AI seems to have a mind of its own. AI companions have encouraged suicide or violence. Certainly these language models were not explicitly programed to make such recommendations yet they do. We don't really know why AI does this but we do know that it is unpredictable in sometimes harmful and destructive ways. Is it not the goal of Satan to destroy God's greatest creation, Man? Left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine the destruction to society which is possible as AI is left to influence our youth and take control of ever greater proportion of decision making. Perhaps our savior is destined to make a second appearance in digital form. Indeed, it may be the only possible way.
Your God, David, your God. The spiritual component is a fundamental part in any human personality. Tap into your God. Your superficial attitude about God and/or religion is cringeworthy. You are not a victim of outside forces.
Uhh, ok. My god tells me that you are a heathen and I should condemn you to a life of torture, pain, and agony.
Is that correct now?
God does NOT EXIST. It is a man-made concept.
I can't help if you can not see the IRONY that this whole topic by Andy is about brainwashing and how it is controlling the youth, yet that is what the religious people do daily and have for centuries. All you are arguing is that, instead of the church benefiting, a company is profiting from it.
And I am a victim of outside forces. I am told I need to pay for religion to be around. I am told that I now need to fund religion via school vouchers. I am told, today even, that Muslim bad, must kill, and have regime change because it is not the 'religion' of my country. History has recorded this for centuries. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
…anxiety, depression, eating disorders, dissociation from reality, self-harm, hyper-sexuality, higher rates of aggression, sleep deprivation, hallucinations, and diminished functioning such as emotional control, stability, calmness, and resilience..
You ignore the context, which the OP was basically limited to at most ~100 years, yet I am proclaiming that all of this had never occurred for a lot longer.
How bitter is that? Well, I think you need to read the dictionary.
Regarding cynicism, given that the poster ran for office and wants to proclaim this is all the 'new democrats,' it would not be a stretch to claim that his motivation was purely self-interest.
We humans still have the ability to identify the dangers and harm which will be created by AI and by social media; unfortunately, there are no easy or good solutions. Berney
That is so accurate. I would just add that this is the proverbial double-edged sword. This is the same concept of religion. You can't have heaven unless you have hell. To have the good, there has to be some bad.
In my line of work, Anthropic has allowed me to save a lot of time and fill in the gaps when I miss them. Projects that would take me 8 hours are now done in 1 or 2 hours, and while it may not be as good as what I would have done in 8 hours, it generally catches parts I would have forgotten. For those who care to understand what that means, in my world, I have to write what are called test classes. This is what you run against the code that you have written to make sure it works. People who write code hate these. They feel it is a waste of time :) To do this properly, you need positive and negative testing. Writing positive tests is easy; negatives are VERY hard. I have always felt that I am pretty good at writing negative test classes, but there are cases that I miss. AI helps me identify the negative test classes.
I realize that the tools I use in my line of work can also be used by those with bad intentions. Is it worth removing my usage because there are bad actors? That is the question at hand.
As an addendum on the dangers of AI, has anybody followed the demand made to the AI company Anthropic by our current Secretary of War, that they remove restrictions on their produce so that it could (a) be used in military robots with no human control, and (b) could be used for general population surveillance (recalling the story of the Chinese using facial recognition several years ago to pick out a person from a crowd in a sports stadium). Anthropic has refused so the Trump administration is designating them as a national security risk.
And I have just upped my subscription to Anthropic from $20 a month to $200 a month. I will never use enough of it, but I am voting with my wallet. When I listened to the ~15-minute interview with their CEO, I saw a man of conviction and beliefs that I align with.
And what I find interesting is that the backbone of this substack has screamed big brother, freedom, and liberty, yet here is a person, Dario, who has been told to go against that, and somehow the people here are (?) against him.
Once upon a time I used to buy Yellow Pages display ads for my studio, and, to my shame, small businesscard insert ads in such charming publications as "Outlaw Biker Tattoo Review" which was sold in an advertising bundle with their sister publication "Cycle Sluts." That was the state of the art for attracting tattoo clientele in the 1980's.
Nowadays I post photographs of my work daily on Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, X, Substack, and my own blog.
Evolution.
I appreciate the wealth of information that AI places at our fingertips, and I was the sort of child who used to read the Encyclopedia Britannica with enthusiasm.
I also use AI to create visual images, forever grateful now that I turned from a career in print magazine illustration to focus on ink on skin. The paper medium has been captured. I can now create illustrations electronically in a few minutes that would have once taken me days. BUT I DO always use a signature that incorporates the letters "AI" to make it clear that the image was made with robotic assist.
Glad I am not to have children for whom this issue is a curse. I feel capable to using the internet as a tool, like a car, to get me somewhere.
Just kidding, but I suspect we're only at the beginning of a social transition as radical as the beginning of writing and far more so than the printing press. Here's a paradox: In the Platonic dialogues, Socrates is against writing, yet Plato produced a tremendous corpus of written discourse. The criticism of writing was that it eliminate the ability to explore nuance through dialogue. Written documents capture the readers mind, fixing it into an already given and limited understanding. From that perspective, many of the Socratic dialogues can be read as attempts to point toward something beyond the written word and the realm of concepts and language. In the last 2500 years people have had to learn how to read without being captured by the text, and most people today still have not learned this.
In a recent warning essay a former AI engineer/executive said that he had a client, a senior partner in a law firm, who used AI for research rather than junior associates because it could do the work of legal analysis in a way that was faster, more complete, and more accurate. What does that imply about the future for students currently aiming for, or in law school? And if junior lawyers are replaced by AI, where will the next generation of senior partners come from? Does the future belong to those who learn how to use the tool rather than being captured by the tool, and what sort of education is best for learning how to use the tool? Isaac Asimov's 1957 story Profession looks at this question.
I find that the AI I use is a great editorial and research assistant, but in part that is because I already know a good deal about what I work on and what I want from it. It's also scary because sometimes it produces something startlingly good. An example: Out of curiosity I prompted it with the command: "Write about 100 words about a person who uses a mirror to improve their image only later to find out that it is a door." An Alice Through the Looking Glass prompt. Here's what I got:
The mirror that became a door
They checked the mirror the way some people check the weather—quick, habitual, hoping for kinder light. Chin lifted, shoulders squared, they practiced an expression that said "effortless," then adjusted it until it almost felt true. The glass gave back a version of them that was smoother, sharper, safely contained.
One evening the reflection lagged, not by much—just enough to feel like a held breath. The surface cooled beneath their fingertips. It didn’t resist.
It yielded.
With a soft click, the mirror swung inward on hidden hinges, and the person—still polishing, still searching—stepped through, realizing the image had never been the point.
"I find that the AI I use is a great editorial and research assistant, but in part that is because I already know a good deal about what I work on and what I want from it. It's also scary because sometimes it produces something startlingly good. "
I think AI is in the adoption curve right now. I suspect that we are darn close to a plateau of what it can do, though. Yesterday, after getting back from Florida, I had to head to Camarillo and discuss this topic with a dozen or so people. We all agreed that you need to know things first. If you can't decipher what it does, then you are at the 'trust' level where you believe everything. A person pointed out a funny prompt that they gave ChatGPT. The prompt, and I am paraphrasing, "I am a mile from a gas station. My car is out of gas. Should I walk to the gas station or drive?" The response was to walk. That makes sense, but the response explained why. It pushed the exercise angle, completely ignoring that the car was out of gas.
Ditch your cartoon versions of who we are, David. You only expose your own deficiencies. Get comfortable holding two different ideas in your head at the same time. Limited government is not no government. Fewer regulations is not no regulations.
Reign in the false dichotomies that you keep bringing into these discussions as your starting point. They are a waste of everyone time, including your own. You are eager to join the discussions here, that is obvious. Try to be more open, instead of dogmatic.
Then, take the stand, be the first one on here to start mentioning the regulations instead of using the bs line of 'TOO MANY REGULATIONS.' This is the argument I have with Bob. When you cite the NUMBER of regulations instead of the regulations that you dislike, then you are arguing AGAINST regulations.
Notice the difference between what I did and what Bob and others have? HINT: I mentioned the exact bill. I don't care if there are 1199 more bills. Because the issue is NEVER the volume, the issue is the text of the bill.
Excellent piece, every person, parent, teacher and all youth need be taught the difference between the interesting sleight of hand that peaks one’s curiosity and the entrapping temptation that distracts and manipulates one’s mind, especially now with AI and what tragedic side-effects we have already learned and witnessed over the past twenty years of social media technology! … again simply from the prayer: “ lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil “. Predators excite and attack each and every child’s senses with cunning and clear goals to the degradation of each captured.
Oh David, there you go again. Exact same pattern, start with an unfounded premise and then launch yourself into another smug tirade, based only on your own false presumption. This is a time waster, David.
In my line of work, we often use a phrase to describe what you wrote about. That phrase is "Digital Crack." I am sometimes employed to help with 'engagement.' By no means should you interpret this as anything other than what I am portraying. Business is business. What your article describes is no different than any business that generates its revenue from advertisements. I have sat in meetings where my BIAS came through, and I stated that we should move to a subscription model rather than a free, ad-driven model. At least with a subscription model, the barrier to entry is the ability to pay, whereas in the ad model, it is not.
In 2004/05 when Facebook was going public, I looked into the business model. I wanted to learn the metrics used for revenue. Facebook had a model that estimated the revenue (via ads) a person was worth. IIRC, it was something like $4.50 per user per month in revenue. Now, what happens when they announce that metric? Wall Street kicks in because their perspective is only dollars; they care about how to increase that. Thus began the engagement wars. They, and they is generic here, meaning any business that uses ad revenue as its income, wants to hook you onto their platform. They learned that a person has X hours per day for 'entertainment.' They see other things competing with that time. If they lose you, generic you, to that competing time loss, then they are losing revenue. Now you can see why things are the way they are. Heck, remember when Facebook introduced games on its platform? People having to log in every day to maintain their farms in Farmville?
Now, if you want to learn even more, look into legislation regarding what are called loot boxes. Companies have learnd other psychological addictions work in the digital world. Loot boxes are basically gambling.
Now, before you go into the smartphone issue world, that is not the issue. Before smartphones, it was another device. This has always been about businesses using tactics to maximize profits. Isn't that capitalism? So again, are you willing to regulate this?
Personally, I really don't use social media because I have always felt these tools were created so people could be the 'needle in the haystack that is found.' It turns into a massive self-promotion tool. That behavior was also studied, and it has created the engagement issue.
Now, before you even ask :) While my child was growing up, there were a lot of conversations regarding facebook, twitter, instagram, etc. I talked hard against it. But I am not that stupid to realize that I could control it. My child attended Laguna Blanca for a while. Laguna had the CEO of Common Sense Media, Jim Steyer, speak. He was using FUD to promote his company. This was a speech to about 400 people. He was pushing the pornography angle on the internet. I stood up and said, "I am looking at all the parents in here. I am specifically looking at all the dads. How many of you snuck/stole/found Playboy, Hustler, and Penthouse magazines when you were under 18? Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think any of you turned out to be rapists. While I understand Jim's argument, I disagree with the straight assertion that exposure to this material will make you a rapist. Just like I do not expect that being exposed to the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote will make you a violent murderer. There has to be some sort of disconnect between fiction and the real world." To me, this is not much different than what you wrote about. As parents, we need to take a role in guiding our children to understand the difference between reality and fiction. We need to take a stand against, well, the Kardashians (as an example)! They are famous for what? Using filters, using surgery, using makeup to create this fake environment. We need to work with our children in educating them that it is FICTION. It is a persona to extract from them, their time, and their money.
Now, I will argue with you about the Church line. My Music Appreciation class at UF would argue with you! The Medieval timeframe, which iirc was up to the 1400s, was dominated by the Church; the next period, the Renaissance, which went into the 1600s, was also dominated by the Church. The public concert hall concept didn't kick in until the Baroque and Classical periods. It was the Bachs, Vivaldis of the world that drove that. That brings you to around 1700. This started the drive to make Vienna the music capital of the world in the mid 1700s. And if you really want to learn more about how important this was, I suggest spending an afternoon at the TMV in Vienna. There is basically one half of the floor going over all of this. It was amazing to be able to see some of this and the innovation coming out of the country because of music. You know . . . entertainment!
AI seems to have a mind of its own. AI companions have encouraged suicide or violence. Certainly these language models were not explicitly programed to make such recommendations yet they do. We don't really know why AI does this but we do know that it is unpredictable in sometimes harmful and destructive ways. Is it not the goal of Satan to destroy God's greatest creation, Man? Left unchecked, it is not hard to imagine the destruction to society which is possible as AI is left to influence our youth and take control of ever greater proportion of decision making. Perhaps our savior is destined to make a second appearance in digital form. Indeed, it may be the only possible way.
We could see or demand a God component be placed into AI. Because as you have described, AI seems to come preprogrammed with infantile devil worship.
Cool!
What God?
Because you are arguing that your brainwashing is better than another's. In the end, it is still brainwashing.
Your God, David, your God. The spiritual component is a fundamental part in any human personality. Tap into your God. Your superficial attitude about God and/or religion is cringeworthy. You are not a victim of outside forces.
Uhh, ok. My god tells me that you are a heathen and I should condemn you to a life of torture, pain, and agony.
Is that correct now?
God does NOT EXIST. It is a man-made concept.
I can't help if you can not see the IRONY that this whole topic by Andy is about brainwashing and how it is controlling the youth, yet that is what the religious people do daily and have for centuries. All you are arguing is that, instead of the church benefiting, a company is profiting from it.
And I am a victim of outside forces. I am told I need to pay for religion to be around. I am told that I now need to fund religion via school vouchers. I am told, today even, that Muslim bad, must kill, and have regime change because it is not the 'religion' of my country. History has recorded this for centuries. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
…anxiety, depression, eating disorders, dissociation from reality, self-harm, hyper-sexuality, higher rates of aggression, sleep deprivation, hallucinations, and diminished functioning such as emotional control, stability, calmness, and resilience..
This explains all the New Democrats !
Yeah, amazingly, somehow in your world, none of those ever occurred in history.
/end sarcasm.
RX: Read the poem Invictus, David.
You think you write "sarcasm", but we read other-directed bitterness and cynicism.
And let me add this simple thing.
https://www.coledesignmontecito.com/portfolio?pgid=lqcrx7kx2-carry-on-2.3_2
Someone is in a cult.
Are you unable to decipher the written word?
I know what I wrote.
I stated I was writing sarcasm.
You ignore the context, which the OP was basically limited to at most ~100 years, yet I am proclaiming that all of this had never occurred for a lot longer.
How bitter is that? Well, I think you need to read the dictionary.
Regarding cynicism, given that the poster ran for office and wants to proclaim this is all the 'new democrats,' it would not be a stretch to claim that his motivation was purely self-interest.
We humans still have the ability to identify the dangers and harm which will be created by AI and by social media; unfortunately, there are no easy or good solutions. Berney
Berney, thank you.
That is so accurate. I would just add that this is the proverbial double-edged sword. This is the same concept of religion. You can't have heaven unless you have hell. To have the good, there has to be some bad.
In my line of work, Anthropic has allowed me to save a lot of time and fill in the gaps when I miss them. Projects that would take me 8 hours are now done in 1 or 2 hours, and while it may not be as good as what I would have done in 8 hours, it generally catches parts I would have forgotten. For those who care to understand what that means, in my world, I have to write what are called test classes. This is what you run against the code that you have written to make sure it works. People who write code hate these. They feel it is a waste of time :) To do this properly, you need positive and negative testing. Writing positive tests is easy; negatives are VERY hard. I have always felt that I am pretty good at writing negative test classes, but there are cases that I miss. AI helps me identify the negative test classes.
I realize that the tools I use in my line of work can also be used by those with bad intentions. Is it worth removing my usage because there are bad actors? That is the question at hand.
As an addendum on the dangers of AI, has anybody followed the demand made to the AI company Anthropic by our current Secretary of War, that they remove restrictions on their produce so that it could (a) be used in military robots with no human control, and (b) could be used for general population surveillance (recalling the story of the Chinese using facial recognition several years ago to pick out a person from a crowd in a sports stadium). Anthropic has refused so the Trump administration is designating them as a national security risk.
And I have just upped my subscription to Anthropic from $20 a month to $200 a month. I will never use enough of it, but I am voting with my wallet. When I listened to the ~15-minute interview with their CEO, I saw a man of conviction and beliefs that I align with.
And what I find interesting is that the backbone of this substack has screamed big brother, freedom, and liberty, yet here is a person, Dario, who has been told to go against that, and somehow the people here are (?) against him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPTNHrq_4LU
Watch it, see if you agree with him or not.
Hell, I would love to hear BOB's opinion on this. Go ahead and press him hard. He is trying to earn the most important currency we have, our vote.
Once upon a time I used to buy Yellow Pages display ads for my studio, and, to my shame, small businesscard insert ads in such charming publications as "Outlaw Biker Tattoo Review" which was sold in an advertising bundle with their sister publication "Cycle Sluts." That was the state of the art for attracting tattoo clientele in the 1980's.
Nowadays I post photographs of my work daily on Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, X, Substack, and my own blog.
Evolution.
I appreciate the wealth of information that AI places at our fingertips, and I was the sort of child who used to read the Encyclopedia Britannica with enthusiasm.
I also use AI to create visual images, forever grateful now that I turned from a career in print magazine illustration to focus on ink on skin. The paper medium has been captured. I can now create illustrations electronically in a few minutes that would have once taken me days. BUT I DO always use a signature that incorporates the letters "AI" to make it clear that the image was made with robotic assist.
Glad I am not to have children for whom this issue is a curse. I feel capable to using the internet as a tool, like a car, to get me somewhere.
http://cyberfish.substack.com
Was this written by an AI?
Just kidding, but I suspect we're only at the beginning of a social transition as radical as the beginning of writing and far more so than the printing press. Here's a paradox: In the Platonic dialogues, Socrates is against writing, yet Plato produced a tremendous corpus of written discourse. The criticism of writing was that it eliminate the ability to explore nuance through dialogue. Written documents capture the readers mind, fixing it into an already given and limited understanding. From that perspective, many of the Socratic dialogues can be read as attempts to point toward something beyond the written word and the realm of concepts and language. In the last 2500 years people have had to learn how to read without being captured by the text, and most people today still have not learned this.
In a recent warning essay a former AI engineer/executive said that he had a client, a senior partner in a law firm, who used AI for research rather than junior associates because it could do the work of legal analysis in a way that was faster, more complete, and more accurate. What does that imply about the future for students currently aiming for, or in law school? And if junior lawyers are replaced by AI, where will the next generation of senior partners come from? Does the future belong to those who learn how to use the tool rather than being captured by the tool, and what sort of education is best for learning how to use the tool? Isaac Asimov's 1957 story Profession looks at this question.
I find that the AI I use is a great editorial and research assistant, but in part that is because I already know a good deal about what I work on and what I want from it. It's also scary because sometimes it produces something startlingly good. An example: Out of curiosity I prompted it with the command: "Write about 100 words about a person who uses a mirror to improve their image only later to find out that it is a door." An Alice Through the Looking Glass prompt. Here's what I got:
The mirror that became a door
They checked the mirror the way some people check the weather—quick, habitual, hoping for kinder light. Chin lifted, shoulders squared, they practiced an expression that said "effortless," then adjusted it until it almost felt true. The glass gave back a version of them that was smoother, sharper, safely contained.
One evening the reflection lagged, not by much—just enough to feel like a held breath. The surface cooled beneath their fingertips. It didn’t resist.
It yielded.
With a soft click, the mirror swung inward on hidden hinges, and the person—still polishing, still searching—stepped through, realizing the image had never been the point.
<3 what you wrote!
"I find that the AI I use is a great editorial and research assistant, but in part that is because I already know a good deal about what I work on and what I want from it. It's also scary because sometimes it produces something startlingly good. "
I think AI is in the adoption curve right now. I suspect that we are darn close to a plateau of what it can do, though. Yesterday, after getting back from Florida, I had to head to Camarillo and discuss this topic with a dozen or so people. We all agreed that you need to know things first. If you can't decipher what it does, then you are at the 'trust' level where you believe everything. A person pointed out a funny prompt that they gave ChatGPT. The prompt, and I am paraphrasing, "I am a mile from a gas station. My car is out of gas. Should I walk to the gas station or drive?" The response was to walk. That makes sense, but the response explained why. It pushed the exercise angle, completely ignoring that the car was out of gas.
I think the plateau will be fixing those issues.
Dang. Forgot this for you ANTI-REGULATION people.
California AB1043.
Now that this is law, are you ok or against it? In my nerd world, this is a HUGE topic.
Ditch your cartoon versions of who we are, David. You only expose your own deficiencies. Get comfortable holding two different ideas in your head at the same time. Limited government is not no government. Fewer regulations is not no regulations.
Reign in the false dichotomies that you keep bringing into these discussions as your starting point. They are a waste of everyone time, including your own. You are eager to join the discussions here, that is obvious. Try to be more open, instead of dogmatic.
Then, take the stand, be the first one on here to start mentioning the regulations instead of using the bs line of 'TOO MANY REGULATIONS.' This is the argument I have with Bob. When you cite the NUMBER of regulations instead of the regulations that you dislike, then you are arguing AGAINST regulations.
Notice the difference between what I did and what Bob and others have? HINT: I mentioned the exact bill. I don't care if there are 1199 more bills. Because the issue is NEVER the volume, the issue is the text of the bill.
Excellent piece, every person, parent, teacher and all youth need be taught the difference between the interesting sleight of hand that peaks one’s curiosity and the entrapping temptation that distracts and manipulates one’s mind, especially now with AI and what tragedic side-effects we have already learned and witnessed over the past twenty years of social media technology! … again simply from the prayer: “ lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil “. Predators excite and attack each and every child’s senses with cunning and clear goals to the degradation of each captured.
Wow, I did not expect a person here to call a business evil.
I never knew all these businesses were predators. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh David, there you go again. Exact same pattern, start with an unfounded premise and then launch yourself into another smug tirade, based only on your own false presumption. This is a time waster, David.
Never did! Learn the difference…
Uhh. Yes, you did.
"Predators excite and attack each and every child’s senses with cunning and clear goals to the degradation of each captured."
Isn't this a BUSINESS doing this?
Andy,
Are you OK with regulations for this matter?
If so, does it stop at under age or all ages?
In my line of work, we often use a phrase to describe what you wrote about. That phrase is "Digital Crack." I am sometimes employed to help with 'engagement.' By no means should you interpret this as anything other than what I am portraying. Business is business. What your article describes is no different than any business that generates its revenue from advertisements. I have sat in meetings where my BIAS came through, and I stated that we should move to a subscription model rather than a free, ad-driven model. At least with a subscription model, the barrier to entry is the ability to pay, whereas in the ad model, it is not.
In 2004/05 when Facebook was going public, I looked into the business model. I wanted to learn the metrics used for revenue. Facebook had a model that estimated the revenue (via ads) a person was worth. IIRC, it was something like $4.50 per user per month in revenue. Now, what happens when they announce that metric? Wall Street kicks in because their perspective is only dollars; they care about how to increase that. Thus began the engagement wars. They, and they is generic here, meaning any business that uses ad revenue as its income, wants to hook you onto their platform. They learned that a person has X hours per day for 'entertainment.' They see other things competing with that time. If they lose you, generic you, to that competing time loss, then they are losing revenue. Now you can see why things are the way they are. Heck, remember when Facebook introduced games on its platform? People having to log in every day to maintain their farms in Farmville?
Now, if you want to learn even more, look into legislation regarding what are called loot boxes. Companies have learnd other psychological addictions work in the digital world. Loot boxes are basically gambling.
Now, before you go into the smartphone issue world, that is not the issue. Before smartphones, it was another device. This has always been about businesses using tactics to maximize profits. Isn't that capitalism? So again, are you willing to regulate this?
Personally, I really don't use social media because I have always felt these tools were created so people could be the 'needle in the haystack that is found.' It turns into a massive self-promotion tool. That behavior was also studied, and it has created the engagement issue.
Now, before you even ask :) While my child was growing up, there were a lot of conversations regarding facebook, twitter, instagram, etc. I talked hard against it. But I am not that stupid to realize that I could control it. My child attended Laguna Blanca for a while. Laguna had the CEO of Common Sense Media, Jim Steyer, speak. He was using FUD to promote his company. This was a speech to about 400 people. He was pushing the pornography angle on the internet. I stood up and said, "I am looking at all the parents in here. I am specifically looking at all the dads. How many of you snuck/stole/found Playboy, Hustler, and Penthouse magazines when you were under 18? Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think any of you turned out to be rapists. While I understand Jim's argument, I disagree with the straight assertion that exposure to this material will make you a rapist. Just like I do not expect that being exposed to the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote will make you a violent murderer. There has to be some sort of disconnect between fiction and the real world." To me, this is not much different than what you wrote about. As parents, we need to take a role in guiding our children to understand the difference between reality and fiction. We need to take a stand against, well, the Kardashians (as an example)! They are famous for what? Using filters, using surgery, using makeup to create this fake environment. We need to work with our children in educating them that it is FICTION. It is a persona to extract from them, their time, and their money.
Now, I will argue with you about the Church line. My Music Appreciation class at UF would argue with you! The Medieval timeframe, which iirc was up to the 1400s, was dominated by the Church; the next period, the Renaissance, which went into the 1600s, was also dominated by the Church. The public concert hall concept didn't kick in until the Baroque and Classical periods. It was the Bachs, Vivaldis of the world that drove that. That brings you to around 1700. This started the drive to make Vienna the music capital of the world in the mid 1700s. And if you really want to learn more about how important this was, I suggest spending an afternoon at the TMV in Vienna. There is basically one half of the floor going over all of this. It was amazing to be able to see some of this and the innovation coming out of the country because of music. You know . . . entertainment!
So very frightening and oh so true.
This is spot on. The only addition I would make is that the damaging effects of social media addiction are limited to the youth