This is a projection of personal issues.

Normal people find "not being able to comprehend other person's words" to be a much greater obstacle to comprehension than "psychological issues".

Because most people are sane and have a reasonable amount of control over their psychological issues.

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.

What a weird ... hey, wait, I think I figured it out!

You're looking at it from the point of view of the bank robber, aren't you? (Instead of from the point of view of all the people who didn't rob the bank but still somehow had their locations leaked to the government.)

Did I guess right?

I'm imagining devices going by a conveyor belt, and a worker with a wirecutter is making a brief snip on each of the devices as it travels by.

The boss walks up, and the snipper guy asks "Is it true? Is the customer canceling?"

The boss briefly nods but then shakes his head. "Yeah, they're canc--no, I mean they still want the devices. They just don't want the snipping anymore. They say go ahead and leave the warrant-detection-and-lookup circuit live."

"Good. I never really understood what I was doing here. They're still weren't required to check the sensor anyway, so why disable it?"

The boss explained, "so we could charge them for the snipping."

There's no way to interpret these costs, that nobody is ever going to be willing to pay, as a reminder that soon these companies are going to be bankrupt.

Every time I see an AI story like this, it makes me realize I really have no idea what the AI bubble hardware is actually like, and how it might be used after auction.

A few months from now you might find yourself at an auction where 4TB of faster-than-anything-you-have RAM might be for sale for $80, but of course it won't be in the usual DIMMs that any of your existing mobos can use, will it? What will it be, and how do we best exploit it?

I use left as change things quickly, break things, tear down Chesterton 's Fence, taking big chances, and right as gradually careful change, thinking about why things exist before destroying them, and be averse to risk. Trump is left of FDR in that view.

Republicans lost two presidential elections, 2008 & 2012, due to running conservative candidates. So they gave up and became a further-left party. Now Obama looks like a relative conservative .. but Clinton & Harris look conservative _too_.

Voters are insisting on left-wing presidents, with the exception of Biden because the initial leftist shock of Trump pt1 was too much to absorb.

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.