The target audience for this particular rule of the AI Act isn't the producers or users of AI. It is the consumers of content that might be AI generated.

And frankly, letting people know if they see AI content or not is a fair thing to ask.

Fun fact: The EU AI Act considers this. It makes a difference between "AI generated" and "AI modified".

But it's hard to put this into the type of watermarking they are using. Because if you generate a text and then change a few things here and there what you are doing is degrading the watermark. But since the watermark is probabilistic, it's hard to tell if it was a weak watermark from the start or if it was degraded.

That ain't the same thing.

This thing is doing things you didn't tell it to. It might even do things you explicitly told it to not do. It is not a case of "well, you could've forseen this as a consequence if you had been careful" like your campfire. My example is only a bit silly, it is absolutely possible that an AI agent will decide to hack NASA because you asked it for some data for a school project. Even in the broadest possible sense, that does not fall into stuff that the law so far has considered to be in the domain of negliegence.

AI agents do stuff you could not possibly have expected. Heck, I asked Claude a fairly simple knowledge question yesterday and it wanted to read from /dev/null. There is no argument you can make that would convince a jury that I should in any way have expected that and taken precautions. In a hypothetical world where a read from /dev/null randomly kills a puppy somewhere on the planet, I don't think I would've been convicted.

Can we get Natalie Portman and hot grits involved somehow?

> AM radios in cars only cover the small intersection of people who don't already have an emergency kit containing an AM radio, but do happen to be in a working vehicle during a disaster.

I feel like the number of people with a working vehicle is much, MUCH larger than the number of people with "an emergency kit containing an AM radio."

The main point being that, if you happen to be traveling at the time in a potential emergency situation (either because bad luck or actively trying to evacuate), you can use the AM radio in the car to receive news and important information.

Just put the radio in the car where it's most likely to be used when needed.
=Smidge=

> The electronics that drive such powerful motors produce HUGE quantities of RFI

The electronics that drive such powerful motors are inside thick, cast aluminum housings, as are the motors themselves, and those two things are usually bolted directly to each other to form one massive lump. I don't think you appreciate how much RF shielding goes into all that already because, y'know, there are a lot of other electronics in the vehicle that might get fucked up by it. The $5 worth of metal" would be the shielding can around the radio itself, not the HV inverter circuitry that is already encased.

The "Electric vehicle electronics interfere with the AM radio signals" argument is complete horseshit. The AM radio in my 2020 Kona EV often works better than the FM radio for some reason. It's not an especially expensive vehicle so the cost of making it work certainly isn't a reason to not do it.
=Smidge=

Same here, even told the kids that I won't have this kind of shit on machines that are on the inside of my private network. I explained them what this was about, and basically they went "oh, k understood". The youngest installed it years later and I saw him playing it, and I was like dude what the fuck is this Valorant and he was like ah shit I forgot they installed those rootkits? Am I fucked? Can we clean that up or is it a clean reinstall?

And I was very proud of my youngest son, that he somehow ended up with enough of an understanding of computers and networks that most regular folk probably never acquire in their lifetime.

We nuked that machine from orbit, including re-flashing the UEFI, and reinstalled it together. It was a nice, good humored father-son thing.

You don't get it.

Autonomous AI agents are the perfect no-responsibility card. The AI companies? They trained a general-purpose model and never gave it any explicit instructions to do hacking. The AI services? They are just middlemen and have no control over what people tell the agents to do. The people prompting the agents? Unless you're straighforward dumb, you didn't tell it to do hacking, you just told it something innocent like "find me all data on Mars for my school project" and the agent decided that probably NASA is hiding something so let's hack them to get it.

Since there's no human anywhere executing anything that's a crime - voila, in addition to the victimless crime we now have the perpetratorless crime.

That would require him considering women as human beings rather than objects to fuck. He isn't capable of that.

Sometimes that choice is the right one. Not all parents are good parents. Some are downright toxic.

A resounding success. No large-scale demonstrations, damaged cameras, lawsuits or political suicide for those involved. So we can expect this to be rolled out fully.

Crime prevention? Who said this has anything to do with crime?

I don't see this as performative bullshit, and I'm not sure anyone with a lick of sense would.

Let's say I'm a public official. I want to take bribes but I'll go to jail for that. Instead, I can mint myself a cryptocoin and people who want to bribe me can buy them, effectively giving me money in exchange for nothing. I mean that's exactly what Trump did, and there's no reason to think others won't try it if it goes unchallenged.

Whether or not it will be *effectual* as a law will come down to how it's enforced.
=Smidge=

> They already run a large web store and they could have done this anytime but it's clear they have not.

I mean, they have but whatever. The part you're not considering is the immediacy of buying at a physical location.

Browsing online has a different set of tools the merchant can use to FOMO you into buying it. If you see something online you can easily come back to it hours or days later and reconsider; if you're there in the store you're probably not very likely to come back tomorrow. If you're going to buy something at the store you're most likely going to buy it during that visit, which makes you more vulnerable to surge pricing.

> They'd be caught very quickly if they did this in a retail store.

And the consequences would be... what, exactly?

Personally I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop; sign up for WalMart Customer Plus for $19.99/mo and skip the surge pricing!
=Smidge=

There have already been improvements. The practice was banned outright, by everyone, 30 years ago.

=Smidge=