We definitely have some control over each of those points:

• We don’t let kids drive, the lowest driving age seems to be 15 and is usually 18: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_driving_ages. Kids obv would have access to their parents cars.
• Knives, Guns etc cannot be sold to children and I hope you would agree that this is a good thing.
• having sex shouldn’t be controlled but providing or paying for sex work, “adult” events, sex parties etc definitely should be restricted.
• Legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, weed) should be restricted for children. Illegal drugs are indeed hard to specifically regulate but e. g. selling illegal substances to a minor should carry a higher sentence.

after typing all that out I wonder what we are even debating. those are obvious examples to me where actual restriction is necessary. and to cycle back to the start, why would media be fundamentally exempt from that?

Thanks for clarifying.

For the record, I think this mechanism is indeed far reaching, simply because the current criterion of “age” is arbitrary in the proposed mechanism.

Not sure if the “just education” part is realistic, though. The whole point is that children cannot make responsible decisions like adults can. We accept that for driving, sex, drugs and weapons.

Not sure that’s necessarily true. I don’t see why it couldn’t work like this:

1. request personal token from authority. it works similar to a certificate chain, your token is derived from a central certificate
2. you store your token locally
3. you visit an age-restricted website. you send your token (or a challenge encrypted with that token) back to the website
4. the website verifies your token with the certificate from the authority, (like how literal Certificate Authorities work) . the CA doesn’t know when or why your token was used.

(fwiw I am sure governments will try their best to make this process less private)

wdym? in general? on the internet?

bc that’s a hard disagree from my side as a blanket statement

keep proving my point my man

funny how AI brings out the worst in people. and I don’t mean the users

If you already have one that seems wasteful

they call it that because it usually is a fallacy

not what OOP said. why is this such a trigger for you that basic reading comprehension goes out the door?

of course, but the OP said independent

I highly doubt that. how would that even work? a third-party to the publisher would have to check every statement before the issue goes to print. I can’t imagine this happening for anything that is not research papers or official reports.

but I happy to learn something new.

in what world would independent fact checking down to the level of individual quotes be feasible for an online magazine? you can’t be serious.

Believe it or not, this is the first time for me being suspected a troll, but I start to see the appeal when people are getting so worked up while being so far off the mark.

Sorry to disappoint that I am still on the loose. Then again prison is probably better than doing one more D-FMEA.

I was sure this would happen, I was quite facetitious. OP’s blanket statement just rubbed me the wrong way.

poes_law.gif

That’s why unit and integration tests shouldn’t be written by Copilot.

Firewalled VM with no personal or professional data on it. So no.

Because i want to work on meaningful things that benefit people directly.

Because i want to unterstand the capabilities and limitations of openclaw-like agents. LLMs aren’t going away, better be proactive and learn what the hype is about.

I program medical devices for a living and I have openclaw and nanobot running at home. AMA.

What makes you say this?