's only for adults. I use her as an example but that situation is a lot of parents. I personally think that it's not the government's place to say how much exposure I want to give my child to the internet, but I have rules and boundaries around that with my kid. Many of her friends have free access and and have always had it since toddlers. People say it's parents not being savvy, but honestly it's parents not caring. Parent controls have been around over 30 years and they have always been dead simple. But they do increase the whining in your life from your kids and that means if parents can allow it a high quantity will. I have no faith that a law will stop significantly more kids than no law. I know too many parents who allow their kids to do things they know are harmful to their kid because "I don't want them to feel left out" or they don't want to deal with whining.
- TZubiri 1y ago
  > Most parents would consent, therefore we should not require consent I don't see how that follows at all. Considering children can't consent and their parents consent is the only one that matters. The argument would simplify to > Most people would consent to X, therefore we shouldn't require consent for X. Which sounds ridiculous, imagine if we were all forced to do what the majority likes. Even without a tyranny of the majority (where the majority would be a homogenous group) that would be a dystopia. > I personally think that it's not the government's place to say how much exposure I want to give my child to the internet, but I have rules and boundaries around that with my kid. First, I am not necessarily talking about "The government" (what exactly is that anyways, judicial, law? state, federal?), for example it could be a site's policy, and in turn it could be determined at courts based on liabilities. If courts enforced more damages to kids that suffer from chatbots as compared to adults, then that would push the companies to limit minor's access without laws or executive orders (whether that is "the government" to you depends, but I find it more helpful to think in terms of more specific groups instead of talking/thinking of THE GOVERNMENT as a homogenous mindhive.)

iteria 1y ago

If parental consent is all that's necessary then you might as well blanket allow it. I'm a parent and interacting with a lot of parents of young children, the vast majority of them can't be bothered to deal with whining or inconvenience. Which is why I see 8 year olds with cash app even though that's not allowed any many abandon or extremely weaken parental controls on basically every advice. My personal favorite story is when I talk my youngest aunt about a videogame my cousin wanted. She said no absolutely not. Then proceeded to buy the game for ehr 10 year old. A game she was carded for. A game that has that it's M rated and has adult themes and whatnot on the box. She called me later in horror about how inappropriate this game I told her about 2 weeks earlier was. How could they make games like that for children she says about the game she was carded for because it's only for adults. I use her as an example but that situation is a lot of parents. I personally think that it's not the government's place to say how much exposure I want to give my child to the internet, but I have rules and boundaries around that with my kid. Many of her friends have free access and and have always had it since toddlers. People say it's parents not being savvy, but honestly it's parents not caring. Parent controls have been around over 30 years and they have always been dead simple. But they do increase the whining in your life from your kids and that means if parents can allow it a high quantity will. I have no faith that a law will stop significantly more kids than no law. I know too many parents who allow their kids to do things they know are harmful to their kid because "I don't want them to feel left out" or they don't want to deal with whining.

TZubiri 1y ago
> Most parents would consent, therefore we should not require consent I don't see how that follows at all. Considering children can't consent and their parents consent is the only one that matters. The argument would simplify to > Most people would consent to X, therefore we shouldn't require consent for X. Which sounds ridiculous, imagine if we were all forced to do what the majority likes. Even without a tyranny of the majority (where the majority would be a homogenous group) that would be a dystopia. > I personally think that it's not the government's place to say how much exposure I want to give my child to the internet, but I have rules and boundaries around that with my kid. First, I am not necessarily talking about "The government" (what exactly is that anyways, judicial, law? state, federal?), for example it could be a site's policy, and in turn it could be determined at courts based on liabilities. If courts enforced more damages to kids that suffer from chatbots as compared to adults, then that would push the companies to limit minor's access without laws or executive orders (whether that is "the government" to you depends, but I find it more helpful to think in terms of more specific groups instead of talking/thinking of THE GOVERNMENT as a homogenous mindhive.)