For totalitarians, need to identify people is critical. It's why DPRK is indeed democratic and holds elections where Kim wins every single time.

Because voters are identifiable.

This is why 16 gig slow GPUs are more expensive right now than very fast 12 gig ones. More RAM means bigger model can be fit into memory. Also why 24 gig models are unobtainium.

4090s and 5090s have been long used for narrow models in things like research in much of third world. This is the natural next step. Shrinking models further so they can be operated from phones that already have good enough cameras to enable things like discriminating vision, where model helps identify specific things that camera looks at. We're looking at the next big ag breakthrough in marginal places like Sahel. We now have an actually good chance of AI machine vision doing something we just couldn't do with mere human vision and algorithmic machine vision. Identification of pests and weeds, their eggs and larvae, etc.

And in medium to long term, it looks even better. We may have an actual viable chance of eradicating Tsetse in medium term future with AI vision. One of the main reasons why Sub-Saharan Africa is still absolutely fucked in terms of human development may actually be finally removed.

X's "automatically translate into your language" feature has actually rebuilt the tower of Babel. The main barrier in interpersonal communication came crashing down.

I suspect that minors can to an extent form contracts. For example, to buy anything from a store, you have to fulfill a contract (money for product). This does not require parental intervention. They can take on a summer job. Same thing.

Parental intervention only comes when there are contractual violations (i.e. minor shoplifts, parents are on the hook for at least some if not all of the damages). Though in some cases/places, parental acceptance can be required for taking on a job as a minor.

So the argument they're making is most certainly legally sound in this aspect. The point of contention is going to be "how much can a minor contractually agree to on his/her own" and "with this much additional obligations, how can amount of obligations for each contract be verified".

The whole thing is a horrible mess because before ease of access granted by computerization and proliferation of networking of computers, most contractual obligations required some kind of face to face verification of basics. When you applied for a summer job as a teen, you got into an interview where your identity got verified.

Meanwhile today, the issue is that due to aforementioned factors, we now have countless contracts that are made without parties ever encountering each other in a face to face situation. This seems to be, on a fundamental level, an attempt to get something that is as close to "face to face" as can be generated in age of social media. I.e. other party gets to at least verify if you're specially protected kind of a human (minor), or one that is fully legally responsible for him/herself. Something that used to be done face to face for each contract that extended significant legal obligations for both parties.

But it's clumsy to the extreme, which is likely the main reason why it's being fought over. Essentially instead of "protecting the companies from having unknowingly taken on additional obligation of contracting with a minor", which the legislation purportedly is trying to do, it instead just punishes everyone who isn't a minor (both users and companies) by forcing companies to assume that unless proven otherwise, everyone has those additional obligations of contracting with a minor.

On the other hand, this is a great way to fish out the few bad ones. If you can't control a temptation to use power for personal gain, you shouldn't be a police officer.

This provides both opportunity, and also hard evidence admissible in court if someone takes it.

I.e. cop with tendencies to stalk would use other means to stalk that are less traceable. This reveals them.

PRC leadership disagrees with you in the strongest possible way.

By putting entire state apparatus' resources behind efforts to procure those chips.

In my experience, it's very language dependent. Big popular languages like English? Big players in the field like google got their AI good enough to take diction even when speaking quickly after minimal training.

But smaller languages like Finnish? The level of "oh no, it's retarded" is over 9000.

Also needs a decent quality mic and reasonably clean background noise levels in most cases.

Makes me wonder if AI dev teams finished fixing "AI agents that can configure OS settings for you directly with admin privileges" to the point where they're safe enough to use (i.e. won't change something destructive by accident).

I remember seeing news about Claude based agents still doing weird shit with unintended destructive operations just a few months ago.

I suspect everyone from people with disabilities, to people who struggle with fast typing on keyboards (a shocking amount of gen Z and gen Alpha, who are used to on screen keyboards are in this category).

For us older dudes who grew up doing work with keyboards, we probably type faster than we can speak clearly. And with less errors.

But we're not the whole population. Not by a long shot. And for those who are less keyboard-inclined, this may be a useful feature.

That's a cool history reference I forgot.

But indeed, a better question is the eternal one: "how do you make gambling fair?"

It's an eternal question because it's a moving target. As honesty-seeking players adapt, so do their dishonest counterparts.

Considering that overwhelming majority of tech workers is already using AI, this is going to go places.

Not good places mind you.

The reason why a lot of European cities still have mass transit that functions is because these are still mostly homogenous, high trust societies when it was deployed. That means things like accosting passengers, random violence, theft and other antisocial behaviors that normal passengers can't escape (because you're in a metal/plastic/glass box trapped with the murderer/thief/etc).

In US, a lot of public transit is useless because of cases like Irina Zarutska. You can have the busses, the metro, etc, and it's used only if utterly necessary because the risk of "another crazy freak will just stab you in the neck" is relevant.

Essentially, successful build out of mass transit is a marker of high trust society that has purged lowest 1-2% of its people from commons.

This sort of "show how you're winning" advertising has been a thing with gambling since before mass media.

You'd have card sharks doing things like fake players who win a lot to entice actual targets to play and lose.

Key part of demoralization of a nation is making people ashamed of it.

Damn, they listened to him during Obama's tenure?

He really is the Immortal Emperor in your minds.