I'm 14 and this is deep
56DAE phones bad?
9I mean, they are. It's been shown pretty conclusively that smartphones have made people more stupid by decreasing attention spans, putting misinformation on the same level as verifiable fact, manipulating your buying habits, ruining your sleep with blue light, creating more anxiety in youth, and generally being a waste of time. Productivity apps peaked on PC and the scant amount of actual work you can do on a smartphone takes much longer than it would on other platforms.
Still, the post is pretty r/im14andthisisdeep
0
Ahhh yes, the old "reading on paper is big brain individual, reading on phone is mindless."
57Interesting takeaway.
In my opinion this piece is a critique of how humans are stuck working even while commuting, while at the same time we have robots learning how to read, write, and draw.
Seems to be the relationship has flipped, wouldnt you say?
7You saw a collection of trees, but not the forest, eh?
6Same with "communicating over the internet isn't real communication."
I'm not saying that there aren't problems with how much we're communicating over the internet and how little we're communicating in real life, but the vast majority of humans in history would have considered the ability to send text messages to someone on the other side of the world in less than a second to be reserved for the gods above.
32
Every time I see something like this I'm reminded of Plato recording Socrates' whinging that books are destroying society and no one can remember anything anymore.
96Well, the interesting thing about that quote is that Socrates was completely correct. People used to be able to recall long epic poems from memory, not just one, but an entire book shelf's worth of information. This ability was lost among people in general. However people, and society, adapted.
Although the argument you and a lot of other people seems to be making is the equivalent of saying "well, I've had cancer before, and the doctor said it was serious then, but I survived - so it's going to fine this time as well". I don't think it holds up.
4Well, the interesting thing about that quote is that Socrates was completely correct. People used to be able to recall long epic poems from memory, not just one, but an entire book shelf's worth of information
I'm not convinced that people in general could ever do that. Or rather, not in any way that we've lost.
Ask a kid to tell you the lore from their favorite game, and they'll recite books worth of information if you let them. You just don't care about that content, so you think they're stupid instead.
3
i dont think this is commentary about phones, specifically. more like we work, machines play.
wrong choice of imagery by the artist perhaps
5I think its message is only hindered by those viewing it. Not that their perspective is invalid, but I do think its far more likely the intent here was to highlight how the relationship between humans and machines has seemingly flipped.
2
Damn smartphones, ruining society!
Damn internet, ruining society!
Damn computers, ruining society!
Damn VIDYA GAMES, ruining society!
Damn TV, ruining society!
Damn radio, ruining society!
Damn Newspapers, ruining society!
Damn 2 piece swimsuits, ruining society!
Damn books, ruining society!
Damn clay tablets, ruining society!
Damn language, ruining society!
Damn alphabet, ruining society!
Damn humans, ruining society!
Damn society, ruining society!
32The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish hours! Confound him too, who in this place set up a sundial to cut and hack my days so wretchedly into small portions!
1
Im14AndThisIsDeep
61I literally cannot believe how much this says about society
15This one really makes ya think
6We live in a society!
5
AI has the free time to study and be artistic. Not us. We must pay to exist.
What rent does the AI pay? Nothing.
No internet bill, no transportation bill, no phone bill, no food bill, no Healthcare/insurance bill.
44you cant exploit ai. you cant whip a gpu into performing better, and you cant pressure algorithms into being smarter for the same amount of money invested to develop and run it.
the (capitalist) system works by exploiting us. machines will throw a monkey wrench in it if it can truly replace our labour.
2AI also isn't studying or being artistic. It has no real awareness of the concepts it's seemingly learning, at least not yet. AI as of right now is basically just statistical analysis of human-made information and art and predictive modelling of how a human might respond to a given prompt.
20AI as of right now
AI for the forseeable future
No need to mince words. Far too much of this terrible hype surrounding it is built on pure speculation of a future that we have no hard evidence is approaching. Just bold claims by people financially invested in selling the hype.
12
Someday, if it can sustain itself, it would need to pay for a living.
Right now, someone wants to have an AI. The person pays for it like a pet. But its too expensive, so it needs to give something in return.
We will see if it really benefited the energy costs and internet costs for those Companies who use intense amount of resources for AI.
3internet and housing do cost money for those running the model, as does the "food" (electricity). healthcare is achieved by taking it behind the barn, transportation is unnecessary, as are phones.
1
im[$USER_AGE]andthisisdeep
34
10everyone keep focussing on the using phone part and missed the part where the humans are still doing menial labor while the robots are doing what people would do to enjoy themselves.
18Apparently most the people in this post are under 25 and are still dealing with their parents telling them to get off their phone on the daily.
2while the robots are doing what people would do to enjoy themselves.
and for the specific purpose of increasing profit margins of media companies who no longer have to pay artists and writers
If generative AI was merely a computer science endeavour, the 1% wouldn't be investing this heavily in it.
7
Phone bad!!!!
21It's not like the machines understand what they are reading.
17The point is that the machines are doing what humans would want to do, while humans do what they want the machines to do.
The promise of technology is to make our lives easier, so this is showing how the opposite is true instead.
1Not yet
1i mean, yeah, but it might take a pretty good while.
1
But you can read on your phone
14You could. But instead you're doomscrolling on the fediverse.
11In my, and I'd say most of our defense, I do learn a lot on here. And I'm not on here anywhere near as much as I was on Reddit.
4sounds to me like they're actually hopeposting, which is the opposite of doomscrolling
5
Fuck, i'm a robot?
2whos the artist?
EDIT: Thanks for adding the source to the body! To everyone else: https://mastodon.social/@sohel9320/113312549620891784
8Pictured
3
We are training AI so they can "draw" Wow!!!!
2This doesn't need to be picked part to be appreciated
3ai has stolen the artists' job, now we must do what it can't do: good art.
3Need input!
3
4Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?
2
Can't stop the developing, but i miss old time sometimes
0Young man was walking down our road the other night, absorbed in his phone and meandering away from the side. I went by at 5mph over the speed limit, with plenty of clearance, and he threw his arms in the universal statement, "What the fuck?!"
-6Well being the driver You are the one responsible for not hitting the pedestrian. So speeding next to a pedestrian at night makes you an asshole.
18it drives me insane when people argue that unprotected trafficants (translated from the swedish term because lazy) doing something wrong absolves drivers of all guilt, motherfucker the law very clearly states that it's illegal to hurt people, context does not matter and if there is something you could have reasonably done to prevent or lessen the damage you are legally obliged to do it.
65mph over is a quick walking speed. 25 vs. 20 sound terribly dangerous to you?
And it's not like I barely missed the guy. We were well apart. Point being, he was mad at me because he had his head up his ass and wasn't paying attention.
If y'all think it's reasonable to walk down a dark street, head all up in your phone, go ahead. It is indeed the driver's responsibility to dodge you.
Reminds me of my gf's best friend back in the day. Drove like a maniac, dared anyone to hit her. "Fuck you! I'll get a new car!"
And a lifetime of pain, or at worst, a Darwin Award. But hey! It was the other guy's fault!
-2
Physics Quiz:
Annoying Anne is driving through a residential area at exactly the limit of 20 mph.
A child jumps into the street.
Anne reacts as fast as humanly possible and manages to stop the car right before she'd hit the child.Normal Norman is driving through the same residential area at 25 mph, just 5mph over the limit.
A child jumps into the street at the exact same distance as before.
Norman reacts exactly as fast as Anne, and has the same car, tires and brakes.
How fast will Norman's car be when he hits the child?Answer
25mph
Explanation
Total stopping distance consists of reaction distance (how far your car travels while you react) and braking distance (how far your car travels while you're standing on the brakes until it's stopped).
The total stopping distance at 20 mph is shorter than the reaction distance at 25 mph.4Human reaction time is ~0.25 seconds.
At 20 mph, you're going ~29 ft per second, so you go ~7.3 ft before you can react.
At 25 mph, that's ~37 ft per second, so ~9.2 ft before you can react.The internet says a good car can break at about 15 f/s^2.
At 29 f/s, that comes out to a stopping distance of ~28 ft.
At 37 f/s, that's ~46 ft.So Anne, who's annoying for some reason, needs a total of ~35 ft to stop just before hitting the child.
Norman needs ~9 ft to start decelerating, so by the time he reaches the 35 ft mark (after ~26 ft of hitting the brakes,) it's been a total of ~0.98 seconds, and he is going ~26 f/s, which is ~18 miles per hour.3
