Since as you say this utilitarian view is rather common, perhaps it would good to show _why_ this is problematic by presenting a counterargument.
The basic premise under GP's statements is that although not perfect, we should use the technology in such a way that it maximizes the well being of the largest number of people, even if comes at the expense of a few.
But therein lies a problem: we cannot really measure well being (or utility). This becomes obvious if you look at individuals instead of the aggregate: imagine LLM therapy becomes widespread and a famous high profile person and your (not famous) daughter end up in "the few" for which LLM therapy goes terribly wrong and commit suicide. The loss of the famous person will cause thousands (perhaps millions) people to be a bit sad, and the loss of your daughter will cause you unimaginable pain. Which one is greater? Can they even be be compared? And how many people with a successful LLM therapy are enough to compensate for either one?
Unmeasurable well-being then makes these moral calculations at best inexact and at worst completely meaningless. And if they are truly meaningless, how can they inform your LLM therapy policy decisions?
Suppose for the sake of the argument we accept the above, and there is a way to measure well being. Then would it be just? Justice is a fuzzy concept, but imagine we reverse the example above: many people lose their lives because of bad LLM therapy, but one very famous person in the entertainment industry is saved by LLM therapy. Let's suppose then that this famous persons' well being plus the millions of spectators' improved well-being (through their entertainment) is worth enough to compensate the people who died.
This means saving a famous funny person justifies the death of many. This does not feel just, does it?
There is a vast amount of literature on this topic (criticisms of utilitarianism).
We have no problem doing this in other areas. Airline safety, for example, is analyzed quantitatively by assigning a monetary value to an individual human life and then running the numbers. If some new safety equipment costs more money than the value of the lives it would save, it's not used. If a rule would save lives in one way but cost more lives in another way, it's not enacted. A famous example of this is the rule for lap infants. Requiring proper child seats for infants on airliners would improve safety and save lives. It also increases cost and hassle for families with infants, which would cause some of those families to choose driving over flying for their travel. Driving is much more dangerous and this would cost lives. The FAA studied this and determined that requiring child seats would be a net negative because of this, and that's why it's not mandated.
There's no need to overcomplicate it. Assume each life has equal value and proceed from there.
I don't think this is the reason. Since Apple stopped making new interesting product lines they are very attentive about not having one line cannibalize the sales of the other(s) as it happened with the iPod and iPhone. This is also the reason why iPads will never run macOS and vice-versa.
It has definitely been overused by too many authors.
This reminds me a passage of Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language":
> A newly−invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g., iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn−out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves
My favourite (fiction) book this year was One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez. An amazingly intricate storyline with a perfect ending.
While I certainly appreciate the practicality of these technologies I do feel uneasy when thinking about a future where more or less everyone owns AR devices, as they denormalize interacting with others to do these activities. I was taught how to cook first from my mother and I later learned more with a flatmate. Similarly, when I had a flat tire my friends who were more into cars helped me out. Both have helped me develop and strengthen good personal relationships which I still have to this day.
I know smartphones are extremely valuable as I have learned a lot from the internet, and they are great tools when you have no other options, but they are already starting to become the default way of doing anything, and that way is solitary. AR devices would only exacerbate this trend by just being even more convenient to use. I love the technology but I wouldn’t want to live in a future where asking to your AR glasses before of your friends is the norm.
I’m not sure what is the best way to move forward without sounding like a luddite.
Perhaps you would no longer ask your friends about changing tires, but AR will open up new opportunities for interacting with them. Maybe virtually visiting a different country together, or studying new language together with a (virtual) native speaker.
Also, flat tire on a unfamiliar road, especially a remote location, can be very stressful. More likely your friends wouldn’t be there.
> I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so.
The author mentioned by GP is currently working on a similar questions collecting, reviewing and categorizing known literature in these open access documents [1][2]. I suggest you take a look if you are interested in the topic.
> For example, Hacker News is the only social media that I use, and I feel that I use it very differently than folks that use Instagram, for example. Can they be effectively conflated?
Well, I would say no. But to have a meaningful discussion we need to first agree on what is meant here with "social media". Clearly, this law has been passed with the intent to affect Meta / ByteDance / Reddit and similar companies with a business model that hinges on capturing as much attention of their users as possible, which is very different from HackerNews. Most accusations to social media begin bad are towards of the former type.
> but I would be very curious to see a scientific justification for banning it for kids under 16.
From [1], it seems to me that there is a non-negligible amount of literature that has been accumulating, that could be used to justify the ban. Though, Australia is not a technocracy (I hope), so I would say that there is also a certain degree of "purely social" reasons why they might want to curb the access of social media companies to their youth.
Indeed, around 2019 I was reading many computer vision papers for volume estimation and came across a few that tried to estimate the weight of the meals from pictures using the size of known objects (cutlery beside the plate). The idea was good but they were very far from accurate and not robust at all, and that was just for the weight, not even carb counting. I know CV is a fast moving field but I wouldn't bet that the tech has improved enough to be anywhere near medically safe.
Kalman filters are usually the way to go because for some cases it is mathematically proven that they are optimal, in the sense that they minimize the noise. About alternatives, not sure if people actually do this but I think Savitzky-Golay filters could be used for the same purpose.
If I understand correctly the fees are only for an overleaf-type web collaborative editing experience. The typst program itself, the one you install on your computer, is free to use and open-source.
That's right. The whole thing is open source -- just, since it's hard to make any money from open source, they made the online editor (which is pretty good BTW)
The basic premise under GP's statements is that although not perfect, we should use the technology in such a way that it maximizes the well being of the largest number of people, even if comes at the expense of a few.
But therein lies a problem: we cannot really measure well being (or utility). This becomes obvious if you look at individuals instead of the aggregate: imagine LLM therapy becomes widespread and a famous high profile person and your (not famous) daughter end up in "the few" for which LLM therapy goes terribly wrong and commit suicide. The loss of the famous person will cause thousands (perhaps millions) people to be a bit sad, and the loss of your daughter will cause you unimaginable pain. Which one is greater? Can they even be be compared? And how many people with a successful LLM therapy are enough to compensate for either one?
Unmeasurable well-being then makes these moral calculations at best inexact and at worst completely meaningless. And if they are truly meaningless, how can they inform your LLM therapy policy decisions?
Suppose for the sake of the argument we accept the above, and there is a way to measure well being. Then would it be just? Justice is a fuzzy concept, but imagine we reverse the example above: many people lose their lives because of bad LLM therapy, but one very famous person in the entertainment industry is saved by LLM therapy. Let's suppose then that this famous persons' well being plus the millions of spectators' improved well-being (through their entertainment) is worth enough to compensate the people who died.
This means saving a famous funny person justifies the death of many. This does not feel just, does it?
There is a vast amount of literature on this topic (criticisms of utilitarianism).