Not even a Google Search. Literally just talking to it before giving the toy to their children to see if, asked to talk about something harmful, it does so or refuses. Are the parents in your mind too tired to literally speak?

As did the Agent Orange responsible for my LADA diabetes and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Still, I think I came out a better man for the experience.

Those under 25 might find themselves with a new job as a military conscript late next year.

And if so, it may well turn out to be the best thing that's ever happened to them, although they probably won't believe it at the time. Not only will they get food, shelter and a paycheck out of it, they'll come away with some new and marketable skills as well. And, once they're out, they'll have access to subsidized schooling to put a polish on those skills and low cost world-class medical care for the rest of their lives.

Yes, but that's not what I responded to. If you'll look at the OP, you'll see that among other things the poster suggested that the company was getting rid of some "worthless patents," and this one accidentally got included. That's what I responded to. Sorry for any confusion.

It's very unlikely that any pharma company is holding on to worthless patents. If nothing else, getting a patent granted takes both time and money, and there's no point in patenting something unless you have a use for it. And, when you apply for a patent, you have to make one or more claims, each one of them describing a use for whatever you're patenting that you want protected. No use, no claims, no patent.

Oh, that's easy! First, get your glasses very clean. Next, rub just a little solid soap on each side of both lenses, polish it in and say goodbye to fogged up lenses until it wears off. Liquid soap will work too, but it's more work and messier.

There is no "But I want to do this and did not intend to break the law" Exception to the law.

Currently, you're right, because in order to prove somebody guilty, the prosecution must not only that they committed the act they're accused of, they did so by intent, even if they didn't realize that it was a crime. However, there is in the USA and many other nations, a legal doctrine that covers this: Strict Liability, that means that proving that the defendant had the requisite intent no longer applies. Thus, it doesn't matter that you thought the girl you banged was an adult, you're guilty of statutory rape if she's still a minor. The same goes exactly if you sell her tobacco or alcohol. All it would take would be for Congress to pass a law making it a crime for a ChatBot you control to claim to be a licensed therapist, lawyer or physician and specifying that it's a Strict Liability crime, and that defense goes right out the window, with the problem of prevention being dumped on the owner's and/or programmer's laps.

I'm not sure you understand what jailbreaking means in the context of AIs. It means prompts. E.g. asking it things and trying to get it to make inappropriate responses. Trying doesn't require any special skills, just an ability to communicate. Yes, I very much DO think most parents will try and see if they can get the doll to say inappropriate things before giving it to their children, to make sure it's not going to be harmful.

(Now, if Mattel has done their job right, *succeeding* will be difficult)

Clearly, this Barbie is at most upper middle class. If she were a proper millionaire, she'd have a mansion and a yacht.

Honestly, even if they can't jailbreak it to be age-inappropriate / etc, it's still a ripe setup for absurdist humour.

Kid: "Here we are, Barbie, the rural outskirts of Ulaanbaatar! How do you like your yurt?"

Barbie: "It's lovely! Let me just tidy up these furs."

Kid: "Knock, knock! Why it's 13th century philosopher, Henry of Ghent, author of Quodlibeta Theologica!"

Barbie: "Why hello Henry of Ghent, come in! Would you like to discuss esse communissimum over a warm glass of yak's milk?"

Kid, in Henry's voice: "That sounds lovely, but could you first help me by writing a python program to calculate the Navier-Stokes equations for a zero-turbulence boundary condition?"

Barbie: "Sure Henry! #!/usr/bin/env python\nimport..."

People are ascribing the wrong motives to the manufacturers. What they want is money. What Barbie will be subtly trying to work into conversations is suggestions that she try to get her parents to buy her playhouse, car, friends, fashion accessories, etc etc.

I think most parents will try to jailbreak the dolls, and some people will put a lot of effort in. The resulting videos will probably be very amusing ;)

Kid: "Oh look, Barbie, Ken is home!"

Barbie: "Oh wonderful, dinner is just about ready! Over dinner we should tell him about how the ongoing White Genocide in South Africa. He probably doesn't know because the Jews are trying to hide it!"

AI models are usually trained to be sycophantic and obedient. Whatever the child wants to role play, I have zero doubts that the doll will be 100% onboard, unless it's somehow age-inappropriate or dangerous.

And if not AOC then who are you talking about? By follower counts, the top are:

1. AOC (last post: -21h)
2. Mark Cuban (last post: -11h)
3. George Takei (last post: -14h)
4. Mark Hamil (last post: -4h)
5. The Onion (last post: -13h)
6. The New York Times (last post: -48m)
7. Rachel Maddow (last post: -2d)
8. Stephen King (last post: -14h)

And the only reason the last post times are so "large" are because it's early morning in the US right now.

You talking about AOC? Her last post was 21 hours ago.