This is an AI slop repo. Somebody is paying money to anthropic to harass volunteer open source developers. Pretty gross honestly, let’s keep our outrage aimed at microslop and co, and the legislators behind them.

If you want a real answer, it is for the situation where the owner of a device would like to respond on a non-privileged user’s behalf. A kid being asked ‘hey, you have to be 18 to see inside, pinky promise? ;)’ by a website is not secure. And there are plenty of sketchy, privacy-invasive third party solutions to lock down devices, but a system-level universal age attestation api would make it a lot easier for parents to control what their child sees, assuming the internet adopts it broadly.

It’s not meant to even inconvenience adults who own their own devices. People complaining about this must have trouble opening child seals on their medicine.

I would be opposed to that hypothetical proposal. This real proposal, helpfully linked, has none of that. It’s the same way how I’m in favor of energy independence but oppose fracking. How I’m in favor of legalization and hate the idea of phillip-morris joints. Just because two policies have a vaguely similar idea of ‘protecting children’ doesn’t mean they are equal.

Nobody is pretending, we just know how to read. There are real threats to privacy, there are real age verification bills going around everywhere. This isn’t one of them. Technical details matter, and this proposal preserves children’s privacy while giving parents more control of their devices.

The correct word is attestation, not verification. It’s an incredibly important distinction.

There’s no bypassing required, there’s literally no verification required. The post title is incorrect.

In the hypothetical world where an operating system, independent of any legal requirements, decides to require age/id verification, I will simply not use that particular operating system.

The law only applies to OS providers. I, as a user, can legally input 1675 as my birth date.

I can ‘indicate’ whatever the fuck I want with no consequences. That’s not the same as age/id verification.

I don’t see anything in here about verification.

I guess you can just restore things, this is news to me, but pretty neat.

It’s a scary world out there, I absolutely understand the feeling of reading too far in to a slop piece and feeling like my time was stolen from me. We have to support good human content, even if it’s from some hedge fund think tank thing. Thank you for being honest, sorry for calling it bullshit. It was bullshit, but, like I’m sorry.

deleted by creator

Totally incorrect. The article is talking about modern humans and neanderthals, who are also human, not monkeys. It’s right in the headline even.

Well, the alternative ROM scene has been active as long as Android has, so I kinda doubt Google hasn’t thought about whether their software is actually soft and squishy like the name implies, and easy to remove or modify.

I think you might be right, but it’s a little silly to think Google would only install spyware on a tiny fraction of their phones that they somehow had a premonition that GrapheneOS would be installed on.

The user base of Pixel phones is small? What?

Lol I think I struck a nerve

I kinda love that response though, I’m going to save it. You can tell it’s not even from a chatbox, it’s just kinda too unhinged. Like ‘oh you are curious how I view the ethics of my actions? You must hate cancer survivors.’ I think ai bros do like to think of themselves as pushing the bounds of science, they don’t see themselves as consumers.

I mean, machine learning is great. I was replying to someone talking about using generative ai to make photos, not a doctor or a data scientist, to my knowledge.

What do those pictures add to the story? Do you believe that because you’re privileged enough to run it locally, that makes it ethical to use for you specifically, but not others that rely on datacenters?