Eventually, yes, I think it will be. Not yet though, the tech just isn’t strong enough atm. But an AI is resistant to the emotional toll, burnout and low pay that a real life therapist has to struggle with. The AI therapist doesn’t need a therapist.

Personally though, I think this is going to be one of the first widespread, genuinely revolutionary things LLMs are capable of. Couple more years maybe? It won’t be able to handle complex problems, it’ll have to flag and refer those cases to a doctor. But basic health maintenance is simpler.

tbf, kids content on youtube has been a shitshow for awhile. Here’s a short Folding Ideas piece on it, that’s equal parts surreal, sad and scary:

https://youtu.be/LKp2gikIkD8

Feb 29th. I’m 7 now.

j/k

Lemmy features modlogs, so you can just go check. It’s in the sidebar. Instances also have modlogs, so if admins did it, you can check that too.

Funny the kind of folks that get suspended on Elon’s twitter.

… they can’t even design the boob-plate properly anymore. smh…

You think memes being used for low-effort propaganda is new?

The reason you are being downvoted is because you’re reminding people that the internet has a lot of very young folks on it. People don’t really want to be reminded of that, they want to feel like all the hijinks that internet people get up to are with adults. But if your age cohort is here on a niche service like Lemmy, then there must be more of you elsewhere, on other services too. This is genuinely unhealthy, in many different ways, so it disturbs people.

So, they downvote you for reminding them of something they’d rather not think about. Afaik though, there is nothing wrong with this question being posted here.

Regarding the question itself, we do tend to call them urban myths for a reason. People have not yet outgrown silly, superstitious thinking from centuries ago. It’s not necessarily an age thing either, plenty of older superstitious folks too. lol

Oh, and welcome to Lemmy.

Don’t underestimate the backlash. The big, mellower, center segment of the population that is generally more chill isn’t in favor of fascist idiots.

Just, do what you can to help maintain motivation in the face of the fascist fear-train. Fear is their #1 tool, it’s the emotion that underpins their whole worldview. Control is simply a response to that fear. Without that underlying current of fear, though, how do they get people to grant them control?

Which is why diplomatic tools should be attempted first, then escalation to economic tools. Military deterrence is too big a jump, currently.

I agree, it’s a very big deal. I never said it was nothing and we shouldn’t respond. I said we should respond in kind, as we can.

I merely draw a distinction between these kinds of attacks, and the actual invasions of places like Gaza or Ukraine. Information warfare has a culpable deniability to it, similar to espionage, that makes it inherently harder to tackle.

It’s just not so simple as bomb the people that fuck with us or something like that. That would not fix the problem. It’s trickier.

Fair arguments. I would say, though, that none of these rise to the level of military hostility, they’re still forms of economic and social contest, with a healthy dose of espionage. Thus, we can respond in kind. This will not prevent their rise, nor the return of some kind of Cold War mentality. But it will still allow us to protect ourselves as an alternative to authoritarianism, which is what is most important.

Nothing wrong with self defense, or defense of ones allies, or responding to subtle hostilities with other subtle hostilities. The key is to understand how different these are from outright, full-blown warfare, and to maintain that distinction for the sake of planetary stability and not all dying in a hot war, potentially going a little extra-hot.

The trickiest part is the information warfare, since we can’t always respond in a similar way due to intense authoritarian controls of their local information spaces. We’re largely on the defense in that arena, though we should counter as best we can while we build up our own defenses. Economic counters like Trump’s trade war are an option, but need to be more carefully calculated at strategic “chokepoints” than just broadly slapping down a bunch of tariffs and calling it a day. The microchip restrictions were a good move in this direction.

An important thing to remember is we can’t control everything. There is zero possibility of success for a ground invasion of the Chinese mainland, for instance, so we do need to work within what is realistic and able to be accomplished.

In India’s case, I think careful diplomacy can still accomplish our goals to the satisfaction of both parties. I would expect any rising power to “test the waters”, so to speak, they’re not supposed to just cower before our might or something. But we can handle this in a more civil manner, so far.

edit: Didn’t expect the complex middle-ground position to be popular, but nobody wants to actually respond?

It’s less ridiculous when you realize the human brain is also a prediction engine. It can just operate in a wide variety of ways instead of just being limited to only talking, or only folding proteins, or only playing chess or whatever.

To be fair, a multipolar world is fine. It’s not in our, or anyone else’s really, interests to try to dictate to other overseas peoples how they should structure their lives and governments. We did give it a shot, make no mistake, but it doesn’t tend to work out all that well.

We have no ability to stop the rise of places like China and India though, so fine, rise. We’ll only run into problems if this whole “spheres of influence” thing makes them think they can attack someone we have a security treaty with. That would be a problem.

You want to use economic or social power instead of military power though? Try to convince people instead of force them at gunpoint? Fine. No big deal. These methods honor their freedom. That’s a multipolar world we can work with.

Think like a gambler. What are the odds of winning a higher sum if you play the game, vs taking the guaranteed tax savings? It’ll vary case-to-case, and is ultimately a subjective decision. That said, they have a very large dataset of historical examples to draw from to inform their decisions on the likely outcomes. They don’t need to make wild guesses like a bunch of amateurs on the internet would.

Also, sometimes you want your money today, and not five years down the road. Corporate structure itself does not necessarily place a strong incentive on long-term success, since ownership of shares of corporations can be so fluid and rapidly changing. If you have no strong attachment to owning part of a company in five years, you have no real reason to care about it’s long term health, and you’ll naturally start to prefer $5 today over $10 tomorrow.

This is the main reason corporations end up as such a pain in the ass, and require oversight from multiple directions, from consumers in the market on up to regulatory agencies that are supposed to be independent of them. Their structures do not naturally incentivize much long-term thinking beyond what might be necessary.

So, thinking they are automatically lying is even worse than thinking they must be telling the truth. The position you need to hold is between the two.

The reason to hold it consistently is to take advantage of habit building and using how your brain works to your own advantage. You can try to calculate an independent “likelihood” for every claim if you want, but you’ll frequently be wrong, just because you can’t take everything into account. And it’s a massive waste of energy.

As to why, it varies. Humans are very different from each other, so the reasons will be many and varied. But the important thing to remember is just how easy the lie is, and how there’s really no consequences if someone does.

You should not believe firsthand accounts you find on the internet anyway. People are here for recreation, for starters, which does not set a high bar for accuracy.

For instance, if I said I tried a dragonfruit the other day and it tasted amazing, you would be somewhat foolish to assume that I actually did try a dragonfruit the other day.

If you follow the general rule of holding reasonable doubt about all firsthand accounts you read online, you will not fall into this trap. Note that the doubt does not need to be complete, just partial. This is sometimes described as taking things with “a grain of salt”, and honestly, is a good idea irl as well.

You absolutely do not want to be one of those people that just believes everyone. That is extremely unhealthy, and will result in you being misled and/or scammed.

A good example would be user reviews, which are highly corruptible. If you go onto amazon, you will find a number of low quality, garbage products that are full of glowing reviews that have likely been solicited by the seller, in one way or another.

Checking back in, I must give op props for the success of this troll thread. Impressive work.

If anyone was ever wondering, this is what decent quality trolling looks like. I didn’t think it was going to take off like this, but apparently I was wrong.

It’s useful to remember that we are on the internet, and the internet is full of bullshit. There is nothing saying that op actually believes a single thing they have said, and isn’t just screwing around to have a good time at other people’s expense.

The words In this way are doing some incredibly heavy lifting down there at the end. I am thoroughly impressed.

You should check out Nostr.