This is a result of living in homes where parents neither read to children nor model reading for pleasure.
Thanks to the various waves of “education reform”, there is less literature on offer and less time for pleasure reading. However, if you’re reading them exciting things at home (and telling them about the exciting stuff you’re reading), they will love to read.
One thing that helped in our house was making books unavoidable. We keep paperbacks lying around in every room. It sounds silly, but there’s a kind of “cover gravity” and guilt that pulls the kids ( and me) back into a book when a book is just sitting there gathering dust.
My parents had a rule where the default answer when I asked them to buy me things was no—except for books. Combined with the fact that we lived in the middle of nowhere and did not have cable TV, books were by far the most appealing thing around.
Isn't this the problem though, books are no longer attractive with all the other options? How can we make books cool without pretending all this tech didn't exist?
I think the content of many books is much cooler than the crap on my timelines. There’s just higher entropy (or activation energy?) to get the book picked up and opened vs the serotonin lever in our pockets.
I’ve just strived to read like hell to my kids and make reading one of their most fun things around. Pretty much all we read is stuff they like, even if I hate it (I’m looking at you, Pokemon novels). If they like an author (in our house we love Daniel Pinkwater) I will go out of my way to find that authors books.
We write to authors, we talk about what we read (somehow I serialised a retelling of Killing Commendatore), my 8 yo listens to my audiobooks in the car with me, we are frickin bookworms.
And of course they still play Minecraft and animal crossing. It’s just that picking up a book is one of their default go-tos, and I think that’s enough. They’re building the habit and the understanding of what reading is about, and if we keep that up they will be ok.
> How can we make books cool without pretending all this tech didn't exist?
You don't need to pretend it didn't exist, you need to legislate and ensure that access to it is cut off uniformly for developing minds. We already see the emergence of this kind of legislation with Australia enforcing a ban for social media under 16s; and other countries in the process of legislating ones.
I happen to favor this approach because "pretend it doesn't exist" strategy doesn't work for addictive things that are left lying around the house for kids to access. If society in general can prevent children from getting access to alcohol before 21, there's no particular reason the same can't be done for addictive "social" media algorithms.
We can’t, it’s simply too addictive in comparison. It produces more dopamine, more quickly and consistently and there’s no way books will ever compete. Really it’s not even technology that is the problem, it’s specifically just algorithmic driven social media. We have to actively avoid the addictive algorithms and it’s really difficult.
It's not necessarily that simple. Both I and my wife read, almost every week I read my daughter passages I've come across in my books, we have bookshelves in every room. We read to our younger children and they enjoy being read to.
I told my daughter that when I was her age I liked to read Animorphs, and girls were reading Babysitter's Club. She brought home these books from the school library and... they were graphic novels.
Apparently the school library is stocked with comic books and the kids can just read those instead of real books. And comic books don't have descriptions of scenes, they have almost no internal monologue or exposition, no symbolism or (literary) imagery, they really can't teach reading comprehension.
FWIW my son went through the same sort of thing during emerging literacy and it drove me kind of crazy. He started with simple texts, then started coming home with “graphic novels”. I just let him do it. He was stuck on those for a bit, started getting interested in World Record books (which, again, lots of pictures and not much writing), and then…read a Roald Dahl book a day for two weeks. For whatever reason, the switch flipped.
Throughout it I continued reading to him daily, mostly stuff that he comprehends just find but find too difficult to read on his own.
I think it just comes in its own time if nurtured.
Edit: I really like what John Gotto (I think…he wrote a book called Dumbing Us Down) observed about literacy; for a long time it just developed naturally without much formal instruction. I had that in mind for our kid and am glad I did.
> Throughout it I continued reading to him daily, mostly stuff that he comprehends just find but find too difficult to read on his own.
This reminds me of the father-son scenes in Zen and the Art and of Motorcycle Maintenance. The narrator—the father—reads Walden to his son, who is just at the edge of being able to understand it. That causes a lot of Q&A between father and son that the narrator initially finds annoying. But then he realizes that Walden reads better this way.
My wife is a school librarian and really dislikes graphic novels, in part because they are so expensive they eat all of her meager budget. But she recognizes they can be the hook that catches a future reader. Not always, but sometimes she can get a kid to transition to full books from graphic novels, so they do have their place. They seem very useful with her significant ESL population.
I logged in especially to second what lukewrites has said.
My kids both started on and enjoyed graphic novels, then progressed to reading chapter books without pictures etc, I'd say in part because of the graphic novels.
My son is in this transition phase right now. There are some of these "dumb" series which offer books ranging from mostly-image-some-text, some-images-some-text to text. The prose offerings are a great on/off ramp, since he knows the characters and conventions. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this trajectory and really don't even care how dumb, simple, whatever these books may be: my son is reading grade levels ahead of the rest of his class and these books have been a major contributor to his success.
My first daughter I managed to flip the switch for reading through Tintin and other graphic novels. My younger daughter skipped that entirely. She started reading later than the first, but jumped right in to longer full length books that were captivating for her (they were series she had seen her sister read).
I completely agree that we can encourage but reading needs to come naturally to them. You can't force-feed curiosity and passion, which is what reading is all about for young people.
I was going to mention this as well. Everything is a graphic novel these days. Go to the bookstore, and at least half of the shelf space dedicated to children is for graphic novels (and that doesn’t include the manga section). Almost every book series has a graphic novel version. And some of these are just complete skip. Dav Pilkey (Captain Underpants from my days, now DogMan and others) just pumps out the most low effort stuff imaginable.
It’s no surprise kids are reading way behind what previous generations did when this is what they are bombarded with.
Sorry, I edited out some context there. What I meant is that _at school_ there's less literature on offer; instead, kids are burdened with reading "instructional texts" that are as terrible and lifeless as the name sounds.
I think parents have to counteract the negative effects of this by exposing their kids to the joys of words and reading. I agree with you 100% that there's an amazing diversity of texts out there now! Every so often when I grab an ereader I think about how blown away I would have been as a kid to think that I could take HUNDREDS of books with me on vacation.
Huh? When I was growing up we had the newspaper, Readers Digest, and maybe a library book at home to read (out side of school books). Now I have access to pretty much anything ever written on my phone. Lack of options is not why people read less.
Nor do they have books in the house. It's a great time to be a book lover because you can accumulate a huge library for next to nothing by harvesting all the stuff people are giving away. But you can go into a house with children these days and see not a single book in sight. It's sad.
I’ve been using Little Snitch on my Mac for years now because I want to be aware of (and be able to turn off) the connections programs make. Probably the weirdest one I’ve caught was a new seagate hdd that required you to run an executable file to be able to format the drive, which then tried to connect to baidu.
It's so noisy though because of apps' built in update checks and other legitimate things initially, which you then grant a process exception for. Per destination allow rules would also generate a lot of popups. Then the user just grants exceptions for all traffic or suffers alert fatigue
It's useful for apps that should not have any outbound networking
But fundamentally I don't think it moves the needle that much on the bigger picture
With no disrespect intended because this is also how I would do it (but I wouldn't publish and name it after myself!) - they didn't read the research. They had the AI that actually created this do that for them.
fair to call out but half true. i did send claude off to look up specific stats on failure modes (62% assertion correctness, etc), but the design decisions came from my own reading of anthropic's reports, the columbia daplab paper i cited, and a mix of matt pocock's lectures + my own anecdotal experience running this loop on real projects.
It's also a very clear differentiator for them relative to Google, Facebook, and OpenAI, all of whom are clearly varying degrees of willing to sell themselves out for evil purposes.
It will also cost openai dearly if they don't communicate clearly, because I for one will internally push to switch from openai (we are on azure actually) to anthropic. Besides that my private account also.
Given the history of US military adventurism and that we’re about to start another completely unjustified war of aggression against Iran, yes. Absolutely yes.
If it wasn't for US military power, Russia would have already overrun Ukraine. And if Iranian nuclear program is destroyed and the regime falls, it would be a good thing. For context, I'm from Czechia.
I'm from the US and strongly disagree that either of those things are a benefit to me as a US citizen. All it's doing is taking my money and putting me more at risk, and in the case of the attack on Iran: making me complicit in the most immoral acts imaginable.
> What about all the weapons forbidden by the Geneva convention?
Some weapons are prohibited Geneva convention because they are designed to cause suffering or indiscriminately kill non-combatants:
"Weapons prohibited under the Geneva Convention and associated international humanitarian law (including the 1925 Protocol, CCW, and specific treaties) include chemical/biological agents (mustard gas, sarin), blinding lasers, expanding bullets, and non-detectable fragments. Also banned are anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.
Key prohibited and restricted weapons include:
Chemical and Biological Weapons: The 1925 Geneva Protocol and subsequent conventions (1972, 1993) banned the use, development, and stockpiling of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, including nerve agents and biological weapons.
Blinding Laser Weapons: Specifically designed to cause permanent blindness (Protocol IV of the CCW).
Non-detectable Fragments: Weapons designed to injure by fragments not detectable in the human body by X-rays (Protocol I of the CCW).
Incendiary Weapons: Restrictions on using fire-based weapons (like flamethrowers) against civilian populations (Protocol III of the CCW).
Anti-personnel Landmines: Banned under the Ottawa Treaty (1997) due to risks to civilians.
Cluster Munitions: Prohibited due to their indiscriminate nature.
These treaties aim to protect civilians and combatants from unnecessary suffering and long-term danger."
Would "good hands" choose weapons that are designed to cause suffering or that kill indiscriminately?
> Costco is a really popular subject for business-success case studies but I feel like business guys kinda lose interest when the upshot of the study is like "just operate with scrupulous integrity in all facets and levels of your business for four decades" and not some easy-to-fix gimmick
I don't know, staff at my two Costcos feel much more disinterested and rude then I remember a decade ago. It used to feel fun but now it's miserable.
At peak times they run out of carts and tell the customers to go hunting in the lot for them, door greeters shouting at members across the floor, checkout queues stretch the length of the warehouse, they start half blocking the gas station entrance 30mins before close so trucks can't get in, so maybe they're turning those profit screws.
Ah, right, by being actually good, as in - being okay with mass surveillance as long as it isn't being done in the US, being okay with Claude assisting in killing people as long as it isn't fully autonomous, and being actively hostile to open-weight LLMs and open research on LLMs? This kind of "good"?
No, OP is right, their PR department is doing a great job.
Correct. Protect our citizens' rights, as we are the ones under the jurisdiction of our government. Yes, design competitive weapons systems that can stand up to the threats that adversary powers are creating, but do so while maintaining human control.
Sibling comment summed it up pretty well; my country is considered an ally of yours, but even left leaning Americans seem to take it for granted that we deserve mass AI surveillance/blackmail/manipulation if there’s a chance it could benefit us citizens in the short term. I suppose we deserve it for being complicit in American crimes for so long
You're assuming things I didn't state. I don't particularly want mass AI surveillance at all, but considering how much more dangerous a government's mass spying is to its own citizens living in it 24/7, it's not unreasonable for that to be the focus.
> You're assuming things I didn't state. I don't particularly want mass AI surveillance at all
That's fair, sorry for that.
> considering how much more dangerous a government's mass spying is to its own citizens living in it 24/7, it's not unreasonable for that to be the focus
The US government is actively trying to influence politics in my country and spending huge amounts of money to do it. The US government is a much larger threat to us than our own government.
All of our tech is owned and operated by US companies, which means the US government has read/write access to all of our data. If we attempt to incentivize domestic software production (e.g. by taxing imported software, or by stipulating where our data can be stored and who can access it), the US government will destroy our economy. This has played out a few times recently.
I can't believe we were so foolish as to let this situation grow. Its going to be a painful few decades.
It's funny, because even if they walk it back, they still would come out ahead in PR versus if they just rolled over. Because at that point, it would look like a hostage victim reading a statement that they are being treated well by their captors in front of a camera.
Do you think that bad things happening is just hilarious in general? Do you like to see good behavior punished? I'm really trying to understand what you get out of making this comment. Also what happens when ... This doesn't happen? You just polluted the epistemic commons a bit more with some cynical bullshit sans consequence? Enough. I think it's time to start calling this garbage out when I see it.
Two things can be true at the same time. It can notionally be a “good” decision and also a straightforward act of Anthropic continuing their PR that they’re some sort of benevolent entity despite continuing to pursue a typical corporate capitalistic structure. It is what it is. The game is the game. But I’m not going to sit there and pretend their virtues are as pure of snow. I’m sorry that’s upset you.
This whole saga is extremely depressing and dystopic.
Anthropic is holding firm on incredibly weak red lines. No mass surveillance for Americans, ok for everyone else, and ok to automatic war machines, just not fully unmanned until they can guarantee a certain quality.
This should be a laughably spineless position. But under this administration it is taken as an affront to the president and results in the government lashing out.
If you're a billionaire there's no risk to "sticking to principles", so there's nothing to admire. Also that's not what they're doing. These are calculated moves in a negotiation and the trump regime only has 3 years left. Even a CEO can think 4 years ahead.
It's probably in Anthropic's interest to throw grok to these clowns and watch them fail to build anything with it for 3 years.
i disagree. 3 years is an insanely long time in the AI space. The entire industry pretty much didn't even exist three years ago! Or at least not within 4 orders of magnitude.
Also, every other company has bent the knee and kissed the ring. And the trump admin will absolutely do everything they can to not appear weak and harm Anthropic. If it was so easy to act principled, don't you think other companies would've refused too? Eg Apple
And there is real harm here. You're reading about it - they get labeled a supply chain risk. This is negative and very tangible
why does it need to be a completely different, trained model? AWS doesn't provide unique technologies in their goverment cloud, beyond isolation and firewalled access; Anthropic can do the same thing. Probably need to cough up enough to register a new domain name!
I can think of two reasons. One, to have the plausible deniability with the necessary future statement "Claude is not used by the DoD/DoW to conduct domestic mass surveillance or autonomous killing"; by having the model be properly a different from the one used by the public, they can wrangle over the language with technicalities and still avoid outright lying. (With their IPO in sight, let's keep in mind that everything is securities fraud.)
And two, I suspect that some of the guardrails have been "baked in" to Anthropic's model. Much in the same way as the Chinese open-weight models have a strong bias against expressing positive sentiments about Tiananmen Square, Tank Man or Winnie the Pooh, the "Standard Claude" would likely have the fundamental product biases trained into it.
Taken together it would therefore be both politically and financially sensible for Anthropic to create a separate, unrestricted[tm] almost-Claude for the morally unconstrained military / intelligence purposes.
So much left unsaid. So much implied. Let’s make it explicit and talk about it. Here are some follow questions that reasonable people will ask:
What was Anthropic’s role in the Maduro operation? (Or we can call it state-sponsored kidnapping.) Who knew what and when? Did A\ find itself in a position where it contradicted its core principles?
More broadly, how does moral culpability work in complex situations like this?
How much moral culpability gets attributed to a helicopter manufacturer used in the Maduro operation? (Assuming one was; you can see my meaning I hope.)
P.S. Traditional programming is easy in comparison to morality.
Somehow its target user group includes my father, who is 90 years old. As far as I can recall, we got him using Firefox years ago and he became a committed user.
I wish more browsers would target seniors. Accessibility and usability is universally a nightmare.
There's really interesting research about children/people learning to read without formal instruction; as John Taylor Gatto points out in Dumbing Us Down, back when Thomas Paine was writing, there were ~600,000 copies of Common Sense printed for a population of three million. People learned to read on their own or with very little instruction because they were interested in reading.
There's a convincing body of evidence that the way you get kids to read books is pretty simple: read them books that interest them and then give them access to more interesting books as well as time to read to self. Unfortunately, the lethal combo of Common Core and No Child Left Behind has left teachers at best too time-strapped (or, at worst, uninterested) in doing so because of mandatory curriculum and testing.
I read to my kids, make sure they see me reading, and talk to them about both what I'm reading and what they're reading. They've done fine despite awful reading instruction at school.
> We are doing state capitalism without China’s “serve the people” bit. Hm, maybe there’s a name for that type of government, idk.
Except China doesn't actually serve its people. Things are way more cut-throat there, with much less safety net. The Chinese government sees workers as grist for the mill, not something to be cared for.
There is a significant difference in a population of 70 million educated workers who need to be maintained for high performance and 400 million low skill workers who are highly replaceable.
I am trying to make no judgement here, just explaining then 'motivational environment'
This math of course is in flux to a degree we haven't seen in maybe 1000+ years though right now.
I think you can it's just shifted by several decades because China took a long dark detour through the Cultural Revolution. QoL exploded in the US in the Post War period, partially imo because we were the only industrialized economy that didn't have significant homeland attacks during WW2 so the US got a straight shot to the top of the heap. China got a similar QoL lift through a similar path, mass manufacturing (this time business taken from the US by being far cheaper) and growth of in country expertise. Now even China is feeling a similar cost squeeze drawing some business to smaller neighbors. They're also just so much larger they can sustain a larger gradient between coasts that look closer to '1st' world costs and poorer interiors where cheaper manufacturing can be done.
Sure, but what's relevant is what sort of political and cultural pressures we're all experiencing now. Maybe China is just a few years behind on the same crunch trajectory we're on, maybe not, but that doesn't matter much to what's going on today.
Well if the complaint is China is experiencing/experienced much more recently a big uplift in QoL vs the US it's because China was behind the US in it's economic development so it had easier gains to make.
We're no where near experiencing the same political and cultural forces because the US and China are vastly different on many axes both in their structure and culture and importantly we're very very different economically.
> Eh, quality of life has gone to the moon in China in living memory. Not nearly as much a positive delta here in the US.
The Chinese rural population still isn't eligible for local equivalent of social security in their old age (that's only for city folks), and IIRC there was a huge unwillingness to provide financial assistance to individuals during COVID.
> A few hundred million of that rural population have become city folk.
Not legally, IIRC China has an internal passport system, and workers who migrate to the city from the countryside typically remain must registered in the countryside (and are therefore denied access to city benefits).
hukou has changed a lot, particularly since 2014 and you'll find that it exist in its strictest form only for cities > 5 million inhabitants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou
Thanks to the various waves of “education reform”, there is less literature on offer and less time for pleasure reading. However, if you’re reading them exciting things at home (and telling them about the exciting stuff you’re reading), they will love to read.
reply