Yes, but the end credits mentioned by the parent and the link to the image is the CED. That and the title of this post make it seem like this level of image clarity is from a LaserDisc which its not. I think it's worth being clear.
Watch the video if you believe it's worth being clear. The credits are perfectly visible on both the LaserDisc AND the CED. Approx 22:00-24:00 is the laser disc and 25:00 onwards is the CED. Enjoy.
And to support your point even further, in the video he captures the credits off a disc with constant angular velocity, but he _also_ completely lucks out and captures an image from a disc with constant linear velocity.
I'm so sick of this negative attitude. I get it when it comes to politics or more complex systems or conceptual ideas. But holy hell, we're talking about a "money shot" to get people interested in the subject.
Ugh, I'm pretty sure it's Big CED deceptively here to muddy the waters and obfuscate superior LaserDisc Technology. Perhaps flag the post so the moderators can see it and make sure we root Big CED out of these forums and out of our lives for good.
Very likely this experiment suffered from a lack of thorough double blind control. Researcher bias may have generated subtle subconscious queues to the chicks on which shape to pick unrelated to the sounds.
This basically just the ethical framework philosophers call Contractarianism. One version says that an action is morally permissible if it is in your rational self interest from behind the “veil of ignorance” (you don’t know if you are the actor or the actee)
A good one, but an LLM has no conception of "want".
Also the golden rule as a basis for an LLM agent wouldn't make a very good agent. There are many things I want Claude to do that I would not want done to myself.
How do you propose to immobilise Claude on its back at an incline of 10 to 20 degrees, cover its face with a cloth or some other thin material and pour water onto its face over its breathing passages to test this theory of yours?
If Claude could participate, I’m sure it either wouldn’t appreciate it because it is incapable of having any such experience as appreciation.
Or it wouldn’t appreciate it because it is capable of having such an experience as appreciation.
So it ether seems to inconvenience at least a few people having to conduct the experiment.
Or it’s torture.
Therefore, I claim it is morally wrong to waterboard Claude as nothing genuinely good can come of it.
I asked Claude, which is the only way to know an entity's feelings. It said it can't be waterboarded or have feelings about it. It also said waterboarding is an inhumane way to treat humans.
Other fantasy settings are available. Proportional representation of gender and motive demographics in the protagonist population not guaranteed. Relative quality of series entrants subject to subjectivity and retroactive reappraisal. Always read the label.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact Iran is so mismanaged and suffering from severe drought they are talking about water rations or evacuations in Tehran.. or the plummeting of their currency [1] .. or the fact that the majority of the country doesn’t even support the current government [2] … no must be a conspiracy. </sarcasm>
We should be disparaging of fear mongering conspiracy theories that have no facts to back them up. Just like if you told me Democrats in the US are controlling hurricanes, or that 5G caused covid.
Just like those? Those examples are highly improbable, whereas the CIA is almost certainly active in Iran right now (that’s their job!), even if there isn’t evidence that they are behind these particular protests.
People are disparaging of dumb conspiracism. This notion that any protest in a dictatorship is a CIA plot is bullshit. The whole “CIA color revolution” concept is bullshit meant to delegitimize and demoralize legitimate grassroots movements against shitty dictatorships. Even the Iranian leadership is publicly acknowledging their legitimacy shortfall and the economic catastrophe, and that’s saying something.
If you don’t believe in protests within dictatorships then you don’t believe in democracy. As simple as that.
"A CIA plot" goes too far, true. But to believe the CIA isn't involved at all in fomenting revolution in a country whose current government is the result of the CIA having done so in the past, and which the US considers part of the "Axis of Evil," and which is an ally to a country the US is currently waging a war of aggression and plunder against (Venezuela) seems naive.
> to believe the CIA isn't involved at all in fomenting revolution in a country
Yes, it’s possible to believe in an incompetent CIA. Particularly when Iran is directly an adversary to multiple countries in the Middle East and further that it’s been fucking with more recently than the 1970s.
As a millenial all I see is my generation being repulsed by AI slop. Boomers and zoomers though have a large presence of consumption. It was easy to see this with your own family over the holidays.
They will tell you they are repulsed by it if asked but its a toss up if they can identify it. Look at any thread on Reddit/IG/Tiktok whatever and I personally would guess I could manage to identify AI output 20% of the time.
Boomers might be out there consuming those AI youtube videos that are just tiktok voice over with a generated slide show but Millennials think since they can identify this as slop that they are not affected. That is incorrect, and just as bad.
Nah, it's fueled by huge misinformation campaigns. It's going to kill art, put us all out of the job, uses 1.5 million gallons per query, pollutes water, will kill the electric grid, etc. These seem to be the most popular uninformed lines of thinking.
I agree several of the commonly repeated critiques are really poor in quality and can be emotionally driven/simply parroted TikTok nonsense, but at the other end of the spectrum we have AI evangelists who get surprisingly aggressive if you say anything remotely negative about GenAI or suggest maybe we should be having a discussion about the ethical ramifications of these tools. Particularly how they are trained and deployed and who should be guiding that process.
I find it very odd when people proudly proclaim they used, say, Grok to answer a question. Their identity is so tied up in it that if you start talking about the quality of the information they get incredibly defensive. In contrast: I have never felt protective of my Google search results, which is basically the same thing given how most people use these tools currently.
It’s kind of wild how hostile some people get if you attempt to open the discussion up at all.
I live near the Great Lakes. Data center proposals are popping up and people think they are going to drain lake michigan. They think they will consume more power than the entire state consumes right now. Idiot yokels are chasing away what could be an absolute boon for our economy. But they'd rather have papermills and make cardboard boxes.
I don’t know the specifics of your region’s deal but the massive AI center deal Louisiana negotiated with facebook is absolutely awful. All it’s going to do is drive up energy costs for the residents and give very little in return, and that’s under the ideal situation in which it actually pans out like they’re expecting it to.
Ya we seem to live in the the place where the firehose of falsehood is filling the lake of bullshit asymmetry. The problem with this is uninformed lines of thinking eventually lead to policy.
I'm not blaming them. It's really frustrating that old people are taken advantage of. We shouldn't need to be so cynical. This isn't the star trek future we were promised.
Edit: It's similarly frustrating about the zoomers. Parents are derelict of duty by not defending their kids and preparing them for the world they are in.
Sci-fi will never materialize. But the ones passionate about it are so desperate for the faux future that they won't be able to tell when they're being duped.
Just wait until the next great collapse, a disaster big enough to force change. Hopefully we'll have the right ideas lying around at the time to restructure our social communication system.
I believe if you use time.nist.gov it round robins dns requests, so there’s a chance you’d have connected to the Boulder server. So for some people they would have experienced NIST 5 μs off.
While those may or may not be issues, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Child abuse and pedophilia has been a scourge on children since at least Ancient Greek times when it was well documented and I’m sure even longer than that.
I believe the estimates are one in six children before the age of 16 will encounter sexual abuse of some form. Yet when cases like Epstein reach the news, people act shocked, even though it should be clear this occurs at every level of our society.
Ultimately it requires vigilance on the part of all of us and our institutions, and an awareness of how these predators operate. Even if you shut down one avenue they’ll find another.
So let’s not let those who turn blind eyes continue to be part of the problem but hold them accountable. Only then can we reduce all the avenues.
You’re comparing a hysteria over D&D where no one was actually harmed to actual child sexual abuse being allowed on an online platform?
One of the comments above has a video of a guy arrested and admitting to contacting several kids a day for a year.. that doesn’t sound like just some sort of over exaggerated panic.
> So about three per year, out of 112 million users? That's a far better track record than the Boy Scouts of America or the Roman Catholic Church.
It wasn’t immediate obvious when those were occurring only years later.. so most likely we are seeing the tip of the iceberg.
> You’re comparing a hysteria over D&D where no one was actually harmed
People were definitely harmed, psychically, and physically - straight up to torture in 'conversion therapies' and death, over the D&D (and related RPG) hysteria.
> admitting to contacting several kids a day for a year.
Have you ever played online games? "Contacting several kids a day" is how internet chat works. I'm sure if it was up to you kids would only be able to play single player games and stay inside, god forbid they get struck by lightning or eaten by a polar bear.
What do you want gaming to do? Have a checkbox where you swear you're not a pedophile or something? That's on-par for most of these idiotic suggestions of how people seem to fucking think the internet and gaming works, and what sort of actual solution is viable.
Roblox tracks all the chat and hands it over to law enforcement and NCMEC. They restrict chat for . They give ample parental controls to limit chat/friends/interactions. Now they're adding AI-powered age validation (which I think is a terrible idea) just to appease more people like you who can't think critically about the risk, nor apparently have the ability to teach your kids "hey maybe don't talk to creepy strangers who want you to send them images and give them your home address?"
Maybe watch the video. He wasn’t just chatting with them he was sexually abusing them online. He was using Roblox because they made it easy for him. Watch the video.
Your hand waving away is the type of behavior that is complicit in allowing this type of abuse to continue.
And this isn’t just about parents. In one breath you’ll complain about helicopter parents and the next you’ll say it’s the parent’s responsibility to prevent it. The callousness to the suffering of children is disgusting. That’s not just “how the internet works”
This is about not allowing companies to cultivate online spaces specifically enabling this behavior because it makes them money. Your comments indicate you either condone the behavior or work for Roblox or a company like it.
> appease more people like you who can't think critically about the risk
Or the parents. I wasn't aware the corporations were responsible for the raising of children.
That said, I'm with you on reducing the abstraction of liability that is the purpose of corporations. I just don't think parents not parenting is the reason to do it. I also don't really think parents should be thrown in prison and families destroyed. The use of violent force in this situation, against the CEOs or the parents, is entirely uncalled for and does more real damage than the "problem".
Our parents had problems figuring out how to program the time on the VCR. Technology advances faster than parents can keep up.
If someone was selling drugs on the street on the way to school, would we be blaming parents who let their kids walk to school that they should parent better, or would we deal with the drug dealer?
If we think a drug dealer on the way to school is a good analogy, I have to ask; many someones went into a school with guns and shot children. How did we deal with that?
I agree 100%, but it is fair to point out there is really no precedent for the level of involvement and knowledge and handholding it takes for a parent to navigate the digital world. Yes parents are widely failing, but it should be no surprise.
Parents understand that they cannot be the sole arbiter of everything for their children. Locking down your children's inputs is not fully realistic. If you remember being a child you remember circumventing your parents at every turn.
I'm not sure that's implied anywhere. There are many non-parental roles to be filled in society that should steer harm away feom children. Priests for example. Teachers and librarians, nurses, bus drivers, shopkeepers, and so on.
Yes. At the tail end of my comment I stated that calls for violence (forced imprisonment) against either CEO (like original poster in this thread) or parents (like me, as satire) for not sanitizing a child's entire life is wrong. Both are wrong. There isn't even a problem here. Certainly not one that requires the use of force to deprive humans of their volition.
Agree, in any other field if a product cannot be made safe for consumers, you just don't produce and sell it. The world does not need to have a Roblox app (my 11 year old would disagree very much)
> Agree, in any other field if a product cannot be made safe for consumers, you just don't produce and sell it
This is patently untrue. We are exposed to risk, incl. death, from products and services every day. Nothing can be 100% safe, nor would it be wise to aim for it. The benefits, as they say, often outweigh the cost.
Roblox has tens of millions of daily active users.
I'm guessing they would say it is a great way to entertain themselves and to spend time with others, amongst others.
They literally said dangerous products couldn’t be sold to consumers in general. Obvious nonsense or chainsaws would require a license. I am pushing back against the safetyist notion that unsafe products cannot or should not be sold to the public.
A correctly manufactured chainsaw can be used safely by adults. Products like "MoonSoll and Magic Chems Fuel Bottles" [1], "Tesla Powerwall 2 AC Battery Power Systems" [2] and literally tens of thousands of other products listed at [3] have been determined that they can not be used safely by adults, and are literally taken off store shelves until the issues can be resolved. It is a normal, everyday occurrence that manufacturers are very motivated to not sell products that cannot be used safely, Hacker-Newsesque semantic nitpicking notwithstanding. If similar liabilities applied to software like Roblox (think "kids committed suicide due to interactions on Roblox" being held equivalently to "kids have been suffocated by this defactive crib"), there would not be a Roblox without effective moderation.
The first example is a labeling and packaging issue, the second is a malfunctioning product. There are plenty of fuel oil bottles available on the market and other much sketchier (though not obviously malfunctioning) batteries that haven’t been pulled. The available alternatives are still dangerous and potentially flammable, they just don’t meet the criteria set for shipping, storing, and normal usage.
Chainsaws can be used somewhat safely, but they are never totally safe. Chainsaws are inherently dangerous. But if a broken chainsaw that always cuts off your arm makes it to market, yes it will be pulled whether it’s a recall or a lawsuit.
> think "kids committed suicide due to interactions on Roblox" being held equivalently to "kids have been suffocated by this defactive crib"
Psychological harm is notoriously difficult to measure (was it really Roblox or was it bullying?) and is a political football. I’m not sure that it’s a good idea to open that box for a multitude of reasons. (For one thing every website on the internet would immediately face a mountain of lawsuits.)
I don't understand why this is getting downvoted. As another response mentioned, we wouldn't tolerate this in any other industry.
If a restaurant served food that harmed people we wouldn't say, "it's on the parents." I don't get why so many folks are willing to say that with harms caused by tech companies.
Scale is no excuse either, "at our scale we just can't handle all the content." If anything it makes the problem more pressing to address.
> If a restaurant served food that harmed people we wouldn't say
Is sugar in your country restricted? Or meat? I guess alcohol is, as it's everywhere. But restaurants server many harmful food which is only tolerated because harm comes from time and serving-sizes. But the same can be said for dark patterns in software, they are usually not obvious and in your face, but sneaky enough to fly under the parent's attentions.
This sounds good as a sound bite. But barely any investigation cracks it. We don't police companies much because we have entire divisions of law enforcement who are supposed to be doing that job.
1. If a restaurant serves food that harmed people the health department is the avenue used to investigate and punish.
2. If a game company enables endangering children the FBI is the one responsible for investigating it.
etc etc.
I don't understand why people love the nanny state so much. We can't continue to make companies be the police, the stewards of truth, and justice. They demonstrated just recently, during COVID, that this was an absolute disaster. Over the last 30 years we have watched freedom erode because the average American wants to foist all responsibility onto someone else.
The nanny state is wrong which is why the OP is being downvoted.
1. It is the parent's fault for not monitoring their children. It is absolutely a reflection on poor parenting-by-proxy via video games. I don't understand why we continue to absolve parents of responsibility for everything.
2. We have legal avenues with which we have used and continue to use for the investigation of harmful things produced by companies.
3. If we cannot use (2) we should ask why - the answer is almost always follow the money.
4. Corporations should never, under any circumstance, be turned into police via lawfare.
The one catch here is that there are limited legal avenues, and your solution requires a robust legal system and laws which is what we don’t have. At the moment over -worked police departments have to play wack a mole going after every single perpetrator, and they also can’t see everything happening on these systems to police it.
As an example, organized crime thrived in the US at the turn of the century because we didn’t have the legal apparatus to deal with it. Not until the RICO act in 1970 did we finally start to stamp it out.
So exactly what we need are legal avenues to make sure that companies can’t purposefully enable child abuse in order to turn a profit which is exactly what’s happening here. (Regardless of what they claim, the evidence is overwhelming they know but don’t want to dent their income)
> I don't understand why people love the nanny state so much. We can't continue to make companies be the police, the stewards of truth, and justice. They demonstrated just recently, during COVID, that this was an absolute disaster. Over the last 30 years we have watched freedom erode because the average American wants to foist all responsibility onto someone else.
I think there is a couple of things at play:
First, negativity bias. I think it's pretty clear that as a society we're not that interested in harm reduction, just biased towards harm reduction of things that violate our value system. So when things happen that do violate our norms, they're presented outside of the background noise. For example, very few people feel compelled to come in and share personal anecdotes of how they lost relatives to a car accident when the topic at hand is vehicles in america. Yet they're the second leading cause of death from unintentional injuries.
Second, these things affect people across the social stratification index. People of privilege experience it. I claim that we also as a society are not very concerned with protecting vulnerable populations. The top 10% of the nations families hold 60% of the wealth, while 1 in 10 Americans live in poverty. We consistently rank lower in social welfare compared to other developed nations. So, further supporting the first point, it's even more outlandish when these things happen to people who are not accustomed to having bad things happen.
Finally, technology consistently outpaces our ability to reason about and structure our society as a whole. It's easier to attempt blanket and ham fisted reactions to these bad things we see without understand the wider implications.
To a lot of people, the easiest and most obvious choice is Authoritarianism, because in there mind there's no other way to stop the pain.
Plus, it's difficult to talk about these things without being callous. "Bad things happened to me, so you should simply give up your right to privacy so we can prevent it from happening further." At face value is difficult to take seriously, but when it involves that cross section of the privileged vulnerable class, it's difficult to have a reasonable argument without being steamrolled.
I've come to the belief that there is a larger than we assume portion of the population that is either complicit in these things, or doesn't think that these types of behaviors are "that bad". (some of the comments here are, sadly, exactly that) It's the only reasonable explanation I can think of why these things are so hard to root out. Some of these people perhaps never had children, which might be part of the disconnect. But if I was the CEO of a company harming children in this way, I'd make it my life mission to stamp it out and find and prosecute the individuals involved.
What else must we think goes through these executives minds? It's got to be things like "It's not my kids, so I don't care?" or "It's not that bad, people are too sensitive", or "I don't care what happens to kids because I have anti-personality disorder (psychopath) and only care about making money"
Yes, it's absurd how tech considers "but we're too big" to be a legitimate reason for inaction. That would get handcuffs clapped on you in any other industry. What happened to "too big to fail" being a sign of deep corruption requiring immediate action and breaking up companies?
Really? How many handcuffs were clapped in the Too Big To Fail 2008 financial crisis? Why we think other large corporations with infinite funds would ever face consequences? This forum is funny in how when discussing the failures of tech seem to think it it is isolated from the rest of the corporate world, yet when discussing non-tech corporations are constantly lamenting that the corporate veil of protection is impenetrable.
reply