Bombadil
2mo ago
I think a lot of the problem comes down to whether the consumer can trust the seller to provide what they purchased. If I play league of legends, it is very clear that the company can do whatever they want. And so, even if my favorite champion is nerfed into the ground, I know it is unreasonable to want my money back.
On the other hand, if I purchase a perpetual license from Microsoft, I expect to be able to use that product perpetually. This is false marketing on their behalf. When I purchase a game, I expect to be able to play it whenever I want. This assumption goes back to when games were physical things that lasted as long as their disk did. If I buy a game only for the servers to close a few months later, I am justifiably going to feel scammed.
This goes further than end of service too. Can I trust that the subscription I purchased will stay cheap? Can I trust Anthropic not to enshittify once they have a dominant position in the market? Can I trust Unity to not suddenly change their ToS right as I am getting ready to publish? The rational answer is no. Currently, there seems to be very little protection against the terms of whatever I purchased changing at a moment's notice, and companies are taking advantage of this. Naturally, this state of affairs leads to growing dissatisfaction and distrust from consumers. The longer this stays unresolved, the more radical the suggestions to fix it are going to become too. The future iteration of stop killing games might be much less reasonable.
Bombadil
2mo ago
That would be the conservative answer, I suppose. It is also the answer that pushes people towards the LGBT. While the manosphere recruits men vilified by leftism, the leftists recruit men and women who have felt gender roles to be stifling with little benefit. There are absolutely people who will run from the mold the moment they get the chance.
But of course, it is the duty of adults to guide children. Defining their identity by themselves is not really something most young kids are capable of.
I think there are multiple ways to embody masculine traits in ways that suit different kinds of boys. The academic is different from the sports star, and both are different from the politician. But they can all be men. It is the duty of the parents to figure out what kind of archetypes and traits suit their children the best, and try to raise them accordingly. You may push your academically inclined son to do sports for the sake of his health and physical capabilities, but you are okay with him not excelling at it, since that is not the arena you expect him to compete in. His brother who is much more talented with his body can then be pushed harder as he actually enjoys the competitions and pushing his body to its limits.
Where you really run into problems though, is when manhood is defined as performative nonsense and subsequently discarded, leaving boys to figure everything out from scratch.
Bombadil
2mo ago
It's a matter of how you are raised I imagine. Pre-puberty I rejected the idea of identifying with my gender and the roles that came with it. Still saw myself as a boy in the biological sense, but didn't really care for the social role of "boy" or "man". I was told by authority figures around me this was fine. So puberty ended up hitting extra hard. Had the LGBT culture been more active where I lived, I might have become nonbinary.
I imagine the more boyish girls get a similar reality check, going from playing in the mud with the boys to someone who is obviously, undeniably female and treated as such.
Turning it back to the culture war, there is a real question here of how much we should enforce gender roles on young children, and what we do with the girls and boys who don't cleanly fit the mold.
Bombadil
2mo ago
I imagine that suddenly being sexualised by your school classmates, maybe even your friends, to be a weird and difficult thing to sort out.
The male side is not all bad. I remember being pretty stoked about the rather sudden increase in strength. But the smell, the voicecracks, the fact that I was no longer "cute"... Then there was the increasing expectations that I was supposed to be confident, good at sport, have suitable levels of self control... All while experiencing new emotions with no one providing good advice on what to do. The flood of sexual desire in particular and just being told to essentially figure it out yourself, while knowing that losing control of yourself at the wrong time would be heavily punished, was distressing to say the least.
I still appreciate the strength boost. And while I am rarely cute, at least women find the physical changes attractive, assuming decent grooming and exercise practices.
I used to share Goodguy's perspective that periods are harder than anything I experienced. These days, I prefer to not compare suffering. Men and women go through different things with different pros and cons. And hopefully the advantages of adulthood makes puberty worth it.
Bombadil
2mo ago
I remember feeling like that as a teenager and young adult. Puzzled at why women suddenly treated me so different and feeling the pressure of expectations suddenly trust upon me. Then I started reading social media which only made it worse. Puberty is hard and the social expectations for men are rough, especially if you were never really prepared for them. I can believe some people would stay in that mindset for a while.
Bombadil
2mo ago
There's literally never been an instance where people "just" decide to collectively stop defecting, rather the payoff matrix gets changed by technological advances and it becomes irrational to defect.
We need better incentives. Climate change is hard to deal with because the consequences are far out in the future, and rich countries are going to suffer relatively little in comparison to poor ones.
The hole in the ozone layer is often cited as a case where countries around the globe were swift to act and institute stricter laws on CFC's. As you said, this is partly because alternatives either existed or were rapidly developed. But the threat was also much more immediate.
A better example is perhaps the nuclear taboo. The US and Soviet union decreasing their nuclear stockpiles. Multiple countries choosing to rely on existing nuclear powers instead of developing missiles on their own. This is incentivized by the risk of invasion from larger powers and by the high upkeep cost of the missiles. But this does not explain why countries that already have nukes, don't use them more often. Russia could throw nukes against Ukraine, and it seems detrimental for other powers to retaliate with nukes in this case. Yet the taboo is so strong that this escalation is nearly unthinkable. The fear that the world might end is enough to keep every nation in the world from defecting, and has been sufficient for the past several decades.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Most of the points are reasonable and essentially boil down to "ensure your children grow up healthy and with a basic education". The unreasonable points seem specific to America and thus don't work when you are trying to generalize to all of the west.
There is an argument that corporal punishment has a place in parenting, but as far as I can tell most parents are not capable of using it responsibly, so it seems reasonable that it is illegal.
You still have a lot of options on how to raise your kids.
I am pretty sure parents have a lot of freedom though? The limitations that are forced upon parents, as far as I know, are as follows:
- You must provide food, clothing, and shelter.
- Take care of their hygiene until they can be expected to take care of it themselves.
- You must provide a living space that lives up to a certain minimum standard of hygiene and amenities. But this standard is cleared even by most apartments. Don't be a hoarder and make sure to keep up with repairs, mold and so on, and you should be fine.
- You must provide an education equivalent to that of public school. That is, your kid should be able to pass the same exams as everyone else.
- You are not allowed to beat them, or put them in positions of physical harm.
- You can yell at them, but only to the extend that it is not deemed abuse.
- You are not allowed to have sex with them or handle them sexually.
- Certain religious practices are considered child abuse.
- Depending on the country, leaving young kids alone outside can be considered neglect. Although this differs wildly even between western nations. I believe America is especially hard on this.
- In America, it seems like not affirming your child's chosen gender can cause the cops to be called on you. I don't know how widespread this actually is though; It could easily be mostly media fearmongering.
I think the last two are the only unreasonable points. But those are both specific to certain countries and don't explain why all of the west is seemingly facing the same issue. Otherwise, they all seem fine. You can homeschool if you have the resources. You can teach them your faith, although stuff like female circumcision is banned. You can teach them to not have sex before marriage. You can teach them a trade, you can try and make them expert sports players, or you can tell them that the world is a dangerous place and they should stay with you for as long as they can. In these cases, you may expect your kid to not fit in with others, as you are effectively raising them for a different culture. You can be cold, and passive, and distant, as long as you keep up with the basic duties of food, clothing, shelter, and education. Other parents may sneer at you and you may feel isolated. But legally you have a lot of wiggle room with how you want to raise your kids.
Full time personal supervision of them. Not just school but all sorts of "enriching" activities.
No one is going to take your kids away if you don't sign them up for a sport. And are you seriously saying that a group of 10 year-olds cannot play alone outside without it being called child abuse?
Supporting them until they finish undergraduate.
This is another thing that may be expected but it is not a policy that is enforced. You have the legal right to kick out your 18-year-old son, and refuse to save up for his college degree. The only thing you will face is judgement. But the government is not going to come after you for it.
Bombadil
2mo ago
As far as I can tell women like men who can do handyman work that they themselves are scared or incapable of doing, and find it attractive when men can do masculine things like lifting heavy objects.
Bombadil
2mo ago
There are many non-genetic reasons for why people do terrible stuff. "Idle teenagers do crime for no good reason" has been happening since forever. I would not assume that any explanation is true before further details reveal themselves.
Bombadil
2mo ago
At the very least they will want to litigate against distillation. Training costs are steep, so if anyone can undercut your R&D by distilling your model, that seems disastrous for your bottom line.
Bombadil
2mo ago
I was not. I guess the question then is if the companies will be able to eventually stop researching and focus on selling, or if they will have to keep doing research to stay competitive.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Those are not particularly lucrative from the standpoint of earning money. Video games, animated movies, and graphic design seems to be where most of the money is at for the painters. Crucially, those are not things people purchase for the sake of status. It is entertainment. Losing opportunities for employment in the entertainment industries seems really bad for aspiring professionals. Art as a status symbol is mostly for rich people, or the artists themselves. So even if it rises in popularity, I would not expect it to suddenly become a viable career path.
Writers probably have it the worst. Even current AI can produce short stories that to most are impossible to tell apart from what is written by professionals.
Bombadil
2mo ago
I think this is a "rules for thee but not for me" situation. It is in their interest to prevent others from making competing models, so they will want to pull up the ladder behind them in order to destroy further competitors. Whether this will work is a different story, but this is a highly competitive market, and I think these big companies will use their large piles of cash to try and make it a reality.
They do not need to win the lawsuits in the first place. They just need to make their opponents settle by making the process as expensive as possible.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Within the next five years I think we will see the following:
- Massive price hikes of new models at least doubling the token cost, and enshitiffication or customers losing access to the old ones. It is an open secret that current models don't pay for themselves and this will have to change. Investors will eventually start to want their money back.
- Reduced demand for artists of all kinds. Breaking into any kind of industry as a young artist will be super hard when AI can do most of your work for less cost. AI work will become ubiquitous in video games, bookstores, and on Spotify. Creators who already have a name for themselves will be fine, but breaking into an artistic industry becomes even more difficult than it already is.
- More efforts to distill existing models into cheaper consumer ones.
- Lawsuits against non-profit and up-and coming models for breaching the copyrights of the big LLM's.
- AI surveillance becomes widely accepted as the norm. Most governments will use facial recognition software in surveillance cameras, and messaging apps will have a model scan your messages for dangerous words and phrases which it alerts the authorities about. Just look at the push for chat control in the EU. Politicians keep pushing for it regardless of public will.
- Increased dislike of AI from the public. We will likely see even more pushback against data centers, partly due to the massive energy costs, and partly due to the above point about surveillance. From the perspective of an ordinary citizen, the harms of AI will likely outweigh the goods. This results in at least one attempted terrorist attack on a data center, although it likely will be poorly executed.
- Companies will push to use Ukranian and Russian drone footage as training for their models. The military becomes an increasingly lucrative customer as they are willing to pay a lot more than your average company.
Overall, I agree that developers will mostly be fine. As you say, AI makes them more efficient and can do a lot of the tasks that people are currently being paid for. But the demand is high enough that the job description will simply change. We are going to see much faster iterations and shorter update cycles. Every developer will be several times faster, but this will simply result in the industry moving faster than it did before. Not massive unemployment.
Bombadil
2mo ago
If AI is actually going to significantly reduce people's job prospects, then what is called for is better social safety nets. In this scenario, we are entering a world in which there are many more people than jobs, but the amount of available resources are unchanged. If so, it only seems fair that the people who would have otherwise attained jobs but now cannot due to factors outside their control, would still receive enough resources to build a life for themselves. Maybe this is UBI. Maybe it is jobs in the military. Maybe it is more social programs to ensure that large groups of the population do not fall into complete poverty. We might also see even stronger anti-migration stances, as the jobs currently held by immigrants become competitive even amongst college graduates.
If AI does not do this, if it actually is just a tool, then the hype will eventually die down and life continues. Current tech students are uniquely positioned to learn the ins and outs of this new tool and use it to enrich themselves by creating further technological progress. We will see some industries die out and be replaced by others. There will be less demand for artists, and tech grunts who would have formerly been doing janitorial work on websites will either have to skill up or change career paths. But new jobs will turn up to replace them and the crisis is limited to specific fields.
That said, I understand the feelings of being lied to. You grow up taught to expect an easy life if only you study well and do as you are told, only to get the carpet ripped out from under you and saddled with debt. And my own stand on AI is pretty negative. I personally think the money spent on it would have been much better used on improving the school and medical sectors, or on improving social services. While the current models are vastly superior to those of 2024, they are still not at a level where I believe they have justified their costs. All the tasks LLM's can complete, could have also been completed by using the investment money to hire professionals to do them instead. Even if we do one day achieve AGI, it seems like all the spoils will go to individuals who could not care less about humanity and would happily let the rest of us burn if it meant enriching themselves.
Bombadil
2mo ago
At the very least, there seems to be enough funding for 2026. If funding dries up next year, then I agree that looks bad for Ukraine. But that seems pretty far from guaranteed. With Orban no longer in power, the European will to support the war seems greater than ever. Support may diminish due to the Iran war, but that hinges on the Iran war continuing in the first place. And keep in mind that Russia is also suffering from attrition, that they have other neighbors beside Ukraine that they may want to defend themselves from, and that they have a lot less to lose here than the Ukrainians.
I genuinely think this could go either way in the coming years.
Bombadil
2mo ago
I personally think NATO membership is the best option. Ukraine would get guaranteed military backing from other powerful nations, while NATO gets access to the best drone operators in the world. Whether this is possible with Trump as the American president is the big question though.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Anything that would credibly deter Russia from attacking again. UN troops at the boarder, membership into NATO, or even nuclear missiles could do it.
Alternatively Russia could give back the land they conquered and pull back. That I imagine the Ukrainians would accept even without guarantees. Russia is never going to let that happen though.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Being a mother is supposed to be a rewarding activity in and of itself. She does not "lose" years of her life. She spends them caring for her children, watching them grow and teaching them about the world. Time will pass however she choses to spend it. The soldier is the one making a sacrifice.
But as you say, the narrative has shifted. What matters now is travelling, partying, and getting a degree. Doing this is freedom. Parenthood (for both sexes really) is something to be postponed for as long as possible while adolescence is romanticized.
I doubt forcing women into pregnancy would do anything except cement the idea of motherhood as a prison. The implication being that it is so bad that no sane person would do it voluntarily. But it does sadden me that so many seem to see family and adulthood as antagonistic to enjoyment and self actualization.
Bombadil
2mo ago
There is no way Ukraine accepts any deal that does not include security guarantees. The risk of Russia regrouping and attacking again in the near future is just too high.
Bombadil
2mo ago
He would say that, given that the Russian goal is to win. The Ukrainians also do not intend to stay in a state of frozen conflict. They want to kick out the Russians and take back their territory.
But right now, it looks like neither side has the resources to turn their intentions into reality. The best they can do is keep fighting, which in practice prolongs the stalemate.
Bombadil
2mo ago
Is there any reason to believe the stalemate won't just continue for the foreseeable future? Russia is nowhere near backing down and still has troops and equipment to spare while making progress at a pace slower than a snail's movement.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is unlikely to surrender without security guarantees and can expect increased European support now that Hungary will no longer be vetoing the aid packages. However, every Ukrainian victory seems short lived, as every time they come up with a new innovation, the Russians are sure to adapt in short order.
So my prediction is that the stalemate will continue for the rest of 2026. It seems to me that neither side has the decisive advantage needed to win, nor is Russia willing to negotiate any peace short of an unconditional Ukranian surrender. And so the only option left is for the Drone Wars to continue.
I do hope that once this is eventually over, Ukraine will teach the countries who helped them how to wage drone warfare from their specialists.
A sufficiently creative director could probably make a movie in which legal adults played the role of children and still have it be "believeable" within the confines of the world he is creating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this type of stuff is not uncommon in theater. If the audience is willing to suspend their disbelief a man can play a woman, the guy wearing all white does not exist, and putting on a crown and speaking in an accent makes you a king. In a world where child actors were never normalized this does not seem unrealistic.
In our world however, modern movies go for maximum immersion. Everything must look as true to life as possible. So the more realistic scenario is that children's movies without child actors would make heavy use of animaton, puppets, or full-body costumes that make the features of the adult actors invisible.
Contrary to your suggested complaints, I believe this is the exact kind of restriction that breeds creativity. Using child actors is the easy way out. Forbid that, and now the directors and producers are forced to think outside the box, which will lead to more creative ideas.
More options
Context Copy link