The only reason you need to know someone’s name is to talk about them behind their back.

It’s not necessary to expose the identities of the users. The age confirmation could happen via a password, PIN, or even a physical USB dongle. Tying such methods to a particular identity adds nothing to the age verification.

If that is not enough, then one would need a permanent, live webcam feed of the user. It could be monitored by AI, and/or police officers could make random checks.

Granted, one would have to make sure that not everyone behind the same router can use age-restricted services; eg with a VPN. That would let them assign connections to individual, anonymous adults. But I’d guess you could do that anyway with some confidence by analyzing usage patterns. Besides, information on who is in a home can also be found in other places such as social media or maybe company websites. So I do not think this is much new information.

But thinking about it, one could compartmentalize this.

The ISP only allows connections to whitelisted servers, including 1 or more government approved VPNs. The ISP refuses connection to these VPNs without age confirmation. The VPN provider does not need to be told the identity of the customer. There needs to be no persistence across sessions. The ISP need not know what sites are visited via VPN. While the VPN provider need not know about sites visited without.

If you do it that way, the ISP ends up knowing less than before.

Since both ISP and VPN servers and offices would be physically located in the country, one would have no problem enforcing prohibitions on data sharing, if desired by lawmakers.

Anyway, this is the only realistic approach in the whole thread. Everything else assumes that Australian law will be followed globally. And then the ISP still has all that usage data. Why not just use a blockchain…

I’d lean on the ISPs. Your ISP knows what sites you visit, and they have your location and payment information. They can just insert some verification page when a classified IP is contacted. This gives them hardly any information beyond what they already have. And since they are mainly located in Australia, it is easy to enforce laws on them.

You have to lean on ISPs anyway because it is quite ridiculous to assume that the entire global internet will implement Australian laws. Does anyone believe that their Lemmy instance will implement some AI face scan or cryptography scheme?

You would have to block servers that do not comply with the law anyway. The effective solution would be a whitelist of services that have been vetted. In practice, I think we’ll see the digital equivalent of ok boomer.

If a whitelist seems extreme, then one should have another look at the problem. The point is to make sure that information is only accessed by citizens with official authorization. There is no technological difference between the infrastructure needed to enforce this (or copyrights) and some totalitarian hellscape.

via https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DuckDuckGo+AI+Chat&ia=chat&duckai=1 with GPT-4o mini

Why do you believe that?

I’m glad to hear you say that, cause after sending I worried that I didn’t make much sense.

I used that text as a little test for the AIs at DDG. Here’s from Claude 3 Haiku.

Here is the translation to English:

Complex Numbers and Polynomials

Something that hardly anyone knows is that complex numbers, in addition to their application in Complex AC Calculations (known to HTL students), also have a second, important use.

In mathematics, there is often the problem of finding a number x for a given function f(x) such that f(x) = 0 holds.

This is often the case for polynomials, as many important mathematical functions can be well approximated by polynomials.

The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra states that if we allow x to be a complex number, then there is always a solution to the problem such that f(x) = 0.

Restriction: but the polynomial must not consist of only a constant term, i.e., f(x) = 5 would be inadmissible. The x must appear at least once in the polynomial. Otherwise, there are really no restrictions :-)

PS: In the example given in the image (f(x) = x^2 + 2 = 0), a solution would be approximately x = √2 i ≈ 1.4 i.

Then I asked: “Please make it understandable to a general audience and phrase it like a pop-science author would.”

Here is the translation in a more accessible, pop-science style:

The Hidden Power of Complex Numbers

Most people think complex numbers are just some obscure math concept, useful only for electrical engineers. But these mysterious numbers actually have a hidden superpower - they can solve all sorts of important math problems.

You see, in math, we often want to find a number x that makes a function f(x) equal to zero. This comes up a lot when working with polynomials - those nice, smooth equations made up of powers of x.

The problem is, sometimes there just doesn’t seem to be any real number x that does the trick. That’s where complex numbers swoop in to save the day!

The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra proves that as long as we allow x to be a complex number (a number with both a real and imaginary part), then there will always be a solution that makes f(x) equal to zero. No exceptions!

So complex numbers unlock the ability to solve all kinds of polynomial equations that would be impossible with just regular old real numbers. It’s like they have a secret mathematical superpower.

Of course, there is one small catch - the polynomial can’t be a simple constant, like f(x) = 5. It has to actually contain the variable x somewhere. But other than that, complex numbers can tackle any polynomial problem you throw at them.

So the next time you see an imaginary number like √(-1), remember - it’s not just some weird math trick. It’s a powerful tool for solving important equations. Complex numbers may seem strange, but they’re secretly the heroes of the math world!

Electrical engineers use them for calculating AC-circuits. In a DC circuit, you only have to worry about how much volt and amperes are in each part of the circuit. In an AC circuit, you also have to worry about the phase, cause the voltage goes up and down. The phase means where in that up and down you are.

The complex number is interpreted as a point on a 2-dimensional plane; the complex plane. You have the “normal” number as 1 axis, and orthogonal to that the imaginary axis. The angle of the vector to that point gives the phase.

They can be generally used for such “wavy” (ie periodical) processes. But I think this particular field of electrical engineering is the main application.

Come to think of it. That DMCA argument would really wreck fair use.

It’s illegal to remove “copyright management information” (CMI). In this case meaning the FOSS license. The argument was, that when copilot spits out verbatim snippets of source code without the license, this constitutes removal of the CMI. The point of the argument was that fair use is not a defense under the DMCA. These verbatim snippets are pretty obvious fair use to me, so countering that defense is important if they hope to get anywhere with their suit.

By the same argument, any meme image is illegal. They are taken from somewhere without the original license or attribution. Yikes.

Don’t listen to me on that. I have no idea how the community feels on copyright or fair use. Whenever AI comes up, the most dogmatic copyright maximalism dominates. On other subjects, the debate is more nuanced. I don’t know how that fits together at all. But I guarantee you, if Alsup ruled on a case like this/OP, they would… Well, most comments would not like the ruling or him.

Yes, I know what you mean. But looking at the comments here, Fair Use is not a popular concept. I remember that Alsup specifically quoted the copyright clause in his ruling. I can’t imagine any argument that would make him rule, on the whole, for the plaintiffs in a case such as this.

Judge William Alsup.

Now I remember that guy. He decided oracle vs google. I can’t imagine he has many fans here.

Wow, long take. I didn’t want “much the same” to bear a lot of meaning. In the german inquisitorial system, in a criminal case, the judge takes over the (police) investigation from the prosecution. When the police become aware of a possible crime, they inform the bureau of the state attorney. A state attorney is responsible for the investigation and for uncovering the truth. But once the case goes to court, the responsibility goes to the judge.

In a civil suit, the parties are basically in charge and not the judge. It’s true that the judge has a more active role in German civil procedure. While the court is not supposed to run its own investigation, it can request additional evidence if it’s necessary to judge the arguments of either side. I am not clear on the details. Where matters of fact must be determined by an expert, either party can request the court to provide one. But they can also make their own arrangements. The court can also solicit an expert opinion on its own, if necessary. Typically, the expert’s opinion is given as a written statement. An oral disposition may happen when questions remain. Afaik, it’s unusual to depose an expert without having first requested a written statement. Either party or the court may question the witness.

Hmm. In what way is the German system more effective? I know of some hair-raising cases. Me, I blame the law-makers and not the judges, but others see it differently. I can’t think of a single related case, where I’d say that the judgement served everyone’s interests.

ETA: Bad question. You explained how the German system is more effective. I’m wondering about cases where I can see this in action. IE: “well-informed and incisive decisions on anything in the computer hardware / EE or computer science fields.”

You should emphasize more that the difference adversarial system vs inquisitorial system exists in criminal law only. In civil/private matters - eg copyright disputes like in this instance - continental Europe handles matters much the same.

It doesn’t work like that. A copy is a copy. Only if you can make it credible that you independently produced the same code, can you get through with that. Hence, clean room implementations. It’s not strictly necessary but deters lawsuits.

Apparently there’s some confusion here what the judge ruled. This particular part is about claims under the DMCA, not copyright infringement. The relevant sections can be seen here: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html [edit: link fixed. The claim was that “copyright management information” was removed; prohibited under these sections.]

Here’s the original text for those who want to know more (link via The Verge): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24796955-github-copilot-claims-dismissed

I’m categorically unable to name a justice or court jurisdiction anywhere in the US that consistently makes well-informed and incisive decisions on anything in the computer hardware / EE or computer science fields.

Can you name one in Germany? Just asking.

Anyway, at this stage of the trial only legal experts are involved. The judge examines if the legal arguments are sound, assuming the allegations are true. Whether the allegations are actually true will only be determined in the future. That’s also when Fair Use comes in. At that point, you need outside experts to advise on the non-legal aspects.

The noun doesn’t matter after an adjective like ‘multiple.’ Nothing good ever follows ‘multiple.’

-Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!

An individual can use the roads if the can afford a car. Amazon must be operating 1000s or 10.000s of vehicles in the US alone. Clearly, some benefit more than others. Some win at Monopoly.

Are we at least agreed that it is a conservative policy? If you carve up the roads and gift them to the people who own the land next to the roads, it’s still conservative. It will lead to greater inequality and poverty. It’s not left-wing redistribution.

we’re now going to charge anyone who wants to use them and keep 100%. Oh, and you have no ownership rights, so we can restrict access to these roads as we see fit."

I don’t know what this means. What is currently happening that is like that? Besides, you want data to be owned, and an owner can restrict access. Shouldn’t you be all for that?

I thought of something that maybe gets this across. Think about roads. We all pay for them with taxes. Companies use these roads for free to make a profit. EG Amazon runs delivery vehicles on public roads.

The (center-)left take on that is: “You didn’t build that.” It can be an argument for progressive taxation and even a wealth tax.

Then there’s people who say that we should privatize all the roads. Let Amazon pay a toll for using those roads. Is it clear that this is a conservative policy?