Assuming age verification should be implemented, do you think the application layer is the right place to do that, or would the OS layer make more sense?
I just see it as an unnecessary hill to die on. Its not possible to win on those conditions so why spend energy on a failed outcome? I wish those who shared the sentiment found an effective method to achieve their goals, but online message board activism doesn't pass the sniff test.
To me it's a public health issue and shares the same, "you can do what you want, but I will not be forced into participating," that resulted in the invention of chin diapers. To an outsider both look like pathological demand avoidance[1].
It seems like the example you give points to undesirable consequences as a direct result of government intervention. Is your example meant to be a point against any sort of legislation regarding age verification?
It's a general principle but too simplistic to contribute to a solution.
I believe I should prevent you from starving, willfully or negligently harming (in a serious way), or denying significant education or medical care to your childern; I believe you shouldn't be able to take your children into some adult places like strip clubs.
The strip clubs also have an obligation to keep out your children and need a method to do so, in this case the online 'strip clubs'.
The question is, given other priorities such as privacy, what is the best method? I think it's parental tools in OSes, including the ability to setup accounts for minors.
I'm not so sure, their 'original' wheel was just a refinement to the round boulders that already existed on the planet and the mechanical advantages naturally existing in that form.
By that logic, the Taggart Baking Co. should have been one of the richest companies ever, since everyone compares their product to it as the greatest thing since.
IQ is highly correlated with both income and wealth so it seems like a fair comment. Of course not all billionaires have a high IQ, but far more billionaires do than your average person.
Not in the way you're implying. There's an IQ threshold that correlates somewhat with income, but correlated gains drop (kind of vanish) after it, and that threshold is pretty low; it might be 100.
Nothing you just said disproves anything I claimed. Billionaires tend to have significantly higher IQ than average. The same is true for high income people.
I think it is in fact not the case that high income people generally have significantly higher IQ than average. As for billionaires: when was the last billionaire IQ survey done?
there is absolutely nothing stopping a poor child in sierra leone from becoming the next einstein, outside of access to things that should be considered mandatory for human life.
Blank slate theory has been thoroughly discredited so many times I'm not sure why I'm even responding, but this is complete nonsense. If you're born with 62 IQ like the average Sierra Leone citizen, no amount of education will get you to 120. It's literally not possible.
According to research, a full education can add ~15 IQ points.
So someone from Sierra Leone who's average and receives a full education can expect to have around 77 IQ, which means severe issues with reading comprehension, math beyond simple arithmetic and following multi-step instructions.
so geographical region of birth dictates intelligence? how intriguing.
i would like to know if that child was fed well, provided with shelter and given a good education -- would it still be, in your words, "not possible" for them to break even 100IQ?
I didn't claim that, this appears to be a strawman. I specifically stated average IQ, and yes, necessarily your region of birth does inform your average IQ.
Environmental and educational impacts on IQ are very minimal. Someone with an average Sierra Leone IQ is not becoming a genius after world-class education and the best environment possible. They'll be measurably improved, but not by 50 IQ points.
You know what? Good. Any one-shotted CEO who thinks this is the future and we MUST adopt it or else, should be first in line. Before anyone else in the org.
I think models from one year ago with proper harness should be easily beating humans at this task on average. Human CEOs decisions are worse than random chance.
Given the history of ordinary employees getting fired for secretly using AI to do some/most of their job, can we at least expect that the shareholders will renegotiate Zuck's compensation significantly downwards? Given he won't actually be CEO-ing so much?
What happens when Zuck has spent 3 months in deep conversation, deep deep mental communion, with his "AI" and returns from the metaphorical mountain top with a new holy book, the kind that we've seen folks link to several times. Instant new cult?
