The protecting the children narrative doesn't correspond to the consequences of these bills.
It's taking away control over the operating systems you run on your own equipment and putting it under the AI big brother gaze so that government can enforce any future rules they so desire.
I can imagine the big tech players like Google, Microsoft and Apple will love this because it means they can lock down their operating systems even more, while sucking up even more info. Broadening their dominance over user level computing.
It also makes it almost impossible for Linux and other alternative operating systems to comply effectively making them illegal to run.
It will put computing under the thumb of the government and in so doing take away individual freedom. Something authoritarian governments have desired to do ever since the first PC's were created.
I couldn't believe it when California's bill AB 1043 was passed. This is very bad news for society and democracy.

Why would you allow any automatic tool access to live information without a way of rolling back any changes?

Why would they allow co-pilot to be enabled on police computer equipment?
Surely this has the potential to void confidential and sensitive investigations.
They are literally allowing private and sensitive information to go overseas. Are they using a cloud network in another country as well?

If they want to use an AI they need to host it internally, so they can control and vet it.
They need to log all requests and answers. As well as limiting Internet access via AI to specific requests which also need to be logged.
This is like outsourcing their police work to an external party without audits or information trails.

Similarly, why wouldn't they be teaching their officers to double check any claims an AI is making.
This isn't on the shoulders of the police officers alone but on their system administrators and IT policy makers.

NASA stated they were also reviewing their stance on heliocentric solar system and were taking advice from The Whitehouse as to whether True Americans consider the radical theory of a moving earth was consistent with US government policy.

It begs the question as to how fluent MI6 is in Russian.

No, you don't need a more complex universe to create a complex simulated one.
You don't experience the entire universe all the time. You experience a very small part of it. The only reason you know there are sub-atomic particles is because someone wrote down claim about their existence and wrote stories about them. You've never experienced them directly.
Similarly, you're entire life experience is only a tiny aspect of what is claimed to be reality, regarding other life, people, cultures and even the sky above you.
You have no method for determining if they continue to exist when you aren't yourself experiencing them to the degree your concept of self allows that to happen.
If, for instance you use a microscope to look at something, you're not looking at the something, you're looking at the output of the microscope, which can be comparatively easily simulated. The same is true for any instrument you use, including your own senses.
You've probably never met Dr. Faizal and know only the text about him and his claims. That too is a far cry from experiencing him as a living person for instance. You're filling in the blanks because your model of the universe would break if you didn't do so.
The pixels in this case are the direct representation of the experience you have, not what they metaphorically reference within the simulated environment.
In this regard, we already know entities which can produce a simulation of reality, as we experience it, actually exist. They are called human brains, because that is exactly what they do all the time. Obviously something much simpler and smaller than the entire universe. So within our own universe there are things that at least metaphorically suggest that a tiny entity can simulate a grand one.
From what I gather Dr. Faizal is claiming is, if you use a particular model of the universe (or more specifically a series of models) and you want to claim that it's computable (i.e. has a state that can be determined by the evaluation of a finite algorithm) at the scale we think the universe is, that isn't possible, because it seems to have experimental outputs which are at odds with algorithmic evaluation.
That's a far cry from a universal claim that the universe cannot be a simulation.
It's particular claim which could be overturned by better models, more information and even a breakthrough in mathematics itself.

Off the top of my head:

• Are the parts to make a 3D printer also going to need a background check? If not, you just get the parts and construct it yourself.
• Are you going to search people at the boarder for 3D printers? Otherwise you just buy it in another state and bring it in.
• People will just steal 3D printers if they cant get them legally. If schools have them, or manufacturing sites have them, they will become the target of theft.
• Better yet, just use the printers to print the parts you want and leave the printers where they are.
• You get a family member or friend to buy one for you. If you have a 3D printer in your family and one of them doesnt pass a background check are you excluded from owning one also?
• What of a part that has a legitimate use but can be repurposed to be a part of a weapon?

Not sure why that is hard to emulate in GIMP.
You can create layers with different alpha and opacities, use brushes to paint in different areas of effect and rearrange the order of layers if you so wish.
You'd hope that using a piece of software that costs hundreds of dollars would have a bit of an edge over something that is entirely free, but that is the kind of difference usually only affects those who work in dedicated design environments (and those trying to learn the tools for those environments).
If you are in the realm of creating your own software interventions to solve some graphical editing issue, then tools like GIMP are an obvious headstart rather than reinventing the wheel.

Apparently it does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There are major problems with this kind of law.

First, all those entities who can independently create AI content aren't going to abide by such a law. This includes creators in other countries and other subversive and propagandist elements. Why on earth would they decide to make content with watermarks when their intent to propagate disinformation and sow distrust? If anything a law demanding that AI art creators add a watermark will actually make it even easier to stoke the disruption of authenticity. This is because the problem is actually a non-trivial one and trying to solve it in a trivial rule based way will create a false sense of security while making matters worse by having people assume non-watermark content is accurate. This gets even more complicated when there is an original content but AI is used to tamper with it.
Second, what happens if you place a watermark on non-AI content? It's a great way to undermined trust in authoritative information sources and infer that authentic or original content is actually an AI production. You need only create a mechanism to product variants of a photo, music, sound byte or art piece with a coherent watermark, to create doubt over it's authorship. This also gets worse when those items are news related, where any doubt over the authenticity of an image et al,cannot simply be resolved by the reporters themselves. This is because doubts over authenticity require someone to consider the reporting source to be trustworthy in of themselves which is a major epistemological problem. It makes it even harder to claim some material is authentic if someone can create a counter example which suggests it's the product of an AI process. You need only muddy the waters for people to give up on the pursuit of authenticity altogether.
Third, when the political entities decide they don't like some content they can both discredit, and/or stop the distribution of content they deem AI "misinformation" unilaterally by simply claiming it has a watermark. What they should be required to demonstrate is a chain of evidence that something actually is an AI production rather than a claim that something has a watermark. Given how easy it is for political entities to lie, them lying about the true nature of an image or video is inevitable. They will of course also lie about the lack of authenticity for actual AI content. When they do that, how will they be held to account? It doesn't seem like we are very good at holding politicians now when they lie, this will only make matters worse.
Similarly ordinary people are unlikely to be able to verify that some content has a watermark, so they will themselves be depending on some other source which they will have to independently assess their adherence to accuracy in claims that something has a watermark or not. If the process by which a piece of content is assessed to have a watermark is itself an opacate one, then there will be a new battlefront regarding the personal assessment of authenticity of any content. Simply claiming something is an AI production, will be enough for some people to assume it's misinformation. Politicians and others will use this to their advantage. It will also allow power brokers to corrupt those whose purpose is to authenticate a watermark. You need only create different bodies whose purpose is to authenticate a watermark, for the accuracy of the watermark itself to be brought into question.
Lawmakers often want simple solutions where only complex ones exist. I think this is one of those cases.

Thanks.

I think a large proportion of people who believe in a deity (or two) are actually having conversations with their unconscious minds. In that regard it might have an some effect.

I'm also reminded of that comment that although believers think they are over-seen by an omni-potent deity and believe they will end up in a better place when they die, they still look both ways before crossing the road ;-)

"I know the truth won't be popular, but it needs to be said" You claim to know the truth? Show your epistemology. You claim this needs to be said, according to whom?

"Paul Darrow is currently burning for all eternity in the fires of hell." Well that's bold claim, not least of which because it presumes you know the mind of the deity you presume exists to make such a decision about Paul's life. This also presumes you know which deity is involved and which interpretations of that deity are correct. It's asserting such a deity requires the existence of a hell, that it presumably created and that there is a omni-benvolent reason to torture someone endlessly for finite "crimes". That last sentence should be enough to demonstrate either the value system of the deity you're referencing is inconsistent with humanity or it's simply not benevolent.

"We can be quite confident in this fact because our Lord Jesus Christ tells us that souls of people who die without being born again and believing in our Lord immediately descend into hell." Who's "we"? Anyone with a deep belief about a subject is confident about their claims, that doesn't make their assertions any more realistic.
Paul didn't die in battle. Presumably that means instead of ending up in Valhalla he will continue his existence in Hel. Isn't that a fate you're worried about too?

Do you have any hand written statements from this Jesus Christ? No? Do you have any original documentation about what Jesus said authenticated by Jesus? No? Why would there be multiple religions based on what is claimed about Jesus, if this was supposed to be an unambiguous statement of fact facilitated by an all powerful deity?
Far from being confident, the only basis you have for your claims is your personal belief in the matter.

"I will undoubtedly be censored to -1 because the godless world cultivated by the spirit of antichrist would rather pretend that none of this is real." Given your deity is supposed to be all powerful, and you are acting on it's behalf, if it wanted you to be heard there wouldn't be anything we could do to stop that, unless you are claiming the "spirit of the antichrist" is more powerful than your deity is.
Given your current assertions are more in keeping with a malevolent deity than a benevolent one, how do we know you aren't acting for this "spirit of the antichrist" rather than any authentic deity?
Isn't the fact that the deity involved doesn't intervene to make unambiguously clear what it's authentic and authenticated messages are indicative of a lack of potency or duty of care?
Whoever this brave AC is, they are undoubtedly a heretic to one or more versions of Christianity and many more religions besides. Why would we take advice based on the opinion of a heretic?

"However, it is plainly obvious that the Bible is 100% true and that anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ will die in their sins." It's not even plainly obvious which version of which bible is worth considering let alone making any absolute determination of truth. There are a fundamental array of claims which are at odds with systematically examine reality, which undermines any idea that the bible relates any kind of accurate description of reality. If it's descriptions about reality are faulty why would it's descriptions about supernatural be accurate?
Truth is not consistent with belief, as there are many who believe things which aren't true yet that doesn't affect that belief in the least.
You're making a very grand statement about what is knowable without showing how you can know what you claim is true.
When it comes to "sins" the common narrative is that there is an original sin passed down from the off-spring of a manufactured pair of adult humans, one of which being a modified clone of the other.
The deity involved not only produced humans which were corruptible, but mislead them into acting in such a way as to allow them to be corrupted.
It then allowed that pair to propagate, inflicting the consequences of that mistake on all of humanity.
What you're spruiking here is the idea that the only solution to the problem it created was to incarnate into human form, so that body could be ritually tortured and killed, then temporarily reconstituted to allow people to see it for a few days then disappear again, in a confused attempted at placating itself when deciding whether to torture people who are faulty by design.
If that kind of idea appeals to you, then you've got more problems than your concerns about where consciousness exists after the life we know we have ends.

More specifically though, there is no evidence of such an original pair and all evidence points to there being no creator of multicellular complex life. That being the case, there's no reason to accept claims about the life of a human written about by devoted ignorant followers from two thousand years ago.

"This was the fate of Paul Darrow and it will also be your fate unless you repent amd be born again." You know this how? Isn't there some kind of consequence about lying? Wasn't it expressly forbidden by your deity? You are guessing according to your limited knowledge of both your deity's mind and your knowledge of Paul, so your claim a lie. If you'd said "I think" or "I suspect" you'd be on safer grounds but no you want to make an absolute claim, and in so doing you're claiming to know what you don't know. If you can't be consistent with your own deity's commandments on what basis would any of us take you seriously?

"If you would like to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, and I truly hope you will, offer a sincere prayer to our Lord. Tell our Lord that you know he's real, that you're ready to believe, and that you're ready to repent from your life of sin." Are you thinking there is a plan your deity has? Wouldn't that plan pre-determine who is and isn't "saved"? If praying gets a deity to change it's plans, aren't you the deity?
On what basis do you propose someone recognises when that pray is answered? What if you are praying to the wrong god or the wrong interpretation of that god? Would the actual deity intervene or remain silent? If it remains silent how is that benevolent? If it remains silent either way how do you know what difference your pray made?
There are many deities with a vast number of followers, including deities from the past. Those who believed in them, presumably thought they were being authentically listened to. What precisely is the difference between a real deity and an imagined one? What is the difference between a real deity and a supernatural deceiver?
You've just made a statement about a process without any method of deciding if the process is successful.

"Don't be like Paul Darrow, waiting too long to repent and believe in our Lord. Repent and be born again, so that you might be forgiven of your sins, and that you might spend eternity in heaven with the communion of saints and our Lord Jesus Christ." You reference being in communion with saints and a Christ. What are you proposing that is going to be like to experience forever? Do you know or are you hoping it will be pleasant? You are proposing an existence where nothing you do will make any difference to anyone, forever. Nor will you ever be anything more than an arbitrary experiment, produced by an arbitrary deity who will forever be superior to you in all respects. Are you sure it's not hell too?
When there can be no harm, there is no value in kindness, empathy or concern. You will also however have to deal with the millions of people burning endlessly in hell, for whom you cannot do anything at all. You will either be made ignorant of their constant suffering, made indifferent to it, or made to enjoy it. So, you'll be oblivious to suffering or a sadist. That doesn't sound much like a heaven to me.
All in all, you've done more to assert there is no benevolent deity than you have anything else.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this bill was a backroom deal between the desires of the five eyes and the Australian Government.
Breaking encryption for one government breaks it for all.
I just means there will be a plethora of hidden encryption apps used exclusively by those who plan to do evil.

Wait until someone adds machine learning to the process of communicating meaning and watch people's messages disappear entirely.
As it's not words that information gathers wish to capture, but the meanings being conveyed.
The Australian government have escalated the information war, and don't understand the consequences of doing so.