TikTok: Why Do All the Crazes End Up Killing People?

Well, the question my Mum used to ask me has been answered: yes, there are a bunch of kids that will jump off a cliff if someone else told them to do it.

We had the Blackout craze, where kids choked themselves to unconsciousness. Kids were dying because they effectively hanged themselves.

One of the latest is the Benadryl challenge. A girl has already died after a fatal overdose of Benadryl.

Now the latest challenge is to drive up motorways or dual carriageways the wrong way. Basically a game of chicken. 

The thing that gets me is these are young adults. To get your licence in the UK you have to be at least 17. Yet you're still doing stupid TikTok fads at that age? <rolls eyes>

It was bad enough when it was the stupid kids offing themselves, but now we have a craze that will potentially kill other people. 

At that point, I think things have gone too far. 

Sadly I can't condone censoring TikTok completely, because it's mostly innocuous. But I do condone parents having the "would you jump off a cliff?" talk to their teenage kids. 

Because as it stands, there are a huge number of kids that would jump off a cliff if dared to. Or even just for likes on social media.

Not that you'd be able to enjoy your minute of social media fame if you are dead.

Pamphlet For Immigrants Released Asking They to Be Less Rapey, Amongst Other Things.

The Home Office has released a pamphlet designed to be handed to every immigrant that lands in the UK, giving them some idea of how we expect them to act once they are receiving our hospitality.

It includes pointers like:

Don't Harrass people.

Be less Rapey.

Be Less Aggressive.

Women are Equals.

You get the idea. Basically telling them they're no longer in Kansas... sorry the third world shithole they came from, and that we have standards they need to adhere to. Let's hope this eradicates the "Sorry, my client didn't know raping a woman was illegal your Honour" defence in rape cases.

<Shakes Head>

A.I. The Future is Terrifying.

First off, let me say that the current batch of Artificial Intelligence models are not that exactly. 

They are a neural network with a large language model that is able to scan the internet at rapid speed and collate the whole of the human experience (on the internet, with all it's flaws).

So you're not getting true intelligence, just through training the model which of it's assumptions are correct you train the neural net to be more correct than not. Eventually.

But it's interesting that such a basic premise: sum up the whole human experience online and offer answers to questions posed based on that gives you such a powerful tool.

However, it's quite clear that where the online information is missing, the various AIs crash and burn.

I'm not telling which area I posed questions to AIs, but I know for a fact that there is scarce information online about it. Every AI failed miserably to respond with any sort of response. 

The fact that people are considering such flawed engines should be involved in informing government how to perform it's task is to me hugely concerning. 

It is in no way equipped to deal with the variations of life, especially the unknowns that require a very alternative thought process to resolve. 

Currently what is known as A.I. relies on the reserve of human knowledge in order to inform any questions put to it. If you start asking about abstract ideas, it gives abstract or vague responses, or almost directly quotes philosophers. It does not decide on it's own what the future may be like, it parrots to majority viewpoint gleaned from the net.

And if this can outthink the thinkers, I hate to think what sort of thinkers we have currently. Pretty shallow ones, it seems.