Transcription
Hey, would you give a two-month-old an iPad? Using an iPad at 6 months, who's about to download Binder? Or I don't know, let AI take the burden off of your parenting responsibilities. And do you use ChatGPT when raising your baby? I, I, I do. And you know what's crazy? People say Gen Z are lazy, entitled losers. Gen Alpha can't read, write, or spell. And Gen Beta is already called a doomed generation, although they literally just got here. Is that even a fair thing to say? We're going to take a look at the three craziest predictions people are already saying about the next generation, take it to court, and find out the likelihood of these claims actually happening.
Starting with that basically means these kids will grow up on TikTok, IG Reels, AI, and complete brain rot. They'll be home all day on their iPads watching like it's just over, bro. Like, you thought we were bad? No. Just wait. Just wait a few years. We'll see brain rot at levels never seen before. So, to the untrained eye, this looks like a problem. And it is. But what if I said there is just a little bit more to it than what everyone on the internet is already saying?
Now, if I may play devil's advocate for a little bit, are we seriously going to say that this is the first time we've heard of a previous generation not understanding a popular form of entertainment that the youth employ? May I take your attention to exhibit A? Let's say you were a young woman in 1783, minding your own business, reading your favorite novel. But then an older gentleman walks by with a putrid look on his face and he says, "Oh, you youngsters and your novels. How could you fill your heads with such nonsense?" And you're just like, "Oh, you mean this? Yeah, it's one of my favorite books. It's not one of those intellectual books I see you old folk reading, but you know, it's a fun read." Fun. And he was so mad and so baffled at the idea of young people reading books for entertainment that he wrote a literal essay on how young people reading novels are contributing to societal degeneracy. Visimus Knox was his name, and he represented the general sentiment amongst the older generation at the time, saying, and I quote, "If it is true that the present age is more corrupt than the preceding, the great multiplication of novels probably contributes to its degeneracy." Mind you, this was three centuries before Colleen Hoover became an author.
Or may I bring your attention to the 1920s with parents and grandparents alike confused as to why their children find so much joy out of listening to the radio, calling it just another disintegrating toy and imposing the death of conversation? Or even in the 1950s when kids, teenagers, and young adults were reading comic books. So much so that it became the number one source of entertainment in America at the time. And of course, the previous generation had to give their two cents. "What a wonderful thing this would be if they were reading something worthwhile. But they're not reading anything constructive. They're reading stories devoted to adultery, to sexual perversion, to the most despicable of crime." Childish, dangerous to the youth, mindless entertainment. And there was literally a psychiatrist in 1954 that thought comic books of Batman and Robin were teaching kids how to be gay. So, I mean, there's that. Don't even get me started with when TV first came out.
What's something that has not been said by the last generation? From the 1950s onward, children's TV consumption has been labeled a vast wasteland, destroying attention spans, hypnotizing our youth, damaging young minds. If you grew up playing video games, this ain't new to you either. Let me guess, video games are what's making kids stupid today, not the failing school system. Point is, every generation knows what it's like to have a form of entertainment judged by an older person who simply doesn't get it, only to at some point later on be proven that the inherent dangers of said entertainment were either highly exaggerated or flat-out wrong.
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, can we really make an intellectually honest prediction on Gen Beta being doomed to be the brain rot generation? Or would it be more accurate to say that what we call brain rot today is simply just another form of entertainment that we, as the now aging generation, simply cannot yet understand? Something that maybe even in a decade or so will be proven to be not a big deal after all. I mean, are we really going to be that generation? One that continues a cycle of disapproval just because there's something about the younger generation we don't understand yet?
Well, okay. All right. Even as a respected defense attorney for Gen Beta, even I can admit when there's an obvious counterargument. It would be dishonest of me to not bring it up, which is no other generation in history has begun with AI as a central point of entertainment. Mind you, Gen Z grew up with smartphones and social media, so we've heard it all, right? "Tell your mom you didn't do well on the math test." "It's that damn phone." "Eyes feeling a little itchy." "It's that damn phone." "Stomach ache?" "It's that damn phone." Yeah, you get it.
But the reason why a Baby Boomer or Gen X complaining about the youth being attached to cell phones and social media is just a little bit different than previous generations complaining about, let's say, a comic book. Is the inherent addictive nature internet culture is built around. I feel like we've all seen the countless studies about the objective negative effects prolonged exposure to social media has on our brains. Depression, anxiety, prone to comparing yourself to others, attention spans legitimately shrinking, etc. And we know this because the business model of every social media platform ever is to do everything in their power to keep you engaged on their platform. So much so that pretty much every account has a tailored algorithm to what the platform believes will keep your attention the longest.
In the past, when kids used to be absorbed in different forms of entertainment, it couldn't change. You grabbed a novel or a comic book, and it's not like after you finish reading, there's an update a week or two later with more chapters. Or even with video games before the internet, you bought a game, and pretty much what you got was the full product. Sure, you could keep replaying it or rereading it over and over and over again. Sure, you could buy new books or new games, but at least there was a defined end point. There was a finish line you could reach to tell you when to stop engaging in that activity. And more likely than not, you'd get bored of it eventually. The internet has no finish line. There is always something new for our brains to look forward to if we try hard enough. And the only thing stopping you from scrolling endlessly, besides basic discipline, are outside factors like, "Oh crap, I have to wake up for work tomorrow and it's 3:00 AM."
So, to be fair, yes, there is merit against a Gen Z or Gen Alpha in the sense that the dangers of cell phone and social media addiction are valid. But even with that, at the very least, at least the content was still made by humans. Even the most bottom barrel level of degenerate content a child could consume in the 2010s, at least the frequency of said content was limited by human effort and creativity. As in, the rate humans made slop were infinitely slower than AI can produce the same level. And worst to the younger generation, imagine the worst of the worst content that, let's say, a Gen Alpha experienced, but now a version of that same content gets uploaded consistently every single day forever. And unfortunately, it's working. There is literally an AI "Fruit Love Island" TikTok that's only been around since March of this year, but has built over 3 million followers in 9 days. And at the time, before TikTok heroically deleted their channel, they were posting daily. We know it's an attention economy, correct? And we also know that companies are greedy. So, as an intellectual adult, can we really say that this use of AI and entertainment will ever go away? Do we think that companies, knowing there's an obvious audience for something like this, and equally knowing that they can pump this content out at a rate never before seen in history, would it be fair to assume that AI "Fruit Love Island" will be the extent of it? You know, a one and done, a flash in the pan? Or is it more likely that this level of content will continue to be produced? Although, we may not like it, and most people today are against it now. But let me tell you what the companies are doing now. They're waiting. They're biding their time until the next generation of babies grow up and believe that this is the standard of content that they should be expecting.
So, I'll end with this. In a world where this type of content is inevitable and where Gen Beta is the target, can we honestly believe that there's a world in which Gen Beta won't be considered the brain rot generation, the worst attention spans in history, the worst literary literacy capabilities I've ever seen, and the worst behavior regulation the world has yet to see?
Now, both sides have made fair points. We've heard from the defense. We've heard the rebuttal. But now, we must come to a conclusion. Is Gen Beta really doomed to be the brain rot generation? Or is that just another symptom of old man yelling at cloud? Has the jury reached the verdict? Oh. Oh, is it here? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Um, in the case of Gen Beta versus Brain Rot Generation, we, the jury, find the defendant guilty of all charges. Order. Order. On the basis that the likelihood of this content being normalized in the future is relatively high, and the subsequent effects that this will have on the generation born into it will be severe. It's not possible to believe a generation with this much fast-paced, low-effort content right out the gate won't have a worse attention span than any previous generation. They'd be so used to watching so much new, colorful, and interesting content so frequently that they won't have much of an appetite for the raw, slower, objectively better content that we, the previous generations, have had the privilege of consuming. They'd probably expect things to happen right away and quickly. And when they realize that doesn't happen in real life, they'd grow to be adults that are more easily frustrated. Life outside the internet and AI might seem more dull for them, and they won't be able to function within boredom without their brains constantly to be stimulated.
Your honor, you can't blame all of my client. They're infants walking to Apple stores, buying iPads, and distracting themselves of their own free will. How can you possibly say that's a fair charge? She could barely speak for herself, your honor. I think she can speak for herself just fine. Defense. On to the next claim.
And have tech that will not only do their homework, but learn alongside them and learn for them. It's quite scary to think, but AI kids might never know how to learn. Gen Beta might lose the ability to think critically on their own. A popular claim against my client is that people believe that Gen Beta will be the first generation of people who won't be able to think for themselves. And I get it, right? First came the internet, smartphones, computers, apps. You know, as time passes, things become more convenient. Perhaps some may argue that because of these conveniences, human beings have had less of a need to use their brain than they did over a hundred years ago. Why physically write a novel when you can simply use your Google document and write, save, edit, save again, write again over an infinite number of times and never have to worry about losing your work? Convenient. Why wait for an uncomfortable amount of time in the rain for your next taxi when you can simply call an Uber to your exact location on a mobile app in minutes? Convenient. Why spend hours, days of your life researching a topic when Wikipedia.com is right there? Hey, if that ain't convenient, I don't know what is.
Now, let's turn to the world of AI. And for the record, I hate AI just as much as the next person. But admittedly, in terms of convenience for the average person with an internet connection, day-to-day life has never been easier. Why read an entire news article yourself when AI can just summarize the topic for you in a couple seconds? Why take days to write an essay when ChatGPT can spit back to you a two-page thesis in a couple minutes? And you may think, "Oh, well, AI today is evolving at a rate that we humans can possibly comprehend." Obviously, artificial intelligence will get to a point where they'll do all the thinking for us. That generation Beta will be the first generation of human beings that will forego all of their thinking to a machine. And I would agree with you. If the same things weren't already said about every single human technological advancement in history ever.
Exhibit A. May I bring your attention to 370 BC? By show of hands, we all believe that Socrates was an intelligent human being. Correct. Historically famous philosopher. Some may even call him the father of philosophy. The same Socrates who, according to himself, has never written a day in his life. Back in fifth-century B.C. Athens, writing as an invention was transitioning from a niche craft into a brand new mainstream technology. And as smart as he was, Socrates saw the invention of writing as, and I quote, "a step backwards for truth." "Writing will create forgetfulness in the learner's souls because they will not use their memories. They will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing. They will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing." Essentially, he feared that writing things down would actually make people more forgetful because they wouldn't rely on their memory as much and lose their ability to think critically. Ironic, considering now we know writing actually significantly enhances your memory versus just trying to remember things on your own. I'm sure if he gave it a shot, he would have liked it.
I'm sure you guys have read newspapers before, books. Now, what if I told you that in the 15th century, once again, people thought that human cognitive thinking and memory would decline. They believed that the ability to print texts would greatly decrease the quality of humanity's education and memorization skills as people would no longer need to memorize long text passages. Seems reasonable enough, except that didn't happen. As we all know, the mass production of books greatly increased the cognitive abilities of humans.
Exhibit C, the telephone. Oh, not this. This one's a little different than the others, but the point still stands. The ability to pick up a device and instantly talk to someone. Are you crazy? People would stop writing letters to each other. People would be less incentivized to think before they speak. Is what they thought. Ladies and gentlemen, we can go down the list, right? In the early 2000s, people had a fear that search engines like Google would make us all stupid. Because we can find any information that we want online at any time that we please, there's less of a need for us to remember the things that we research anymore. Because if we forget things, we could literally just look it up later. And you know what? I'm going to make the prosecution's job just a little bit easier for them and admit it. They're right. The Google effect does prove that we, as humans, do outsource a lot of our thinking and long-term memory to technology.
But ladies and gentlemen, can the search engine work in the first place without human thought? Google doesn't always give us the correct answer that we're looking for. Don't we still need to be able to think and decipher between what's fact and what is fiction? Can't we agree that regardless of how smart AI becomes in the future, it'll still ultimately be up to us to accept the information that it provides or not, the work that it provides or not? I can't predict the future. But what I can show are patterns. And the pattern suggests that every single time there has been a technological advancement in the world, it's met with fear and the previous generation thinking that the next one will be worse off because of it. And almost every single time, those fears have been proven wrong. So, jury, I ask you, can we stop this witch hunt? Can we agree that as long as human beings shall live, we will always create a piece of technology that will make life easier for us? And that the likelihood that we'll ever create something that will forgo all human critical thinking will be slim to none.
H would the prosecution like to rebuttal? That's cute. That's very, very cute of you. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I could, like my opposition here, go step by step, cherry-picking all the points in history that only benefit my side of things. Objection, argumentative. Overruled. Prosecution, you may continue, but I'm not going to waste your time with that. Instead, I want to talk to you guys about a concept that I like to call the new normal. The defense wants you to believe that it is unlikely for a future where AI or any technology for that matter to completely get rid of all of our thinking. That miraculously, no matter how smart artificial intelligence will become in the future, human beings will overcome and will somehow become smart enough to not write ourselves out of our own story. What the defense fails to understand is that the real issue worth discussing isn't whether or not AI will become smart enough to eventually do everything for us and then we'll make the decision to forego all of our thinking. Of course not. No sensible human being's going to knowingly give up their ability to think. The issue isn't giving up our ability to think, ladies and gentlemen. It's knowing whether or not we had the ability to think that thing in the first place.
Let me ask you something. For those of us born into a world after the Google search engine was created and made popular, did we question Google's authority? Sure, you could decipher an incorrect article here, a misleading statistic there, but for the most part, you trust that Google will be there to give you the proper information. Technology has become the authority figure in your education. You don't know of a world where you had to rely on physical research and long-term memory. If it disappeared tomorrow, you'd have a generation of adults that have no idea where to get the answers to their questions. So now I ask, what happens when a generation of kids believe that Google to them is as archaic as a physical encyclopedia is to us? You know, there was a time where modern calculators were seen as the most detrimental thing to kids learning math. Why learn to do any work by hand when there's a calculator right there? It, it doesn't make sense, right? But what if instead of a calculator, you're about to do a math test and your teacher says, "All right, everyone, pull out ChatGPT." Why learn to solve anything when we're born into a world with accessible technology that could do it for us and better? What about making day-to-day decisions? Adults today already treat ChatGPT like it's their best friend. The issue is today, as a society, that's still seen as weird, you know, thankfully. But what if it wasn't weird? What if the failed attempt at an AI companion today inevitably evolves into something easily accessible to everyone? Think about it. Every decision, big or small, decided by speaking to your AI best friend. "Oh, what should I have for breakfast today?" "Eggs." "What should I tell my daughter to make her feel better about the F on our math quiz?" "Words of encouragement." "Should I sell my house?" "No. Rent the extra bedroom for more income."
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I implore you not to fear that one day we'll give up our ability to think, but that we'll raise a generation of kids that won't know not to.
All right. Both the prosecution and the defense had the opportunity to speak. We will now have a quick recess and then we'll Oh, the jury already came to a decision. Okay. In the case of Gen Beta Won't Think For Themselves, the jury finds the defendant not guilty. On the basis that there isn't sufficient enough evidence to accurately dictate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will be solely relying on technology to do majority of their thinking beyond basic day-to-day activities.
One more. I promise, one more, and this nightmare will be over soon. The last thing I'll bring up as just a reason why Gen Beta is like, kind of doomed, is because you're coming into a world with the most incredible levels of stress, inequality, environmental destruction, and threats to world peace. What does this word mean to you? We've all had our awkward moments in our teenage years, right? You remember the early 2000s, you know, 2010s. We were all just kids trying to figure out our place in the world. Yes. Yes, that is right. Trying to fit in, so to speak. But when society, namely children, call something cringe, what does that really mean? Trying to be something that you're not, hoping others don't notice a facade. But ladies and gentlemen, we were all cringe at one point, right? Because we all found something or someone that we thought were cool, and we tried to implement it in our own lives in hopes that we too can be cool. Until you grow up and realize that you can't make your identity based off of a trend or what other people might think is cool. Nah, you grow up to realize that identity is something that you cultivate on your own through trial and error of what comes naturally to you. At least we hope. But jury, I stand before you today to let you know that Gen Beta has no such hope. What you see before you today is a generation of children whose identity, self-worth, and personality will all be determined by an algorithm.
Have you heard of the illusory truth effect? It's a cognitive bias where people believe familiarity equals truth. When a statement or piece of information is repeated often enough, people are more likely to believe that it's true, regardless of if it is or not. Politicians do this all the time. You spew enough hateful rhetoric around enough times, repeat the same jargon enough, and you'd find people believing you blindly without a second thought. Corporate propaganda works the same way. But what happens in 10, 15, 20 years when the same social media feeding adults today with hyper-personalized, hyper-targeted content evolves to a point where literally everything they're being fed is specific? Let's start with a small example. A Gen Beta scrolls on social media. They find something that they show the slightest interest in, and now the algorithm thinks that's all they want to see. And because this one genre of content is being fed to you over and over, they may take this as a form of truth, a positive. And there goes their new identity and self. Algorithms are always changing and adjusting, and that's what makes the newer generation at a risk we've never seen before. They'd be more susceptible to radicalization of the worst kind.
Excuse me a moment. If I may, I'll switch gears. Climate has been an important topic in today's world for obvious reasons. Gen Z has had their own run-in with this, unfortunately. Heat waves, floods, wildfires, melting ice, unnatural natural disasters. Gen Z, bless their heart, are doing all they can to remedy this issue before it becomes irreversible. Progress, albeit small, is being made. However, rather unfortunately, many policies are still in play that make it unlikely for significant enough progress to happen before Gen Beta's adulthood. Gen Beta will inherit a world built on the back of our failures. They won't question why things are bad because they won't know the difference. They won't know from firsthand experience that summer isn't supposed to be hotter every single year. They won't know that hurricanes aren't supposed to be as strong as they are. They just know that they are. Some regions of the world may even become semi-uninhabitable seasonally. Raising global temperatures will lead to the destruction of our agriculture. Poor agriculture will lead to famine. Famine will lead to wars. And if wars last long enough, it will lead to our end. Because this topic will be so unavoidable for Gen Beta adults, you'll have two ends of the spectrum. Extreme climate deniers, those who couldn't care less, who will be working for big corporations, contributing to the problem, and are incentivized to not care, or extreme tree huggers who will make it their sole identity.
And ladies and gentlemen, Gen Beta's damnation goes beyond algorithms, goes beyond environmental issues. Is anyone having a tough time getting a job today? You. You, sir, you. You, you. Then I don't need to tell you how hard it'll become for the next generation to find a proper career and job with the introduction of AI. Look, the proof's in the pudding, folks. Just look at the world we're leaving for them to fix. No recipe, no note, no how-to guide on how to fix it. Now, tell me, can you confidently look that child in the eye and say their future isn't doomed?
Defense, you may now begin your closing argument. Thank you, your honor. Look, I don't have the answers. I wish that I had a crystal ball and I can without a shadow of a doubt tell you that my client is innocent of all these charges, but I can't lie. The prosecution has shared a lot of heartfelt anecdotes that it's rather pointless for the next generation to even try to remedy for. I never said it was pointless to try. Overall, just let the defense continue. And I'm not going to deny that there is some work that needs to be done.
So, in closing, let's list all of the good news that we should be looking forward to with this next generation. On the topic of environment, yes, Gen Beta is inheriting a world that is plagued with severe environmental issues, but they're inheriting a world of environmental issues with parents who actually care. A lot of the pushback that's stopping us from creating real change today comes from older generations currently in positions of political power who frankly couldn't care less about what happens to the world after they're gone. Is it then not fair to say that in a hypothetical future where the baseline generations in power already caring about these issues is better? Sure, by that point, a lot of the things that need to be fixed today probably would be irreversible. But to predict that there will be zero progress whatsoever in the future would be a little bit disingenuous.
AI. I hate it. You hate it. Unfortunately, the toothpaste is already out of the tube. The job market, of course, will be affected. We all know this. But the only thing we're going to argue is how. How will it change? Gen Beta will likely be the first generation of human-AI collaborators. There's going to be human-AI specialists, human-AI therapists, AI supervisors. And you might be thinking, "But I don't want to do any of that." Me neither. But let them make that decision themselves first. It's not up to us anymore to view what's good and what's bad.
And finally, social media will be social media. I am not here to deny its effects and its potential woes. It is a good sign that a good number of us are already aware of its negative effects. The fact that this is even a discussion is hope enough that there will be a loud enough voice in the future and hopefully accurately teach children the good and the bad that comes with the internet. It's inherently interesting yet sad to predict that the future will never make a turnaround, that the past is what's best to come. But ladies and gentlemen, I implore you, look for the light, because we're the only generation that knows it was once there to begin with. Thank you, your honor. Thank you, defense.
And as fate may have it, the jury have already come to their conclusion. In the case and trial on Gen Beta V being the doomed generation, the jury finds the defendant... WE DON'T KNOW. YES, it's going to be one of those endings. I apologize in advance for how unsatisfactory it is, but I hope the point still comes across. We don't know what's going to happen with the next generation. We don't know they're going to be doomed. We can make predictions. People made predictions about Gen Z and every other generation in the past, but sometimes that ends up not being true. So, we don't know. Uh, yeah, let's let's chill out before they even get a chance to grow up. You know, AI is a problem, but we don't know. So, uh, look at that baby. Oh, yes, he's waving. Look at that baby wave. All right, cool. Let's, uh, let's cut to the to the ending screen. I think that's the end of it. Let's ending screen, please.