• folaht@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    First time I’m going to criticize the CPC here.
    Also, Allyson Horn, you’re on my list for using “crack” in relation to “China”,
    which instead you could perhaps use for, you know, ICE maybe,
    or Western ‘regimes’ versus pro-Palestinian protesters, except for Israel,
    where ‘kidnapping and torture’ could be used in place of capture.

    That said, I’ll go even a step further than @obvs,
    who correctly points out that this is like building spikes on park benches,
    so the homeless have nowhere to sleep.

    If the CPC wants to “reverse the falling the birth rate”, it should think of a couple of things:

    1. Why would you even want that?
      We’re in the 21st century and curing age related diseases to the point of rejuvenation could be just around the corner.
      I would in fact argue that the world is less than 10 years away from it and since China is rapidly advancing with pharmaceuticals, there’s no need for me to say the West instead of the world.
    2. Increase income security. Especially at young ages.
      No one is going to want children if they’re not secure in their finances
      and if it takes 40+ years to be secure in one’s finances,
      then you’re gonna have to hope solution #1 to come true.
    3. The most controversial one. Increase the operational sex ratio of female:male to slightly above 1, which is where I think the demand/supply equilibrium sits. Right now in China it’s 117 males per 100 females at age 20.
      How are these 17 extra men going to find a partner? And why does this article mention a 17 year old girl when I’m quite confident that it’s 17 young men per 117 men who have a for more likely issue to not find a suitable relationship,
      because it’s going to be impossible for 17 out of 117 for them.
      No amount of social skills will help 117 20-something year old men magically turn their chances having a relationship with a potential 100 20-something year old women into an equivalent potential of 117 20-something year old women, but still remain with 100 20-something year old women for 117 20-something year old men.
      If the numbers don’t add up, then it’s going to be physically impossible to solve this issue.
      This should be textbook dialectical materialism 101.

    Mandatory social skill lessons then comes in 4th.
    And the these teachings should give students
    a complete overview of society,
    give a complete list
    of all forms of communication options available
    and all their possible consequences depending on
    character, something I call “time slots of desire”
    (offering someone a bowl of spaghetti that just ate spaghetti and feels full),
    and mood (offering someone a bowl of spaghetti when that person is balancing a heavy object),
    instead of list of random list of author advisories
    (Sarah was afraid to talk to John, then she said this to him, and it all went well.)
    plus a dose of optimism (Communicating is fun! Do it often! You’ll have a blast!),
    which I got.

  • obvs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    I love how people with easy lives think that things like drugs and AI companions are the cause of problems instead of just coping mechanisms for people who already have hard lives.

    Yeah, let’s just make their lives as hard as we possibly can, same as making it so homeless people have nowhere to sit.

    It’s literally the EXACT same reasoning. You want people to be successfully interacting with others? Make social skills and integration classes mandatory for literally every single person starting the VERY first year of school.

    • Lunar@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      you could have those classes but that won’t stop people from having moments in their lives where they’re emotionally vulnerable, whether it’s a bad breakup like in the article, the death of a loved one, or what have you. the whole point of this is to prevent companies from preying on people in those moments.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      While that’s often true, there’s also cases where for-profit corporations create predatory products that create their own demand and social problems with it. Like the online gambling explosion in North America.

      • Gonzako@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Or pharma getting people hooked on opium? I remember china has some history with drug use too

      • obvs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        How many people have decided not to kill themselves because they talked to an AI instead of nobody?

        How many people have been so busy talking to an AI that they weren’t online to see others on Facebook attempting to cyberbully them?

        You will never be successful in trying to make illegal an action that people see as a need.

        If you are banning things people see as needs, that’s not governance. That’s cruelty.

        Focus on making sure people’s needs are met, and start in childhood. People will stop reaching for alternatives.

          • obvs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            24 hours ago

            How many people have been talked out of killing themselves due to talking to AI?

              • obvs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Have you ever talked to AI about wanting to not exist?

                No, it will encourage you to get help.

                You are talking about something very uncommon: people killing themselves because AI told them to.

                You are not talking about something much more common: people NOT killing themselves because AI told them not to.

                • bampop@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 hours ago

                  There may be many cases where AI has been a benefit to vulnerable people. LLMs aren’t going away any time soon so it’s good if they tell you not to kill yourself. But that should be the end of it. The more we lean on AI to fix societal problems, the deeper the problems will get. Relying on an LLM to be a substitute for human interaction is a really bad idea. It’s easy, it’s compelling, and it will help you to put yourself in a much deeper hole than you were in before.

                  If you are banning things people see as needs, that’s not governance. That’s cruelty.

                  How about fentanyl, or meth? Many people see them as a need, once they get started. Much like an AI companion, they offer a quick fix to make you feel better and get away from the difficulties you’re facing in the real world. And like an AI companion, they don’t actually address those difficulties and will only make things worse.

            • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              15 hours ago

              How many people will be killed by people who have driven themselves into psychosis talking to AI?

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I understand that and I agree the approach under these assumptions must be needs-based. I’m saying, that it’s worth examining how much of this new phenomena is needs-not-met vs falling prey to a new kind of profit-driven entertainment. I have no idea what the numbers are. Could be mostly unmet need. It’s not necessarily following the same dybamics as drug use.

    • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Don’t forget those are kids in their formation years. AI can be very deleterious to their social and intellectual make-up.

      • obvs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        Speaking as an autistic person, I think it’s very funny when people talk about AI preventing people from having social interactions, when as an autistic child, everyone hated me and I had literally no one to talk to.

        Autistic people make up a small part of the population, but a comparatively larger part of the population who’s not out socializing with others, so claiming that without AI they’d be out socializing with others is wrong.

        For a lot of autistic people, there is no alternative. Talk to AI, or talk to no one, because no one will talk to you.

        I would have loved to have had access to AI as a teenager.

        • SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          But… Why? It’s not real. A book can provide the same solace AND improve your intellect. While you wait for that special one willing to have 1 to 1 with you. Introverts have some of the same struggles.

        • zedcell@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Better one-to-one work with autistic people who lack certain social skills that helps them engage with other people, autistic or otherwise, specifically using their special interest (if they have one) as a hook would be far more beneficial for human contact for that section of the autistic population. They’re still human and deserve human-to-human contact, especially to talk about things they derive intense pleasure from.

          • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Great solution!

            First, we need to have the systems in place to identify those people. Second, we need to have the manpower to provide those people with one on one socialization.

            Third, we can get rid of the AI chat bots.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Yeah butnid gonfor both.

      Teach human beings how to interact and bad these apps still, as well

      • obvs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Ohhhhhhh boy.

        How about this: I take methylphenidate daily.

        What do you think about that?

        • Context: that’s common ADHD medication. It’s similar to Methamphetamine, but not as abusable.

          Talking about blanket bans/restrictions, it makes sense to point out that it’s not all black and white. But I think everyone can see that they referred to severe meth abuse.

          • obvs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            20 hours ago

            I explained it in another response on this page.

            People are approaching it from the wrong direction. It might seem like I am trying to justify methamphetamine being available by pointing out the similarity to methylphenidate. In fact, that’s not what I am doing at all.

            I am pointing out that methamphetamine has two effects, and that one of those two effects is biologically the same effect as methylphenidate.

            This means that regardless of whether a person with ADHD(which is something you have your whole life) uses methylphenidate or uses methamphetamine, it’s performing the same basic role, as medicine.

            To explain this in simple terms:

            A person with ADHD has a brain that is naturally starved for dopamine and norepinepherine.

            Giving methylphenidate(Ritalin) to a person with ADHD is like giving food to someone who’s starving. Their body needs it to make up for a chemical their body doesn’t naturally have enough of. Methylphenidate is like a gourmet meal with all of your nutrients for the day.

            But for that same person, methamphetamine is like junk food. A greasy burger, a large order of fries, and a shake. It’s not the best thing for you, but it DOES provide those chemicals that the person with ADHD doesn’t naturally have.

            So classifying this as “addiction” is very inappropriate. It’s not that the person is finding a new substance and putting it in their body and that it’s becoming a need. It’s that the person was born with a need for chemicals that other people’s brains naturally already had, and then they found a medicine that provided those chemicals. Calling them “addicted” when all they’re doing is just taking a drug that raises their low levels to be like everyone else is pathologizing treatment, and it’s creating a false perception.

            A lot of the things referred to as addiction are just a person who has a natural shortage of something trying to make up for it. And the people in charge think that they are performing a benefit by banning those substitutes. No. The solution is to actually make sure that people have the ability to meet those needs well before they ever get into a situation to use drugs.

            You don’t convince people with ADHD not to use meth by banning it. You convince them not to use meth by identifying them young and making sure they have access to methylphenidate from childhood, which has been shown to drastically reduce the odds of using something like meth.

            Most things that are called “addictions” are just people trying to meet a biological need and not having a good option for how to do that. The solution isn’t to make those things unavailable(leaving their needs TOTALLY unmet, which is dangerous for them), but instead to look at making sure that those needs get identified and taken care of when the person is young, to know how to meet those needs in ways that are more appropriate.

            A person who is starving might benefit from having a super healthy meal. But if they don’t have that super healthy meal, from their perspective, that unhealthy meal will do.

            A person who lacks enough dopamine and norepinepherine might benefit from having a super appropriate medicine(methylphenidate). But if they don’t have that super appropriate medicine, from their perspective, that unhealthy medicine(methamphetamine) will do.

            These “addictions” aren’t springing up and aren’t caused by the drug. They’re from birth.

            A “meth addict” with ADHD is equally as addicted to meth as a person with diabetes is to insulin. It’s just that one is demonized.

          • obvs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago
            1. The human body naturally produces endocannabinoids.

            2. Endocannabinoids are something that helps the person calm down, reduce stress, and deal with pain.

            3. Marijuana has two main things in it: THC, and CBD.

            4. OMG THC GETS YOU HIGH!

            5. But CBD is Cannabidiol, which acts on the body in the same way that endocannabinoids do.

            6. There are groups of people whose bodies congenitally have fewer endocannabinods than most other people. Starting day one of their lives. Naturally. People who have never touched marjiuana since the day they were born. (Oh, and this group of people also tends to be congenitally extremely forgetful because their brain naturally doesn’t have enough dopamine, and also tends to be congenitally lacking motivation because their brain naturally doesn’t have enough noreperinepherine.)

            So if one of these people uses marijuana and their body then has the cannabinoids that other people just naturally have, do you believe that person is an addict, or do you believe that person is basically taking a supplement for something their body doesn’t naturally produce?

            And if they’re just trying to get to the level that other people naturally already have in their body?

            Or how about this:

            Meth has two main effects:

            Remember the two chemicals I referenced above?

            (Oh, and this group of people also tends to be congenitally extremely forgetful because their brain naturally doesn’t have enough dopamine, and also tends to be congenitally lacking motivation because their brain naturally doesn’t have enough norepinephrine.)

            Well, funny coincidence. Because those are the two chemicals that meth affects. Meth has two effects:

            1. Meth tells a person’s brain “Don’t use all of this up.” And then the dopamine and norepinephrine stick around for a lot longer.

            2. But meth also tells a person’s brain “Release as much dopamine and norepinephrine as possible.”

            Usually, when people have a natural dopamine deficiency and norepinephrine deficiency, doctors give them a drug called “methylphenidate”. And wouldn’t you know it, methylphenidate treats the symptoms by doing the same as number one.

            Isn’t that a weird coincidence? That people are becoming addicted to the thing that treats the congenital deficiency they had from the first moment of their life?

            Or maybe a significant number of people whose body has chronic shortages of a certain chemical might not be “addicted” to that chemical as much as they are just finding out that their body would prefer to have the one chemical that everybody naturally has and their own doesn’t?

      • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Meth isn’t helpful but more effort needs to be put into resolving the root causes rather than putting out fires.

        The fire fighting is still required, we certainly should be seeking to make it harder for criminals to push their poison on the population and punish them where we can, but ultimately they wouldn’t have a market if we correctly identified why users were using and developed more effective ways to help them to not use.

        Punishing the users typically only achieves more cost in running prisons and pushes them further into the spiral that keeps them using.

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          we certainly should be seeking to make it harder for criminals to push their poison on the population and punish them where we can

          Looks like that’s what they’re doing.

          Punishing the users typically only achieves more cost in running prisons

          Good thing they aren’t doing that! You can still run whatever you want locally.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I get enough human interaction when I pay my rent to my landlord and when I wage slave at work.

      Hard pass on your offer to learn how to interact with humans. I’ve had more then enough.

  • mynameisbob@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    a unholy creation… it doesn’t matter who is slinging this garbage. I would rather commit you know what then embrace such evil. The luddites were one hundoo percent

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well since AI is off the table, who will now enter my basement to cohabitate? Surely a human will do this job now, right?