I thought it was easy: watch videos with your kid, don't allow them to doomscroll or be raised by the "featured"/"front page" algorithms.

You can't be with your child 100% of the time. They are spending significant time with others, e.g. in school. Those people you can't control.

Doomscrolling or porn is just too "appealing" to children, like sugar. Children don't have their minds fully developed to be able to say "no" to them.

If in school everybody has a smartphone and does doomscrolling, your children will do as well. Or they'll be ostracised.

A hangout for 11-16 year olds often seems to devolve into a bunch of kids all watching their own phones. It's really depressing to watch, though they do seem to play as well.

We have had several arguments about no social media and we're only 1 out of 6-ish years in to the too naïve to look after yourself on the internet phase, and the eldest already figured out how to download some chat app I'd never even heard of without permission.

How to show you're clearly not a parent in one sentence.

How does one make sure the implementation is sufficient and complete? It feels like assuming total knowledge of the world, which is never true. How many false positives and false negatives do we tolerate? How does it impact a person?

I'm not sure. We can use LLMs to try out different settings/algorithms and see what it is like to have it on a social level before we implement it for real.

Perhaps but I am not entirely optimistic about LLM's in this context but hey perhaps freedom to do this and then doing it might make a dent after all, one can never know until they experiment I guess

Fair, I don't know how valuable it would be. I think LLMs would only get you so far. They could be tried in games or small human contexts . We would need a funding model that rewarded this though.

That is hard too though.

It's surprisingly tame still given it interests tens (hundreds?) of millions of people at varying age and background and mostly when the mind is occupied by a problem. I always found it surprising there's not more defacing and toxicity.

There's lots of _marketing_ promising unsupervised agents. It's important to remember not to drink the cool-aid.

The examples are definitely acknowledgement worthy.

I imagine the biggest hurdle on the path towards adopting this is writing down clear, readable prose using highly technical language. And naming things. Using ambiguous human language to describe a complex algorithm without causing a conflict in a big team.

No, these are class based team FPS, core of UT and Quake is (team) deathmatch

The Unreal Tournament series are arena shooters[1] which has sadly died a death, partially due to Epic Games negligence.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_shooter

That sounds like picking the most convenient and least painful for the believer option instead of intellectualising the problem at hand.

My principled stance is that all known physical processes depend on particular physical processes and consciousness should be no different. What is yours?

So is mine. So what stops a physical process from being simulated in an exact form? What stops the consciousness process from being run on simulated medium rather than physical? Wouldn't that make the abstract perfect artificial mind at least as conscious as a human?

So your stance is that it is impossible to create a simulated intelligence which is not conscious? That seems like the less likely possibility to me.

I do think it’s clearly possible to manufacture a conscious mind.

It almost sounds plausible but it's not. All fuel is extremely heavy elements that in still water falls down and deposits on the bottom.

The fuel is (almost) harmless, it's the fission products that make reactors dangerous. Many of those are water-soluble. Of course the fuel elements should be encased, but drinking pool water is probably not a great idea anyway.

Think of it as Tenor GIF (a reaction gif provider) but if your prompt isn't there it's AI generated and cached (added) to the global library.

But it's us who wrote current laws, not some magical entity.

Hm. The way laws are written in reality, it might as well be some (dark) magic entity to me. The process of giving input there is not made easy. But if your point was, it is in our hands to change anything and also that, then yes.