I swear that we're doing it wrong. These regulations based on age restriction are lazy at best.

The harmful aspects of social media are their algorithms and their dopamine-exploitative design patterns.

Regulate and penalise this! Put some effort in actually targeting the source of the problem affecting children and adults alike.

Don't put the onus on users having to share very sensitive (and at risk of leaking!) information in order to prove they're not kids. Not to mention how easy it is to bypass with a VPN.

I'd be curious to see how NVIDIA would suffer if there were a legitimate slowdown to AI development. NVIDIA is the biggest catalyst and winner of speed in the market. Compute needs AI and AI needs compute, so there's definitely going to be an interesting push and pull between chipmakers and AI model companies with regards to regulation. While NVIDIA may have promised others at least a decade of smooth sailing and symbiosis, inevitably there's going to be a lot of stumbles along the way. NVIDIA may not fall, but there will be many casualties.

As someone who wants cat ears, I believe that doing it responsibly is the only way.

Hmm, this is a tough one... For cat ears, unlike AI, a few % chance of a global Apocalypse might be actually acceptable!

So true. I think the problem is not that there's more or less hate. I remember forums and chats with awful stuff.

The problem are the algorithms that put us into buckets and benefit from divisions.

I think we're reaching a level of maturity in tech that makes us question it for the same reasons it's great.

I think it's healthy for a society to question everything, as long as it doesn't get us stuck, but rather helps us conciously choose our path. We have more options than ever.

I used to be on social media all the time and always want the next shiny thing in tech. And I enjoyed that. But now I can choose to not be on social media and be on a basic iPhone mini. And I'm enjoying that now. All is to reiterate: we can choose our path, and that applies to many verticals.

as always… any ban of this type is lazy virtue signalling.

it’s proving unsuccessful in australia and it’ll be unsuccessful in the uk. it’s way too easy to circumvent with vpns and social media is not going to prevent it because it’s not in their interest.

governments should put their thinking cap on and regulate the addicting ux patterns that social media uses…

The people pushing the “AI is heavily subsidised” narrative don’t realise it actually flatters Anthropic and OpenAI more than the alternative.

If it is subsidised, fine – the incumbents absorb the losses, or lean on hyperscalers like Google or Microsoft who can cross-subsidise across other revenue streams. But if it isn’t, that’s the worse outcome for them: inference is just cheap, competition kicks in, prices crater, end users win.

Either way, local models win. If the incumbents are forced to turn a profit, pricing goes up and as local compute gets good enough to handle most use cases, people flock to it. And if inference is just cheap, that means the compute requirements are lower than we thought, and local hardware gets there even faster.

Bullish on local either way. We’ll find out once the Anthropic S-1 drops.

First of all, popping in a few screenshots of articles and papers is not proper analysis.

Second of all, GenAI is going well or not depending on how we frame it.

In terms of saving time, money and effort when coding, writing, analysing, researching, etc. It’s extremely successful.

In terms of leading us to AGI… GenAI alone won’t reach that. Current ROI is plateauing, and we need to start investing more somewhere else.

This is just cop out legislation. I wanna see laws targeting addictive design systems and harmful content. Social media is only part of the problem.

There’s so much that falls out of the social media definition. And regardless, kids are not stupid… VPNs, proxies, etc are easy to circumvent with.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good.

Who cares if many can get around it, if the majority can't or won't, then it kills the network effects.

I don't think this is good though. It's a police state masquerading as "SAVE THE CHILDREN!"

yes, the police state is preventing Mark Zuckerberg from being a trillionaire.

I'm sorry. What?

This legislation is very much giving more power to the government over what its citizens cannot do. The real impetus is control by the powers that be. The ideal citizen for an authoritarian would be fully controllable via digital means. A digital id that is networked with services is a wet dream for authoritarians.

What does this have to do with limiting Zuck's net worth? Because less kids will see less ads? How much will this reduce his net worth? If we took licenses from kids and had them wait until 18, would you be claiming this is to prevent Musk from gaining more wealth?

The Australian law, as written, is not good. It names 10 specific platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Threads, etc) that must comply with the law. That means any social network that is not explicitly named can still happily serve children.

Step 1 should be to kill the ad based monetization model.

>I wanna see laws targeting addictive design systems and harmful content.

then you're going to see president Hegseth using those laws to ban video games and pornography.