I agree about corporations. But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws? They help ensure that the parents aren’t bypassed.

I agree that children should be able to use LLMs under parental supervision.

▲

matheusmoreira 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws?

Yes, but merely on principle. I think alcohol and tobacco should be straight up banned unconditionally. Society resists this, so they banned them for children instead and called it a day.

I don't accept these ineffectual political concessions. If a thing is bad for children, then it's in all likelihood just as bad for the adults as well. So go all the way and ban it for everybody, not just children. Do it right, don't come up with these half measures that dehumanize children as a side effect.

▲

layer8 7 hours ago | parent [-]

There is a trade-off between freedom and keeping people safe, and there is an argument for some level of personal responsibility. I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless.

I also disagree with the dehumanization argument. Yes, the concrete age limits are a bit arbitrary, and actual maturity depends on the individual and is a spectrum, but regulations necessarily have to come with some level of pigeonholing. The fact that you may have to show your ID when buying alcohol isn’t dehumanizing.

▲

matheusmoreira 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless.

I'm sure teenagers feel the same way.

▲

layer8 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So you’re saying that maturity should be completely disregarded? I don’t get your point.

	▲	matheusmoreira 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The point is the argument is invalid. Why is it that adults get to freely fuck their lives up? If it's bad enough to ban for kids, then it's probably bad enough to ban society wide. "Children" needs further qualification as well. Anglosphere calls anything under 18 years old a "child", which completely disregards adolescence where major brain development takes place. Some five year old generally isn't capable of deciding things, but teenagers absolutely are.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]