I’m thinking more broadly. Think about WiFi mapping for localization, crowd sourced geo data like traffic warnings, health data tracking, cashless payment, smart home applications, etc. All of them provide real benefit to people but right now, they are a facade for corporate profit interests.

honest question to a philosophy major, why is it so clear cut to you that LLMs are not sentient? what is missing in current systems?

it baffles me how many people in here apparently don’t have the reading comprehension to understand your second sentence. I swear Lemmy is even dumber than reddit.

You are refuting something that wasn’t said. of course Turing machines cannot compute everything.

i think that a lot recently. so many great technologies that cannot be trusted in the hands of corporations. and sadly, people then reject technology instead of demanding a version in public domain.

There is more than one attack vector.

Is it advisable to use biometrics to lock your phone if you are part of an at-risk demographic? no

Are biometric second factor an improvement over people only setting shitty passwords? yes

Do phishing attacks occur orders of magnitude more frequently than biometric factors being gathered by force? Absolutely.

ahahaha such a shit take

Error-free? No

Coherent? Absolutely. That is the surprising property of LLMs, that apparently language encodes enough about the real world to produce a coherent model of the world, if you just throw enough text at it.

Really a non sequitur. you could have one course “healthy use of new technology” and ban it for the rest of the school day for distraction-free learning.

thanks for the explanation. I misunderstood the statement. makes more sense that it makes fingerprinting harder.

what does that even mean? what aspect is more generic that could be used for fingerprinting?

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

you mean this statement? https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/08/linus_versus_llms_ai_slop_docs/?td=rt-3a

If yes, your statement does not really match what Linus said.

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.