So it sounds like it's the individual dentists judgment, and their organizing body says that they base it on the occurrence of dental problems in the population the clinics they oversee, with some adjustments based on patient age and risk factors.

So according to Danish authorities, you should be safe getting x-ray'ed every 6 months. They just don't recommend it, since it's a waste.

This interests me. I don't know of any specific ruling we can draw any conclusion from, but the ruling in question here cites some procedural texts that specifically state that the danish CSAM laws only cover "reproductions", which they then also specifically define as not including "drawing and paintings, such as antique vases".

It seems to me that a compelling argument could be made on both sides of that distinction. On the one hand, lolicon shared on X share nothing in common with art on antique vases. On the other, they would not be included in the textual definition of reproduction.

In this specific matter I think it's most likely that drawings of CSAM is legal, at least under these statutes.

The answer to if it generalizes is, as with all new law, that we just don't know. In this case, the procedural for the passing of the last amendment to the relevant section includes the specific point that fictive CSAM should be included. It seems doubtful that other such procedurals would contain the same language. That doesn't rule out that this case is used as a basis for claiming that AI generated images should be treated similarly to real photographs when the two are indistinguishable.

Were you ever seriously fooled?

I can understand that the external "poke at it" method requires some judgment, but an xray shouldn't have that much variance.

In my mind, this is pretty substantial technology news, at least in Denmark, since it rejects the notion that AI generated pictures are substantially different from other pictures, and therefore has to abide by the same laws.

I will be interested in seeing if anybody charges the big AI providers for producing these photos.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50106285

Points: 38

# Comments: 65

That's simply not true. I've had some very talented interns, and they are leagues ahead of what the LLMs can do. Not that it matters though, because the point of having interns wasn't to have them produce value. What made the investment worth it was that 12 months down the line I would have a competent colleague that I could have an interesting conversation with. A human person that could challenge some of my blind spots. A person that could take responsibility of something. Maybe not my most important work, but some of it. You don't get ANY of that from the LLM.

I am both validating your experience, and rejecting your analysis.

> Who gets locked in an office?

If you can't engage with that statement in more thoughtful way than that, we have no common ground for a discussion.

You describe the homework as

> basically lots or practice in basic arithmetic

Which is absolutely what you need for these sequences to have any meaning. There is no "pure math" to have a game about, without the "pathetic" examples of Lucy's 5 apples and Tom's 2. If somebody hadn't (brutally) drilled the concept of numbers into her skull, the sequences of random symbols would not mean anything to her.

Engaging with your child, who has already been partially socialized, is not proof that this socialization wasn't necessary. For that, you would have to have locked your daughter in the basement for those 7 years, and then find that she was spontaneously able to do multiplication. That is not going to happen.

> No, you really, really should not be brutal to little children.

I hope you understand that _brutality_ as spiritual. It's the brutality of going against nature, of putting a monkey in a suit and locking it in an office for 8 hours a day to feed itself. You don't beat math into your children, but they sure as hell don't learn it from eating candy and watching Minecraft let's plays.

I'm not convinced children need "hands-on, engaged" education at the age of 10. At some point there's no shortcut to being socialized that patterns in numbers are interesting (which is one of the national goals of maths for 3rd graders in my country). 10 year olds won't find that stuff "engaging" on their own, they must be informed by authority figures that it's a thing worth paying attention to.

Too much of this "fuck the schools" mentality treats children as perfect little beings that must only be supported to grow into wonderful adults, when the reality is that socializing children is a brutal exercise in fitting them into norms.