4 ms·

Is AI bad for mental health? lol If so, should companies also ban them to prevent burnout of their employees? No, capitalism must be fed.

matheusmoreira 23d ago
Always found this odd too. Somehow it's bad enough to ban children from using it, but not adults.
- layer8 23d ago
  Adults are assumed to be responsible for what they expose themselves to, unlike children. Mandatory warnings like for tobacco might be in order, however.
  - matheusmoreira 23d ago
    And parents are assumed to be responsible for their own children, not governments or corporations.
    - layer8 23d ago
      I agree about corporations. But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws? They help ensure that the parents aren’t bypassed. I agree that children should be able to use LLMs under parental supervision.
      - matheusmoreira 23d ago
        > But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws? Yes, but merely on principle. I think alcohol and tobacco should be straight up banned unconditionally. Society resists this, so they banned them for children instead and called it a day. I don't accept these ineffectual political concessions. If a thing is bad for children, then it's in all likelihood just as bad for the adults as well. So go all the way and ban it for everybody, not just children. Do it right, don't come up with these half measures that dehumanize children as a side effect.
        layer8 23d ago
        There is a trade-off between freedom and keeping people safe, and there is an argument for some level of personal responsibility. I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless. I also disagree with the dehumanization argument. Yes, the concrete age limits are a bit arbitrary, and actual maturity depends on the individual and is a spectrum, but regulations necessarily have to come with some level of pigeonholing. The fact that you may have to show your ID when buying alcohol isn’t dehumanizing.
        matheusmoreira 23d ago
        > I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless. I'm sure teenagers feel the same way.
        deleted 23d ago
        [deleted]
        layer8 23d ago
        So you’re saying that maturity should be completely disregarded? I don’t get your point.
        matheusmoreira 23d ago
        The point is the argument is invalid. Why is it that adults get to freely fuck their lives up? If it's bad enough to ban for kids, then it's probably bad enough to ban society wide. "Children" needs further qualification as well. Anglosphere calls anything under 18 years old a "child", which completely disregards adolescence where major brain development takes place. Some five year old generally isn't capable of deciding things, but teenagers absolutely are.
    - deleted 23d ago
      [deleted]
  - eurothings 23d ago
    > Mandatory warnings like for tobacco lol that’ll work
  - jbs789 23d ago
    brains develop with age, generally
    - matheusmoreira 23d ago
      That doesn't nullify a person's ability to decide for themselves.
  - sdiupIGPWEfh 23d ago
    Right, but in this case, exposure is a work requirement, which is a bit different. While an employer isn't going to require tobacco use, work involving asbestos exposure is still a thing (removal perhaps), and an employer knowingly or negligently requiring work activity without both risk disclosure and supply of proper safety equipment would face legal action. Hence, if mandatory workplace use of AI inflicts harm, then I could imagine things playing out similarly. The damage slowly accumulates, may or may not be noticed in time, becomes difficult to pin down on a past employer, and when you finally realize you need to sue for damages, both the employer responsible and the system are rigged to drag out the process until you're hopefully old and dead before you have a chance to win your case. ...oh.
  - Muhammad523 23d ago
    In fact, a 17-year-old is clueless while a person one year older isn't
    - deleted 23d ago
      [deleted]
    - CrazyStat 23d ago
      If a law is going to treat 5 year olds differently from 50 year olds then a line has to be drawn somewhere. 18 is arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than any other age you could pick.
      - matheusmoreira 23d ago
        The law could evaluate people as individuals instead of conjuring up some idiotic magic number.
        CrazyStat 23d ago
        The whole purpose of law is to be a uniform system of justice. At best it could offer guidelines for how to evaluate people: perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc. But the evaluation under those guidelines would still have to be made by humans. There is precedent for such a system, e.g. minors can petition to be emancipated which allows them to be treated in many regards like an adult.
        matheusmoreira 23d ago
        > perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc. Yes, that is what I meant. Choosing some arbitrary magic number like 18 and declaring that anyone under that age is too dumb or too irresponsible to decide is about as stupid as declaring that anyone over 65 is incapable of decision making because they might have Alzheimer's.
  - deleted 23d ago
    [deleted]

matheusmoreira 23d ago

Always found this odd too. Somehow it's bad enough to ban children from using it, but not adults.

layer8 23d ago
Adults are assumed to be responsible for what they expose themselves to, unlike children. Mandatory warnings like for tobacco might be in order, however.
- matheusmoreira 23d ago
  And parents are assumed to be responsible for their own children, not governments or corporations.
  - layer8 23d ago
    I agree about corporations. But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws? They help ensure that the parents aren’t bypassed. I agree that children should be able to use LLMs under parental supervision.
    - matheusmoreira 23d ago
      > But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws? Yes, but merely on principle. I think alcohol and tobacco should be straight up banned unconditionally. Society resists this, so they banned them for children instead and called it a day. I don't accept these ineffectual political concessions. If a thing is bad for children, then it's in all likelihood just as bad for the adults as well. So go all the way and ban it for everybody, not just children. Do it right, don't come up with these half measures that dehumanize children as a side effect.
      - layer8 23d ago
        There is a trade-off between freedom and keeping people safe, and there is an argument for some level of personal responsibility. I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless. I also disagree with the dehumanization argument. Yes, the concrete age limits are a bit arbitrary, and actual maturity depends on the individual and is a spectrum, but regulations necessarily have to come with some level of pigeonholing. The fact that you may have to show your ID when buying alcohol isn’t dehumanizing.
        matheusmoreira 23d ago
        > I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless. I'm sure teenagers feel the same way.
        deleted 23d ago
        [deleted]
        layer8 23d ago
        So you’re saying that maturity should be completely disregarded? I don’t get your point.
        matheusmoreira 23d ago
        The point is the argument is invalid. Why is it that adults get to freely fuck their lives up? If it's bad enough to ban for kids, then it's probably bad enough to ban society wide. "Children" needs further qualification as well. Anglosphere calls anything under 18 years old a "child", which completely disregards adolescence where major brain development takes place. Some five year old generally isn't capable of deciding things, but teenagers absolutely are.
  - deleted 23d ago
    [deleted]
- eurothings 23d ago
  > Mandatory warnings like for tobacco lol that’ll work
- jbs789 23d ago
  brains develop with age, generally
  - matheusmoreira 23d ago
    That doesn't nullify a person's ability to decide for themselves.
- sdiupIGPWEfh 23d ago
  Right, but in this case, exposure is a work requirement, which is a bit different. While an employer isn't going to require tobacco use, work involving asbestos exposure is still a thing (removal perhaps), and an employer knowingly or negligently requiring work activity without both risk disclosure and supply of proper safety equipment would face legal action. Hence, if mandatory workplace use of AI inflicts harm, then I could imagine things playing out similarly. The damage slowly accumulates, may or may not be noticed in time, becomes difficult to pin down on a past employer, and when you finally realize you need to sue for damages, both the employer responsible and the system are rigged to drag out the process until you're hopefully old and dead before you have a chance to win your case. ...oh.
- Muhammad523 23d ago
  In fact, a 17-year-old is clueless while a person one year older isn't
  - deleted 23d ago
    [deleted]
  - CrazyStat 23d ago
    If a law is going to treat 5 year olds differently from 50 year olds then a line has to be drawn somewhere. 18 is arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than any other age you could pick.
    - matheusmoreira 23d ago
      The law could evaluate people as individuals instead of conjuring up some idiotic magic number.
      - CrazyStat 23d ago
        The whole purpose of law is to be a uniform system of justice. At best it could offer guidelines for how to evaluate people: perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc. But the evaluation under those guidelines would still have to be made by humans. There is precedent for such a system, e.g. minors can petition to be emancipated which allows them to be treated in many regards like an adult.
        matheusmoreira 23d ago
        > perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc. Yes, that is what I meant. Choosing some arbitrary magic number like 18 and declaring that anyone under that age is too dumb or too irresponsible to decide is about as stupid as declaring that anyone over 65 is incapable of decision making because they might have Alzheimer's.
- deleted 23d ago
  [deleted]