Does not require verification, no biggie, this is essentially a parental control system.

As others have pointed out, this is just a foot in the door. There's also a part of the law this article doesn't cover that requires EVERY application to query this information on every launch, regardless of whether or not the application has any age related limitations.

The language I found was:

> when the application is downloaded and launched

So it looks like the law only requires it on first launch. Which makes sense if the application can only be run from that one account. Apps that can be launched from multiple accounts are not singled out in the law, but the spirt of the law would have you checking what account is launching the app and are they in the correct age range.

That's not a guarantee. It's up to how the courts interpret that and. Given that this law is meant to handle a moving target like age, I fully expect them to interpret it as its disjunctive form.

The term "application" is explicitly defined in the bill and has a far narrower scope than just the word "application" on it's own means.

Far narrower is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your response.

> (c) “Application” means a software application that may be run or directed by a user on a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device that can access a covered application store or download an application.

If your device can connect to a covered application store, every application on your computer must follow this.

Keep in mind this forced parental control system in the OS is supposedly because of app stores.

So we're already pretty deep in the law deciding what shape of computing you're allowed to do. What makes you think it will stop here?

No but then the next step is "well we need a way to enforce it because people are just lying about their age".

I guess let me show a slope I found over here, just past the boiling frogs, watch your footing though, it's recently been greased and is quite steep.

I was just at some .gov site from another HN post. It asked are you Over 18, I clicked No out of curiosity. Showed Access Denied, but the buttons stayed. I clicked Yes, and got in. I don't attribute to stupidity that which is clear malice. They'd don't actually give a flying fuck about what "kids" can get to, they only care about controlling everyone, of every age, as much as they possibly can.

Similar thing while printing postal labels. “Does this package contain any explosives” and I fat fingered yes. Tells me explosives can’t be mailed. Go back, say “no,” print label.

I agree, I don’t like it as much as you do. I’m just saying nothing short of a mandated TPM will actually enforce this. I think they know that.

I think this is mostly for show to stay relevant wrt. What is happening in the courts. This is the Same play as it always been for registration “are you over the age of 13?”

Which begs the question if Microsoft's stubborn insistence on TPM 2.0 for Windows 11 to operate was something planned out in advance of this law being proposed.

I read a FUD somewhere about Cinavia (the sound-muting DRM) being implemented on OS level by implementing it on SGX enclave level. That obviously didn't happen, but imagine if TPM was used for that too (or similar DRM).

How does a TPM stop people from lying about their age?

Overton window.

Wedge.

Then ratchet.

> More than 9 million paying business users rely on ChatGPT for work

That’s a stretch. Sure many business _use_ OpenAI, but that does not an operational necessity. Especially given the competition.

I also think it is often momentum from “do you have a GitHub” questions you see in hiring.

There are many people who code to make cool stuff and enjoy sharing, but there is even more people who code to look good on CV.

I’m not trying to be mean, this is just an anecdote I had from my time hiring.

"They were nihilists, man. They kept saying they believe in nothing." - The Big Lebowski

Ok, great movie. But man, I hate that this is what everyone thinks about when they think of nihilism.

It is very challenging to truly believe in nothing. I think it is much more realistic to see nihilism as a label applied to others’ belief systems that we find entirely void of valid belief.

Organizations described as Nihilistic Violent Extremists do have beliefs that motivate them, they are just vacuous beliefs in the eyes of the vast majority of human beings.

However if you can show me someone who can convincingly claim to be that they really are a nihilist I would be curious to see it.

I suspect that this categorization is a result of confusion on the part of law enforcement and their inability to cope with the post-ideological landscape of the internet. Someone who believes all manner of contradictory things is not a “nihilist,” they just have an unsettled or dynamic belief structure. This may be because they haven’t fully worked out their beliefs, or it may be because they are willing to readily adopt new beliefs if they seem advantageous. In essence this seems more Discordian than nihilist.

There’s also a third option, the person doesn’t see a problem with superficially adopting other beliefs as a form of camouflage, but they do have a core set of beliefs.

In general I think the chaos of the internet and the exposure to multiple points of view encourages fragmentation and dynamic systems of belief. I don’t necessarily see it as a bad thing, either.

Can it defeat captchas?

Could another mitigation be polluting identities online with fake ones so that real identities become hard to sift out.

For example if I tell my bot to clone me 100x times on all my platforms, all with different facts or attributes, suddenly the real me becomes a lot harder to select. Or any attribute of mine at all becomes harder to corroborate.

I hate to use this reference, but like the citadel from Rick and Morty.

Probably, but it also be the complete destruction of social media when there are 100 spam bots for every real person.

Is that not already the case on mainstream social media? HN even has bots.

It’s at best a staged pr stunt, at worst a pump and dump scheme.

Money is probably going circular, it’s not real.

This feels like a big PR stunt. Published by a ai tech bro, highly ambiguous, hard to verify, where’s the money going? Sounds great as a headline.

Edit: Just looked into timeline, it does not add up.

It's extremely similar to the fake "agentic" crypto plays a year ago

Where Goatseus Maximus and stuff supposedly created coins and invested autonomously.

Obviously it was BS but it fueled a huge amount of attention and speculation

I hope that he actually lost money IRL for this, makes it a better art project. Though, the guy who burnt a million pounds sterling (Bill Drummond, iirc?) still is ahead on this one, and he cut out the pretentious middleman.

Same question, this is not the first time I’ve seen random 's.

I think it’s a bot, look at the post history with the weird repetitive hyphens.

The account is strange, two years old account with barely any comment for two years then a lot of comments in the last 3 days. The 3 first comments of the account capitalise the first letter, everything is lowercase in the last 3 days. He never replies to comments under his own comment. Sadly, a comment of someone who was telling it was a bot account has been flagged ...

On top of that, almost every single recent comment has “—“, that is enough signal in opinion.

Not everything has to be symmetrical. I’m sure there is a name for that logical fallacy.

I don't consider it a logical fallacy so much as a philosophical debate on art vs theft that exists in both human and AI worlds.

IMO Nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to learn, to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else (or put another way, art is more like a sum of your influences). The only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is.

And in the US at least, from a legal perspective, this "how obvious is it" subjective test is often one way that copyright disputes are settled.

For example there have been many cases of similar sounding songs that either did in fact draw an influence from an existing track (whether consciously or not), or were more likely just coincidental... but courts have ruled both ways in such cases, even if they sound extremely similar.