4 ms·
I remember that - even though Steve Jobs promoted the iPad as a replacement to the 'heavy schoolbooks kids had to carry all day' - he never allowed his children
by mentalgear 6mo ago
I remember that - even though Steve Jobs promoted the iPad as a replacement to the 'heavy schoolbooks kids had to carry all day' - he never allowed his children to use iPads.
I bet Zuckerberg doesn't allow his children to use social media.
And I assume that Sam Altman won't allow his children to use AI chatbots.
What does that tell us?
- brookst 6mo agoAre Jobs, Zuckerberg, and Altman generally seen as experts in childhood development and education?
- hananova 6mo agoNo but they are experts in engineering their garbage to cause maximum damage.
- compounding_it 6mo agoEngineering or marketing ? I doubt Zuckerberg or Altman have much involvement in engineering after their products took off. After a certain point they were no longer engineers of their products.
- jumpkick 6mo agoThis seems to be a distinction without a difference. The buck stops with them.
- thomassmith65 6mo agoThat is worse. "The product is disgusting, but there's nothing I can do; I'm only the CEO"
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- FarmerPotato 6mo agoThey absolutely decide whether to have people employed in moderation or safety. Or what gets done with what those teams learn.
- Argonaut998 6mo agoDo they need to be? If I was a billionaire surrounded by the most educated and competent people in the world I wouldn't even spare a thought for the "Whole words are better than phonics" crowd.
- brookst 6mo agoSo it’s kind of an appeal to authority, without any evidence of authority? I’d be super interested in the panels of experts that Jobs, Zuckerberg, and Altman (assuming GGP’s “asssumption” is correct) convened when making these decisions. Absent that, this isn’t any more persuasive than saying that Coca Cola is good for infants because I assume Coke execs feed it to theirs.
- Argonaut998 6mo agoYou are making an argument from authority too though. Even ignoring my point, these people have more insight than anyone into their own products and their harmful/beneficial nature.
- brookst 6mo agoNo, I am making no such argument. I am saying that tech execs have no special knowledge, and their actions should not be used to inform one’s own opinions or social policy on the topic. There IS tons of data in this area. Please, do yourself a favor and read it (pay attention to the population of studies —- many use adults in their 30’s or older as proxies for children). You can absolutely find real data supporting your position. And it will be more persuasive (albeit less dramatic) than imagining what Altman probably does.
- bell-cot 6mo agoNo - but they could hire full-time panels of such experts, and never miss the money. More to the point - if the CEO of DogFoodCo won't let his own family pets eat any of his company's flagship products, then maybe smart dog owners should follow his example?
- Koshkin 6mo agoParents do not have to be "experts in chilhood development" to know what is best for their children. Especially experts in their fields like the manufacturing of alcohol, guns or other products universallly considered dangerous.
- brookst 6mo agoSo, if parents can rely on a a century of more of science showing the negative impacts of guns, tobacco, and alcohol on children… they can rely on vibes and politicians for evidence of harm from screens? I’m not even arguing with you. I’m just disappointed in how quickly so many on HN throw out all pretense of being interested in data as soon as a personal hot button issue comes up. It’s human nature I guess, but still depressing.
- AlexandrB 6mo agoScreens are harmful for adults too. Everyone knows this through the personal experience of doomscrolling hours of one's own life away. Why would they be any better for children? Or do you imagine that there's a study out there that will reveal that arguing on Twitter with someone called Catturd2 is good for your mental health?
- jerf 6mo agoThe existence of science does not obligate us to either receive a double-blind study of massive statistical significance on the exact question we're thinking about or to throw our hands up in total ignorance and sit in a corner crying about the lack of a scientific study. It is perfectly rational to rely on experience for what screens do to children when that's all we have. You operate on that standard all the time. I know that, because you have no choice. There are plenty of choices you must make without a "data" to back you up on. Moreover, there is plenty of data on this topic and if there is any study out there that even remotely supports the idea that it's all just hunky-dory for kids to be exposed to arbitrary amounts of "screen time" and parents are just silly for being worried about what it may be doing to their children, I sure haven't seen it go by. (I don't love the vagueness of the term "screen time" but for this discussion it'll do... anyone who wants to complain about it in a reply be my guest but be aware I don't really like it either.) "Politicians" didn't even begin to enter into my decisions and I doubt it did for very many people either. This is one of the cases where the politicians are just jumping in front of an existing parade and claiming to be the leaders. But they aren't, and the parade isn't following them.
- Forgeties79 6mo agoNo need for the leading question/bait when you know what they’re saying. No one said they’re experts on childhood development, they’re saying “it’s telling they won’t even let their kids use these services when they swear it’s safe for our kids to do so.”
- abenga 6mo agoThey are experts in their products.
- ceejayoz 6mo agoNo, they employ those. In Zuck's case especially, in order to use what we know about childhood development and education to get kids addicted early.
- FarmerPotato 6mo agoThere is the Stanford Persuasion Lab study on infinite scroll... rather than take it as a cautionary finding, tech has embraced the infinite scroll. Because incentives.
- gadflyinyoureye 6mo agoThat the US and by extension the West is ruled by corrupt individuals that knowingly harm their fellow citizens. However, especially the US, few people will parent their children in a way that will protect and strengthen their kids. The schools, which gave up on success years ago, will continue to harm the children. The community with do nothing since they view the parents and the schools as the guardians of children, not themselves. Almost no one wants to be the childless crank that shows up at a PTA or school board meeting demanding that tech be removed from the daily lives of the children. So the kids will continue to be harmed. EdTech will get money because this time they will do it right. AI will lead to a new thoughtless generation.
- econ 6mo ago>Almost no one wants to be the childless crank that shows up at a PTA or school board meeting demanding that tech be removed from the daily lives of the children. I had never even realized. As a bonus I now also see cranks proposing to raise other peoples children in some kind of sweatshop calling it education and schools. As if that was ever the goal.
- rvz 6mo agoHe (Zuckerberg) doesn't. It tells us that they know that kids should not be using any of this technology as it is extremely addictive to kids who are none the wiser. > What does that tell us? It tells us three things: 1. Do not give a child access to iPads, social media or ChatGPT until they are old enough and are aware of their addictive nature. 2. Get them to read books as an alternative. 3. Being unable to restrict access to iPhones, ChatGPT to a child is a parenting skill issue and not the responsibility of a government to impose global parental controls on everyone for the purpose of surveillance.
- leksak 6mo ago3. When your net worth is measured in billions you have other opportunities in your parenting not necessarily afforded equally to every other parental unit.
- microtonal 6mo agoI was nodding along until the third point. As a parent it can be really hard to deny your kids to smartphone/tablets when other parents don’t care and all their friends play Roblox, use WhatsApp to communicate, or watch YouTube. Your kid will be the odd one out, missing some shared culture, left out of conversation or meetups they arrange in IM, etc. The government should absolutely forbid social media and addictive games to kids under 16, otherwise it’s very hard as a parent to escape these little addiction machines and you can only try to limit damage. Of course, we have to find a way that is not damaging privacy at the same time. (If you don’t have kids or have kids that are under ~10, you do probably not know what the pressure is like… yet.)
- tonyedgecombe 6mo agoPart of being a parent is saying no when your children pester you for something you know is bad for them.
- SoftTalker 6mo agoWell how do you tell your kid "no" when he asks for candy, when he can get as much as he wants at friend's houses, school, the library, or basically anywhere outside your house? Edit: better exaple would be cigarettes, since that's something we as a society recognize is bad for kids and generally require proof of age if there is any doubt. Imagine if all your kid's friends smoked, and there were cigarette vending machines at school, and all you could do was say "no."
- mentalgear 6mo ago> And that much of Silicon Valley’s leadership (and the world’s rich, for that matter) send their own kids to Montessori, Steiner, and other educational institutions that prefer pencil and paper to digital tablet, conversations to smartphones, modeling clay and outdoor imagineering to online gaming. > In their book, ‘Screen Schooled: Two Veteran Teachers Expose How Technology Overuse is Making Our Kids Dumber,’ educators Joe Clement and Matt Miles write: “It’s interesting to think that in a modern public school, where kids are being required to use electronic devices like iPads, Steve Jobs’s kids would be some of the only kids opted out.” "The Battle for Your Kids' Hearts and Minds" https://kidzu.co/parent-perspective/the-battle-for-your-kids-hearts-and-minds/ https://kidzu.co/parent-perspective/the-battle-for-your-kids...
- Raed667 6mo agoyou're assuming zuck or jobs kids have anything resembling "normal" children lives
- shevy-java 6mo agoThe key message that poster before tried to convey was that they themselves do not believe into their own products, not that rich kids are privileged royal kings today. This ties into e. g. Facebook trying to addict people into using it - infinite scrolling as an example. The latter can be quite a problem on youtube or people using smartphones while riding in a subway, jumping from pointless video to pointless video - this is quite addictive.
- roysting 6mo agoThe telescreens are for you, not for them. On another totally unrelated note, this guy [1] that is not at all connected to the Epstein class whatsoever (he is) and is only an advisor to the leader of some some small little organization called the world economic forum says you and your children should be kept “happy” with drugs and video games. Skip to the very end for the statement or listen to the whole little clip to hear how the demigods think about you and your children “worthless” children. [1] https://youtu.be/QkYWwWAXgKI https://youtu.be/QkYWwWAXgKI
- loa_in_ 6mo agoThe kids you mention likely have multiple VR, AR and other gadget setups in their own home. Too much of a good thing is just that.
- Telemakhos 6mo agoI think you are right, and your "bet" about Zuckerberg checks out, at least according to media reports about his family. Still, asking someone to draw an inference based on three pieces of evidence, of which two are a bet and an assumption, seems hasty.
- iugtmkbdfil834 6mo agoFor a random individual plucked out of general population, you would be correct. Three is hardly anything. However, for individuals that effectively determine what actual average is to a population ( by shaping tech that shapes said population at the very least ), it does not seem hasty. It may be a proxy, but it is not hasty.
- al_borland 6mo agoIt seems wise to be wary of a salesman who won’t let his family use the product they sell. This seems very common in the modern tech industry.
- bombcar 6mo agoIf I were a billionaire I'd have servants who would use social media for my servants, to be fair. Why have social media when you can have Jeeves "do it" for you?
- al_borland 6mo agoUnless you’re a public figure who is posting as part of your “brand”… why use it at all at that point?
- weird-eye-issue 6mo ago> And I assume that Sam Altman won't allow his children to use AI chatbots. I doubt that, but the others seem reasonable
- whywhywhywhy 6mo agoYeah Sam Altman's kids will use chatbots but here's the difference, your kids no matter the amount of money you're willing to spend will never ever get to use the chatbots Sam Altman's kids will have access to to build their legacy.
- gibolt 6mo agoEveryone has access to the same models. Even the best internal builds are only a month away from public access. The ones a year from now from all companies will likely be better than the best today.
- s5300 6mo ago[dead]
- functional_dev 6mo agoexactly, makes me think... if person who makes the bread does not feed his own family, something is wrong
- Drunkfoowl 6mo ago[dead]
- renewiltord 6mo agoAlso a good reason for why one shouldn’t have one’s child raised through the policies of people who don’t want kids. If they don’t have any skin in the game…
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- raverbashing 6mo agoTBH the problem is not the iPad here. An offline iPad with a limited set of educational apps/books would be a good classroom aid Of course, an iPad without those limits is bad
- tuwtuwtuwtuw 6mo agoAre you certain about that being "good"?
- raverbashing 6mo agoAre you sure about books being good?
- dagss 6mo agoIt is not just about what you can access. The biggest problem is you get conditioned to instant and constant dopamine hits, which works directly against a lot of the things one is supposed to learn in school. Kids learn the A-Z in record speed in 1st grade. But they don't learn to concentrate or that learning things can sometimes be challenging and the value of perseverance and that understanding eventually comes. So in later grades they pay for learning the A-Z too fast through the iPad. Because they didn't learn how to learn. The net effect in Norwegian classrooms over past 5 years of iPad education seems to be negative and it is not about what kids are exposed to. It is about not learning to concentrate.
- noosphr 6mo agoThat we shouldn't take child rearing advice from the man who killed himself with fruit juice.
- TaupeRanger 6mo agoIt tells us nothing. People act like this is some big hypocrisy or revelation. First of all, Jobs DID allow his children to use iPads, but it was limited. People take a single quote from the Isaacson biography out of context, assuming that he never let his children have access to iPads at all, forever. Other interviews he gave talked about limiting access - like ALL families should do. Jobs was literally just parenting. Limiting screen time is something all parents should do. We also limit access to sugary foods and other things that can be damaging in excess. Calling tech executives hypocrites for having common sense parenting limits is not really a dunk.
- yodsanklai 6mo ago> We also limit access to sugary foods and other things that can be damaging in excess. Maybe you do, but not everybody does. 19.7% of American kids are obese. The hypocrisy is that tech executives promote and lobby for excessive use of their products (even manufacturing addiction), but know better for their kids.
- AlexandrB 6mo ago[flagged]
- zigman1 6mo ago[flagged]
- dominotw 6mo agoatlest buffet himself drank 6 cans of coke per day being a big investor in coke.
- heraldgeezer 6mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deanc 6mo agoIt’s probably more nuanced than this. Would I have let my kids use Facebook in the height of its popularity. Absolutely. It was fun, engaging and user driven. Now it’s just an absolute cesspit of paid content, ads and boomers posting in groups. I don’t even think it’s appropriate to call it social media anymore. It’s barely social. Not a single friend of mine posts anything on there.
- graemep 6mo agoI am only on FB for a group I admin that is useful and helps people. its more like forum hosting for me. Almost all my friends have stopped posted. The only social thing I see from most people is wishing people happy birthday.
- KurSix 6mo agoIt's also a reminder that there's often a gap between what technology companies market to the masses and what the people behind those technologies actually endorse for their families
- DarkNova6 6mo agoYou are assuming they all act as wise and with the foresight of Jobs. Jobs was a products guy that had an intricate understanding on the relation of people and technology. The others are just finance bro's dressed up in tech clothes.
- lo_zamoyski 6mo ago> Steve Jobs promoted the iPad as a replacement to the 'heavy schoolbooks kids had to carry all day' This is largely an American phenomenon. If you visit some other countries, students don't walk around all day saddled with what look like Medieval tomes in backpacks that come comically close to dwarfing the student. There is no reason for them to be so thick, so heavy, so expensive, hardcover, or even loaned. And there is no reason to lug them around all day either. Frankly, teachers should be relying more on delivering material in class without a textbook.
- duskdozer 6mo agoIn many places it's the teachers who move around all day while the students remain.
- bko 6mo agoI agree that we shouldn't have iPads and similar electronics in the classroom. But I would advise into reading too much into the societal beliefs of inventors and how their tech will play out. Consider Lee de Forest, one of the early pioneers of radio. He expected radio to act almost like a moral and intellectual uplifter for society. He thought people would use it to essentially listen to religious sermons and educational lectures.
- bombcar 6mo agoTo be fair to the Forest, both of those did and do occur! But they were vastly overwhelmed by "entertainment" - similar to the printing press and other mass-media opportunities. The Internet allows you to get every classical work of philosophy or theology online immediately both in the original language or in translation. You can find videos discussion many of them in-depth. Someone in Nepal with an Internet connection can get an education that would rival the best universities of the 1800s, if they want. Or you can watch cat videos.
- zozbot234 6mo ago> The Internet allows you to get every classical work of philosophy or theology online immediately both in the original language or in translation. LLMs also do quite well at "decoding" the obscure language of these classic works and rephrasing it in more contemporary terms. Even a small local LLM will typically do a good enough job of this, though more world knowledge (with a bigger model) is always preferable.
- FarmerPotato 6mo agoNo, they don't. I'm close-reading Aristotle in a Meetup group where we compare many translations and indulge the controversies in translating the Greek. When I've tried to get LLMs to bear on a topic, they can't even relate to the concept I'm looking at, instead generating a summary of the easiest parts. LLM is basically a beginner student.
- FarmerPotato 6mo ago
- jhoechtl 6mo agoThat the elite is poisoning the masses.
- bombcar 6mo agoZucchini also thinks spending $80 billion on a failed metaverse is a good bet, so maybe they're not the experts of everything.
- mcphage 6mo agoHow much of that was actual spending—and if so, where did the money end up?—and how much of that was just fraud?
- lynx97 6mo agoIt tells us that you seem to assume a lot.
- Bombthecat 6mo agoYep, that's why it won't help. The rest of the time at home, they will stick to the screen.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- whizzter 6mo agoAs troublesome digital tools are in practice, the stories of "tech execs refusing digital tools for their kids" is a trope often promoted/created by kindly put fringe actors.
- BurningFrog 6mo ago2 of your 3 pieces of evidence are your guesses ("I bet", "I assume"). That tells us more about you than about tech CEOs.
- kccqzy 6mo agoIn the Steve Jobs era (there was a very short overlap between the introduction of the iPad and the death of him) my local school did actually use iPads to replace books. It was fine. Students liked using features like search. What mattered was that (1) iPads then didn’t have multiple windows so students still took notes by hand; (2) the school also required almost all homework to be handwritten.
- eviks 6mo agoIt tells us nothing about the important and relevant part - education It tells us almost nothing about the unimportant any irrelevant part - how a few individuals choose to raise their kids