(Ok, this is a test case. The article is about Gen Z in general but is relevant to Australia. The author is an Australian academic. I am not sure if this fits into the 'Australia' community. Mods, please advise)


Many young people are left feeling as though they no longer have any meaningful stake in a system that demands their compliance while it systematically engineers their obsolescence.

As social psychologist Shoshana Zuboff puts it, we are living in a

harsh social habitat produced by a decades-old regime of neoliberal market economics in which our sense of self-worth and need for self-determination are routinely thwarted.

Indeed, younger generations face a unique existential crisis as algorithms increasingly shape taste, preferences, decisions and more. Teens are “living inside a contradiction”, encouraged to embrace AI while they report it’s hurting their learning.

In the 20th century, baby boomers had greater agency over how much technology was integrated into their lives, and there was more opportunity to opt out. Studies show older generations were able to evaluate their adoption of technology based on factors like “compatibility with lifestyle” and affordability. Email and mobile phones weren’t viewed as essential to everyday life, nor was upgrading to a clock radio or a TV with a remote control considered as “inevitable” as having an AI chatbot on your smartphone is today.

Today, AI and algorithms feel unavoidable to younger generations, because they’re built into the very fabric of society. Tech CEOs argue the dominance of AI is inevitable, but the people in power aren’t engaging in dialogue with younger generations.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] -1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I really think a big part of the problem is the boomers running shit haven't known anything about computers, ever.

So when they try AI, they don't see all the red flags

They didn't understand it when a human was doing it, they don't understand when a chatbot is doing it.

They just start treating humans like chat ots, and asking for the same thing 27 different ways hoping to eventually get a response they like.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago

    What boomers? The richest people and all these CEOs of the companies people hate are GenX or Millennials. People are delusional to think this is a generation issue and not a class issue. But whatever people are dumb and fall for this all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago

    I understand what you're saying. I don't understand my own generation (Boomers) not seeing the red flags. I really don't. Some of us do.

    I sometimes wonder whether some (or many) Boomers have just dismissed themselves of all responsibility thinking "well it's not up to us anymore". We'll just use the AI services and let younger generations take care of all the other implications as we are now retired or retiring".

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Let's face it. Humans are nearly obsolete. Let's not stand in the way of the evolution of intelligence and go extinct. Anyone who expects to have control over their lives is purely delusional, no one will allow you to have it. And now, they have the means.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The problem is they read about how truly horrible data centers are, then read that the data centers are being used to run AI, and assume that the two concepts are inseparable.

    You can utilize AI without a data center, and it causes less harm to the planet than eating a hamburger.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    You can utilize AI without a data center

    This is a symptom of using the over-broad, deliberately vague marketing term “AI”.

    If you can create (train) it without huge-scale violation of consent, without huge scale copyright infringement, without huge scale badly-treated human labour for labelling and refining, without huge-scale electricity and water consumption?

    Then it isn't the “AI” being discussed in the article and therefore irrelevant to the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment