I don't think this specified children, though, it applies to any 'sexualized' image, doesn't it?

So what about if you make a 'sexualized' image of your wife? Surprise, you may have broken the law.

It's insane and unenforceable, which is what they want- this gives them the excuse they need to further curtail your privacy rights in search of Naughty Images.

Good job assuming - go back to school because you don't know shit. I've been doing computer builds for over 3 decades.

Tell me you don't work in semiconductors without telling me you don't work in semiconductors.

Protip: The Ryzen 5500 is a cut-down 5600G - tons of room for QA errors during that laser-locking process. First CPU had I/O problems. Second one had a faulty PCI Express bus. Third one was outright DOA (and these are ALL AMD RMAs.) So no, the problem isn't me, it's AMD. All the problems went away the second I tossed a 3600X into the socket. It's the CPU. It isn't me. But you say what you must to make yourself feel better.

They're going all "1984" at a breakneck pace.

That's kind of what they're doing, as idiotic as it sounds. Drawing with a pencil or stylus or drawing with AI, is there a substantive difference in the nature of the art? It all falls under the same umbrella in my opinion.

Good points.

Frankly, I think the chances are high that an AI-generated image of a person is actually going to resemble somebody somewhere; after all, the images were trained on images of real people, so...

But even if the image is, in fact, genuinely 100% synthetic, there's still an excellent chance that it will closely resemble someone, somewhere.

Or...what if you could make a tricky image that kinda sorta looked like someone famous, but also kinda sorta didn't. Some people would say it did, some would say it doesn't, kind of like the "yanny or laurel" sound clip that was popular a while back. Would that violate the law? What actually constitutes a "likeness"?

I stand corrected, the Thought Police are already here, apparently.

I fail to see any harm from creating deepfake images for your own use, or even (GASP!) sharing them. Yes, there are people that will misuse this, but this is like outlawing gas because robbers would use it in their getaway cars.

"Apple's iOS 18 AI Will Be On-Device Preserving Privacy, and Not Server-Side"

This description is correct except for the 'privacy' part.

Well, no *one* of us in a position to save the coral reefs. Not even world leaders can do it. But we *all* are in a position to do a little bit, and collectively all those little bits add up to matter.

Sure if you're the only person trying to reduce is carbon footprint you will make no difference. But if enough people do it, then that captures the attention of industry and politicians and shifts the Overton window. Clearly we can't save everything, but there's still a lot on the table and marginal improvements matter. All-or-nothing thinking is a big part of denialist thinking; if you can't fix everything then there's no point in fixing anything and therefore people say there's a problem are alarmists predicting a catastrophe we couldn't do anything about even if it weren't happening.

As to the loss of coral reefs not being the worst outcome of climate change, that's probably true, but we really can't anticiapte the impact. About a quarter of all marine life depends on coral reefs for some part of their life cycle. Losing all of it would likely be catastrophic in ways we can't imagine yet, but the flip side is that saving *some* of it is likely to be quite a worthwhile goal.