Kids Are Watching Brain Melting AI-Generated Videos on YouTube Without Parents Realizing
Kids Are Watching Brain Melting AI-Generated Videos on YouTube Without Parents Realizing
A new report reveals that YouTube is filling up with AI-generated kids' videos, designed to glean cash via lucrative toddler eyeballs.
You're viewing a single thread.
When I was a kid in the early 2000's we were vibing to a funny song about a famous pedophile, watching pictures of dead people on rotten.com and ofcourse porn on the late night tv. We also had candy resembling tobacco products as well as ones with racist names.
I think new parents especially often seem to forget all the similar things they did as a child and then apply different standards to their own kids. Yeah, it's not optimal, but they're probably going to grow up just fine.
Millennials have higher rates of mental illness than previous generations. We are far from fine.
I'd imagine an increasingly hostile world economy coupled with a then-looming but now beginning climate crisis might have a huge impact there.
There are multiple possible explanations for that. I don't see any direct link between the kind of content we millenials consumed in our childhood and the apparent rise in the number of mental health cases. I'd be willing to bet that the time spent consuming said content plays a much bigger factor.
I'm not claiming there's a direct link. I am saying there's no evidence to support your claim that repulsive content is fine because the evidence suggests that we did not turn out just fine. My anecdotal evidence is that I had more empathy as a child than as an adult, which is largely thought abnormal, and I think desensitization due to watching beheadings and shit in my formative years might be part of the reason.
When I was younger I wasn't sad because I was online, I was online because I was sad and felt out of place in reality.
The cough isn't the cause of the cold, it's a symptom.
Also, I gained more empathy the older I got. So you probably need a bigger data set than your own experiences.
Permanently Deleted
I think it's less the network's fault, and more on where someone chooses to spend their time on the network. If you're on Facebook, it is in their interest to piss you off so you stay and fight. But plenty of other tools exist to connect folks online without being manipulative.
It's like fire, nuclear energy, or most any other tool. Use it right and everyone benefits, use it wrong and people get hurt.
Agreed, but we're specifically talking about looking at depraved content on the Internet.
Yes but we can't tell if that's caused by being online, it's possible you'd have had the same problems anyway or possibly worse. For all we know the internet helped you deal with your issues and without it you'd have ended up a serial killer.
Life is just very complex.
Hard to believe this isn't simply due to improved detection, reporting and treatment options.
Gen X and boomers still go to the Dr and undergo depression screenings, yet Gen X has roughly half the rates of depression as gen z and millennials. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9934502/
The key metric would be to review care detection and frequency at the same chronological age of participants, not simply today.
So you think young people are more likely to be mentally ill and then grow out of it when older?
No, do not write leading statements like that, it's rude. Just ask me to clarify.
I'm saying there's.no point measuring millennial healthcare analytics vs older generations because millennials aren't older yet (obviously). So point in time analytics aren't valuable ( edit to my conversation, obviously they are useful) My point was to understand the health analytics of a cohort relative to care options, you must consider the same age band, no matter the year.
So like " describe mental health detection among 20-30 yo's across decade's of history"
Permanently Deleted
It's a statement you are assuming I made, which I contested.
How "mental illnesses" are described and defined in scientific literature changes as science (and bureaucracy) progresses, as do our methods of measurement, and our scientific understanding of what is involved- science moves faster than languages evolve to adapt to its progress.
It is therefore not strictly and necessarily a matter of increased prevalence, but how we encapsulate and express these things culturally.
Compare the logical conundrum of the infinitely expanding shoreline. Was it Alfred Korszybski with that? My memory fails me.
At least those horrible things required human effort to make, so there was a limited quantity. An unlimited supply of content that a human had no part in making is completely new territory
It's not obvious to me why the non-human origin matters here. Eventually AI will get so good that you can't even tell the difference, or if you can, it's because it's so high quality.
In my mind the meat of the issue is the amount of time we spend watching that content, and less so who made it.
Non human origin matters because it's easy to flood the field with this stuff.
If finding quality videos becomes a needle in a haystack amidst ai generated bullshit, each looking to passively earn a few bucks, overall quality of life will suffer as the ouroboros eats its tail.
I remember candy cigarettes. My favorite was the one that also double as gum. But guess I miss the racist candy? Or did I not get the racism?
But guess I miss the racist candy?
I don't know it either, but I feel like when someone clarifies, I'll be like "Oh... OHH! That."
This one comes to mind
You used to eat N*gga Babies? My mom told me she had them in the 1960s and 1970s when she was a kid. They were somewhat of a sister candy to Sugar Babies I guess, or maybe just a copycat produced by another company. Similar enough to a Sugar Baby but the caramel was chocolate infused. I wouldn't think they'd still be selling them in the 2000s, unless they renamed them to something racist but a little less racist like...Coon Babies? Colored Babies? Oh, there were Gollywogs, something that was sold in Europe and Australia more than North America. You might be talking about them or Redmen or something, who've both changed their names now. Brigham's had a Just Jimmies ice cream flavor renamed to Just Sprinkles because someone had a lose theory that New Englanders call those oval shaped sprinkles (especially the chocolate ones) after Jim Crow. There's really been no solid proof we call them Jimmies because of Jim Crow, but I guess Brigham wanted to play it safe. But my household still calls it Just Jimmies.
These were called "Neekerinsuukko" which translates into "Nigger's Kiss" and they were sold under that name well over into the 2000's. It's basically a chocolate egg with a flat waffle bottom and filled with this white creamy filling.
I'm not sure if you can actually call that "racist" candy as I don't think whoever made it had any bad intentions behind it. It's just the name of it that aged a little badly. Nowdays these are just called "Kisses"
They were called chocolate babies in the 80s/90s and think they still go by that name but are no longer made by a major manufacturer
Pretty sure that's every generation in relation to the next: https://arapahoelibraries.org/blogs/post/generational-blame-a-brief-history/
Chocolate cigarettes were THE SHIT!
Wait, are you talking about some variation of candy cigarettes that I have never seen, but would be insanely jealous if they existed, or the flavored ones Camel used to have? Cause yeah chocolate mint Camels were awesome. Never liked the orange flavored ones, but that seemed to just be me in my friend group.
No these were made out of actual chocolate.
Also, ew.
