ArchRecord

I’m not the original person, but I was interested and did some digging myself, so here’s what I found. I’m primarily citing this paper which seemed to cite a lot of other papers to back up its claims, compared to many others, that just utilized a single survey’s results

The paper specifically mentions education all the way down to the preschool level, whereas many other studies didn’t do anything below middle-high school.

Parents, teachers, families, neighbors and the media all have important roles in the sexual education of children and give children sexual education from birth without even noticing that they are doing so. Studies have confirmed that sexual education is a lifelong process that starts at birth.

This is the key point: Sexual education is already effectively taught in many ways in non-educational settings, often with traditional heterosexual norms instilled. (e.g. general discussion of relationships and attraction, consent, mentions of people “trying to have a baby,” things like that) This is education that the respondents themselves did not consider to exist (the majority said they believed sex education of any form did not begin early in adolescence)

However, most of the general resources I can find around how official sex education curriculum are developed, how parents bring up these topics to their kids, and what kids are actually comfortable with discussing themselves, seems to point to an age-appropriate level of education, based on what they’re likely to encounter at their given age range. (e.g. a very young child may be taught to say no if someone asks to see their privates, whereas a young adult may then be taught how to properly use various forms of contraceptives, with the context of different sex positions, because that’s the age within which they’re most likely to engage in those different positions.)

It seems like the age-adjusted measures work best not because they necessarily bring harm if taught to younger individuals (although there’s significantly lacking data on this specific age range and being taught a more comprehensive sex ed curriculum) but rather that it’s more possible to teach it to students as they get older, because they form a larger body of existing knowledge around the topic from peers/media/family, that provides the context required to be more easily taught, and they become more comfortable discussing such topics as they grow older and have a larger existing understanding of them.

You could try teaching an extremely comprehensive sex ed curriculum to students who are much younger, but they would probably just be too uncomfortable to actually care/pay attention/truly learn, is what the evidence I can find seems to point to.

It seems that you start with the assumption that humanity is destined for a post scarcity utopia

I’m not. Apologies if I was unclear, but I was specifically referencing the fact that you were saying AI was going to accelerate to the point that it replaces human labor, and I was simply stating that I would prefer a world in which human labor is not required for humans to survive, and we can simply pursue other passions, if such a world where to exist, as a result of what you claim is happening with AI. You claimed AI will get so good it replaces all the jobs. Cool, I would enjoy that, because I don’t believe that jobs are what gives human lives meaning, and thus am fine if people are free to do other things with their lives.

Or perhaps it’s because you refuse to admit to yourself that your original comment was ill-considered, and thus you are forced to spout this nonsense in order to protect yourself from the emotional ramifications of admitting you may have misjudged the relative harm of nuclear weapons as compared to AI.

The automation of labor is not even remotely comparable to the creation of a technology who’s explicit, sole purpose is to cause the largest amount of destruction possible.

Could there hypothetically be an AI model far in the future, once we secure enough computing power, and develop the right architecture, that technically meets the definition of AGI, (however subjective it may be) that then decides to do something to harm humans? I suppose, but that’s simply not looking to be likely in any way, (and I’d love if you could actually show any data/evidence proving otherwise instead of saying “it just is” when claiming it’s more dangerous) and anyone claiming we’re getting close (e.g. Sam Altman) just simply has a vested financial interest in saying that AI development is moving quicker and at a higher scale than it actually is.

Regardless, it’s frustrating to watch you spin this web of sophistry instead of simply acknowledging that you were mistaken.

It’s not so bad to be wrong sometimes, just think of it as an opportunity to learn and become smarter.

It’s called having a disagreement and refuting your points. Just because someone doesn’t instantly agree with you doesn’t mean that I’m automatically mistaken. You’re not the sole arbiter of truth. Judging from how you, three times now, have assumed that I must be secretly suppressing the fact that AI is actually going to do more damage than nuclear bombs, just because I disagree with you, it’s clear that you are the one making post-hoc justifications here.

You are automatically assuming that because I disagree, I actually don’t disagree, and must secretly believe the same thing as you, but am just covering it up. Do not approach arguments from the assumption that the other person involved is just feigning disagreement, or you will never be capable of even considering a view other than the one you currently hold.

I sincerely hope that you did not utilize AI to assist in writing that wall of text.

The fact you’d even consider me possibly using AI to write a comment is ridiculous. Why would I do that? What would I gain? I’m here to articulate my views, not my views but only kind of, without any of my personal context, run through a statistical probability machine.

“It’s too expensive”

“It’s actually fairly priced for the performance it provides”

“You people must be paid to shill garbage”

???

Ah yes, shilling garbage, also known as: explaining that the price to performance ratio is just better, actually.

If nukes didn’t exist, there would potentially be more wars, and thus more death.

Nukes enable larger amounts of death. They increase the possible death, while also increasing the incentive to do a war, to prevent that death. In a world with no nukes, the threat and preventative force of less deadly weapons would simply match each other, just as they currently do with nukes, and have the same effect on disincentivizing war.

We have already automated essentially everything else, and yet people work more than ever.

Oh no we have not. See:

• Every single service job that relies on human experience/interaction (robotic replacements are still only ever used as gimmicks that attract customers for that fact, but not as a continual experience in broader society, precisely because we value human connection)
• Any work environment with arbitrary non-planned variables too far outside the scope of a robot’s capabilities
• Most creative works related jobs (AI generated works are often shunned by the masses because they feel inhuman and more sterile than human made works, at least on average)

Not to mention that when we automate something, and a job goes away because of that, that doesn’t mean there’s no new work that gets created as a result. Sure, when a machine replaces a human worker in a factory, that job goes away, but then who repairs and maintains the machine, checks that it’s doing what’s required of it, etc? Thus, more jobs shift to management style roles.

Your defensiveness speaks volumes.

You’re defensive over believing AI will actually make humans obsolete, that must mean you’re actually unable to stomach the reality that you’ll have to keep working the rest of your life. Your defensiveness speaks volumes. /s

Seriously, I welcome automation and the reduction in the amount of labor human beings have to engage in so that people are free to engage in their own interests outside of producing material goods for society. A future where work is entirely optional because we’ve simply eliminated the need to work to survive is great to me.

An ever more powerful nucleus of mechanization that has resulted in the most devastating wars and the most widespread suffering in all of human history. Genocides, chattel slavery, famine, biochemical and nuclear weapons; mass extinction and the imminent destruction of the very planet on which we live.

Ah yes, the printing press, car, and computer, the cause of all genocides. /s

Seriously man, do you not understand that people will just do bad things regardless of if a given job/task is automated?

By the way, your logic literally has no end here. The printing press, car, etc, is just an arbitrary starting point. There’s nothing about these inventions that’s inherently the starting point for any other consequences. This argument quite literally goes all the way back to the development of fire.

Fire brought the ability to burn people to death. Guess we should never have used fire for anything because it could possibly lead to something bad on a broader societal scale, maybe, in some minute way, that in no way outweighs the benefits!

Sweet summer child. Making human work obsolete makes human beings obsolete. I envy your naivety.

Were you ever a kid? Y’know, the people across nearly every society on this planet that don’t get jobs for years, and have little to no responsibilities, yet are provided for entirely outside of their own will and work ethic? Yet I have a sneaking suspicion you don’t believe that children are obsolete because they don’t do work.

The assumption that work is what gives humans their value is a complete and utter myth that only serves capitalists who want to convince you that it’s good to spend most of your time doing labor, actually.

But nuclear weapons have only been used twice in 80 years for military purposes. They have arguably prevented more deaths than they have caused.

Nukes only “prevent” deaths by saying they’ll cause drastically large numbers of deaths otherwise. If the nukes didn’t exist, there wouldn’t then be the threat of death from the nukes, which is being prevented by more people having the nukes.

If anything, your reaction is a defense mechanism because you can’t bear to stomach the potential consequences of AI.

“AI” is just more modern machine learning techniques that we’ve had for decades. Most implementations of it today are things that nobody actually wants, producing worse quality outputs than that of a human. Maybe it will automate some jobs, sure, that can happen. Just like how tons of automation historically has just pushed people from direct labor to management of machine labor.

Heck, if “AI” automated most of the work people did and put us out of a job, that would just accelerate our progress towards pushing for UBI/or an era of superabundance, which I’d welcome with open arms. It’s a lot easier to convince people that centralized ownership of wealth and resources makes no sense if goods can be produced automatically by machines for free.

But sure, seeing matrix multiplication causing statistically probable sentences to be formed really has me unable to stomach the potential consequences. /s

One could have easily reacted the same way to the invention of the printing press, or the automobile, or the analog computer. They all wasted a lot of energy for limited benefit, at first. But if the technology develops enough, it can destroy everything that we hold dear.

And what did the printing press, automobile, and analog computer bring?

A rapid advancement in the spread of information and local news, faster individualized transport that later contributed to additional developments to rail and bus transit solutions, and software solutions that can massively reduce workloads while accelerating human progress.

And all of those things either raised the standard of living without causing equivalent harm from job loss, or actively created substantially more jobs.

Human beings engineering their own obsolescence while cavalierly disregarding the potential consequences. A tale as old as time

Make human work obsolete so we can do what we care about and hang out with people we like instead of spending our days doing labor to produce goods we rely on? Sign me up.

I truly don’t understand what point you’re trying to make here.

Mozilla defines telemetry as “data collection.” Any collection of data by Mozilla is considered telemetry, as is described by the docs page that is cited on the Telemetry Collection & Deletion page.

If you deselect the Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla option, this disables all telemetry, or in other words, all data collection by Mozilla.

AI is quite possibly a more catastrophic technological development than nuclear weapons.

I wouldn’t go that far. A technology that wastes a lot of energy and creates a lot of bad quality content isn’t the same as a bomb that directly kills millions.

It’s two things:

1. Sidebar you can open from the hamburger menu that is basically just a tiny chat UI
2. Right click to paste the selected text into the sidebar

If you don’t want it, they don’t seem to be pushing it any further than that. Just don’t click the option in the menus and you’ll be fine. (I believe you can also fully disable the option from appearing in settings too)

Look at the links in my comment, and you’ll see that all of the categories of telemetry data there can be opted out of with that single switch.

JFC please read the actual documents instead of going “nothing about opting out” when it’s literally right there.

So phone-home telemetry that you can’t opt out of.

You can opt out of it. You’ve always been able to opt out of Mozilla’s telemetry. Not to mention that if you actually read the Privacy Notice, there’s an entire section detailing every single piece of telemetry that Mozilla collects, and if you read the section very clearly titled “To provide AI chatbots,” you’ll see what’s collected:

• Technical data
• Location
• Settings data
• Unique identifiers
• Interaction data

The consent required for the collection to even start:

Our lawful basis

Consent, when you choose to enable an AI Chatbot.

And links that lead to the page explaining how to turn off telemetry even if you’re using the in-beta AI features.

This page > FAQ > Telemetry Collection & Deletion page

Seconded.

For anyone considering switching though, make sure:

1. You don’t need port forwarding (e.g. for faster P2P online gaming, or various other P2P services) since I don’t believe they have it, or if they do it certainly doesn’t work well
2. You’re okay with a smaller selection of servers, since Mullvad has less

I will say though, I found less sites throttled/blocked me on Mullvad in some cases, since Mullvad’s IPs are less widely shared than Proton’s, so that’s a plus, but a few sites will have hard blocks on some VPN providers like Mullvad that they’ve made manual exclusions to for larger VPNs like Proton.

I agree to a point, but I look at this similar to how I’d view any feature in a browser. Sometimes there are features added that I don’t use, and thus, I simply won’t use them.

This would be a problem for me if it was an “assistant” that automatically popped up over pages I was on to offer “help,” but it’s not. It’s just a sidebar you can click a button in the menu to pop out, or you can never click that button and you’ll never have to look at it.

It’s not a feature that auto-enables in a way that actually starts sending data to any AI company, it’s just an optional interface, that you have to click a specific button to open, that can then interface with a given AI model if you choose to use it. If you don’t want to use it, then you ideally won’t even see it open during your use of Firefox.

The actual addition to the terms is essentially this:

1. If you choose to use the optional AI chatbot sidebar feature, you’re subject to the ToS and Privacy Policy of the provider you use, just as if you’d gone to their site and used it directly. This is obvious.
2. Mozilla will collect light data on usage, such as how frequently people use the feature overall, and how long the strings of text are that are being pasted in. That’s basically it.

The way this article describes it as “cushy caveats” is completely misleading. It’s quite literally just “If you use a feature that integrates with third party services, you’re relying on and providing data to those services, also we want to know if the feature is actually being used and how much.”

For the performance, it’s actually quite reasonable. 4070-like GPU performance, 128gb of memory, and basically the newest Ryzen CPU performance, plus a case, power supply, and fan, will run you about the same price as buying a 4070, case, fan, power supply, and CPU of similar performance. Except you’ll actually get a faster CPU with the Framework one, and you’ll also get more memory that’s accessible by the GPU (up to the full 128gb minus whatever the CPU is currently using)

TLDR;

• Check your Password Manager/Stored Browser Credentials
• If on Apple devices, check your Keychain
• If on Android or using/used Chrome, check your Google Password Manager (enabled if you chose to save passwords to your Google account)
• Search old email inboxes
• Search for your email in data breaches
• Search for old usernames you re-used across sites

I personally would also add searching your browser cookies, since some browsers will keep around old cookies for years if you don’t clear them.