The ads I get when I load up this submission's page and turn off my ad-blocker are, you guessed it, ads for AI products and services. Sigh.

imagine how many more thousands they could save by replacing 200k in toy computers with a real datacenter platform.

It's a hard, if not impossible problem to solve for 100% of people 100% of the time.

On the other hand, if society is willing to live with "you will probably have to show ID if you seem anywhere close to the age limit" then the problem becomes a lot easier.

If the age limit is 12 and you have a 4-digit Slashdot ID, it's pretty safe to say either you are over 12 or the ID wasn't yours when it was created.

Likewise, if your overall "user behavior" is has been consistent with that of someone well over 25 for several years, the odds of you being under 18 are pretty slim.

As a real-world analog, most stores where I live demand ID to buy age-18-restricted products if you LOOK under 30.

It will cost the government more to process the return.

If everyone did this and they made it clear to their representatives WHY they were doing it this way, it might "move the needle."

Well, it's not really AI in any sense of the honest term; it's not a self aware machine. AI has become a marketing term for servers running a bunch of fancy scripts that produce dialogue that can pass for human speech fairly well. BUT... AI is a game changer economically because those fancy scripts are already killing jobs, jobs that won't be replaced by something else. So in that sense, AI isn't "bullshit". It's an extinction level event for entire classes of formerly human work. And the economic and social and political crisis that it will create has clearly already began.

>barescent skor motion

Nice.

"An hour of HD video streaming generates about 42 grams of [carbon dioxide], while a chatbot prompt is around 0.1 grams."

Basically, what this is saying is an hour of HD video is equivalent to 420 chatbot prompts, or 42 chatbot image-generation prompts.

How many chatbot prompts does a typical person give per hour in a typical session with a chatbot? 5 text prompts in 5 minutes? Yeah, it's less energy-hungry than watching an HD video. 5 image prompts in 5 minutes? The opposite. If it's a robot doing the prompting at full throttle, it will likely outpace video-watching by far.

Remember these?

This presupposes that they don't get plenty of "real world" while they're homeschooling. As if they're in some hermetically sealed environment where bad things never touch them. When we homeschooled ours, one of my wife's single friends objected, asking us "what about socialization?". Well, what about it? There's still plenty of it with friends and family, church, and play. And when they're young adults, they're better able to deal with the scum of the world than a pre-teen or teenager thrown into the cage match that is modern public schools where you can't get to them. School is supposed to be about education, not be a Thunderdome where the weak are weeded out for the coming apocalypse. Whatever my sons missed in public schools, they're far better off not being in a concrete box where some hulking delinquent 3 to 4 years older than all his class peers is punching teachers or pulling a gun on students.

Now I can read Tolkien in the original Middle Earth languages and Star Trek novels in the original Vulcan.

Or at least a cheap facsimilie thereof.

>So I'm flipping through cameras, and there were cameras in pretty weird places. Like the playroom for the children in pediatrics. Really, I don't want to know.
Either because parents wanted to be able to watch their kids, because of liability insurance reasons/fear of lawsuit, or because something you don't want to know about happened in the past/fear of lawsuit if it happens again.

I'm hoping it's the first one. It's not something I would encourage today due to hacking potential, but 10-20 years ago it was the "new shiny thing" for day-care centers to have cameras the parents could log into so they could watch their kids. Sadly, too many of these used easy-to-guess passwords or they had other ways to let just anyone peek in on the kids.

1. There are times companies know someone is leaking and deliberately look the other way, either because the leak itself is useful, future leaks by this person are useful, or the person is too highly valued to take action against. "Off the record, our next game is going to have an exciting new character that will blow your socks off, stay tuned."

2. Then there are leaks that are so harmful to a company that action must be taken. "Here's the entire source code for our next game, including trade secrets worth billions."

3. But in between there are many leaks that are usually "not worth dealing with" until you need to use the leak as an excuse to fire someone.

We'll never know if these leaks are really in category #2 or category #3.

My hunch is that at least one of the fired employees was targeted for firing and possibly one or more were "caught up" in the firing because "if we fire one leaker from that forum, we have to fire them all or we'll be sued." This is just a hunch, I have no actual information to say if my hunch is right or not.

It's the Christmas season. Everybody loves a two-for-one deal.

>That museum deserves to lose its entire collection.
If it were a privately-owned museum I might agree with you.

As a publicly owned museum owned by the people of France, I can't agree with you.

I will say that more than one person involved in the Louvre's security needs to be sacked if not prosecuted for criminal negligence, assuming any such laws apply.