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.

Exactly. Base the time zones on GMT and adjust your daily schedule accordingly.

I guarantee you that they gave themselves the right to review your input for any purpose and inform law enforcement if they feel the need. I haven't read the agreement, but I'd still bet money.

You're very good at ignoring things, like the rest of the story.

Initiative, Clearinghouse... What? Most of us don't even want to know whether those are programs or products, and certainly don't know now.

IBM is pretty bad at naming in general, their names really tell weird stories. And I say that as someone who used to work for them doing support for TME10, another beautifully named product.

On VMware fusion? So on top of an inferior OS and also inside of virtualization?

Your answer to Apple using twelve or more gigabytes of users' disk space is they should print and delete some documents? Do you work for Adobe, or HP?

This is only true when the data is insufficiently characterized to begin with. It should be obvious which parts are confidential. You flag records as such ahead of time specifically for purposes like this.

We do get a lot of weird cross signaling about the future, don't we? They cry about falling birth rates while making it less attractive than ever to try to raise children, complain that no one wants to join the military while making it a worse place to be -and what else are those unwanted children for? Certainly not for the jobs they're obsoleting with AI, but if you don't have a job you can't have health care or food aid. Unless you can find volunteer hours that is, so you can have health care but only if you work for nothing, welcome to our latest form of mass slavery.

Razor wire is easy enough to cut with the same tools you'd use for catalytic converters. Those DCs can get it, too.

Probably not yet, but I wouldn't assume they aren't or won't be, and they certainly are being scanned for CP.

Yeah, that's the question, but since they're already scanning for CSAM (which I'm not against, BTW) there's ample precedent for scanning your data for unlawful content.

You should never, ever trust any data storage provider to keep your data secret, or to not snoop through it. That's not a thing. They are snooping through data all the time, if yours doesn't get looked at, it's only by luck.

Every chance to get another story about how AI is so powerful it must be regulated serves at least two purposes. First, it is an advertisement for the power of the technology. Second, it is a plea to allow the entrenched AI companies to write regulation to permit them to control the industry. These are not extremely complicated ideas, though they do require that you not cede responsibility for thinking to software which is incapable of doing it because the tokens don't mean anything to it. It has the same ability to comprehend the ramifications of killing a process and killing a person, none. It can produce you a report about the difference and still not have anything like understanding. And the less you use yours, the more unable you're going to become to do so.

The immediate problem is that the 1% can't sustain the 1% for more than a generation or two tops before everything breaks down and goes to shit and they need the people they exterminated.

The longer-term problem would be inbreeding. Last I read you need a population of around 10,000 minimum to have enough people to breed with without having to reinforce dangerous recessives, and that's with care and planning. And the means of long distance travel will break down faster than most other stuff, and they won't be able to fix that either.

There's really no model in which the wealthy exterminate the masses which doesn't lead to the end of the species, with modern technology. Maybe if you had nanotech general assemblers.

The same person has the same mentality and will do both things when given the opportunity. They don't care what you want. They will do it to you because they want to and they can.