That being said, age based restrictions isn't a fine grained control over the system as perhaps one would like but that also would be inherently more complicated to think about from a legislative perspective (e.g. how fine grained and how to categorize possible dangers) and user control perspective when it looks like a lot of parents are looking for a blunt generic button that basically goes "this is agreeable with general practices". This seems more or less how real systems are gated.

The other issue is that both present privacy challenges but this just a little more so from a fingerprinting perspective. Presumably you need quite a few bits to completely specify the filter whereas age is only a ~1.58 bit field in the CA model. Not really sure how much this matters when there are so many other signals for fingerprinting and we should probably make fingerprinting from it illegal but just some thought.

> Instead, what we get proposed is a system that cares very much about how old you are, and not one bit about the things that one's guardian understands one needs to be protected from.

Regarding your linked comment, I think it's a bit strange to say that if legislators really did care about child safety they would mandate fine grained controls instead. I'm not sure what additional fine grained factors you may be thinking of precisely, but we already use age as a gate in real life for many things we consider dangerous so it's quite natural for legislators to transpose those. Our laws already very much care about how old you are.

However, it's also unclear to me if this is directly coming from a directed political ideology from the firm itself or a more general "let's do what the government wants so as we can publish this stuff". Those imply two different ways about thinking of the model and whether we can sort of containerize the issue. I think if a firm like Huawei were to publish a model, these concerns would be significantly more vocal. For better or worse, many of these political questions are also distant to many users on this site.

On the other hand, many people on this website live in regions that are directly affected by Musk's constant political activism. It's hard not to be when he was such an active part of an administration that controls a global superpower and continues to push his view via X. The DeepSeek owners, by contrast, are not to my knowledge constantly calling for Taiwan to be invaded.

I do think if Musk was less politically active and less personally involved with his companies, there would be less discussion of Musk's politics. People, for better or worse, are willing to put aside political discussion, in the "everything is political" sense, that may be more loosely linked.

It is simply in the case of Musk that this tension boils over and legitimately becomes impossible. There is perhaps some kind of Singer-style argument about how this is some form of hypocrisy but as a practical matter, I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to turn down their political discussion around someone like Musk.

https://futurism.com/grok-looks-up-what-elon-musk-thinks

To your narrow point, it's very obvious that Musk influences the bot to share his views. For example,

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/elon-musks-ai-chatbot...

If your claim is that somehow I should not be concerned about Elon's politics with regards to the model itself, then this seems wrong.

Anyway, to the broader point of whether or not the we can avoid discussion about the Musk's politics and talk about the politics of the model as if it were independent of him, this also seems difficult. It is impossible to ignore because the man has made himself the face of every one of his companies and is an obviously political figure unlike any other company and has politics that are definitely characterized as more radical. This makes the political component basically impossible to ignore unlike any other company.

The next time the current American administration issues an executive order on AI, should the conversation always be limited to the technical merits of the executive order?

I don't think you need to somehow get personally offended by every Tesla on the road but it seems ridiculous to ask people to not be political about a such obviously political figure.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21691

There's of course empirical results and relatively weak theoretical results like the UAT but I also don't think that answers your question fully, especially since it seems impossible to definitively answer questions that the industry seems to betting on like whether or not there is a lower bound to their error rate or whether hallucination as a problem can be solved. We have much stronger ideas of what linear regression is doing relative to what LLMs are doing.

1. Does that mean the same thing in the ToS?

2. How valid are these requests?

On a more practical level, forcing them to go to court might not be much better. If this went to a FISA court, those are essentially rubber stamps and give nearly 100% approval.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/25/elon-mu...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/25/elon-mu...

I think there's quite a bit of variance in model performance depending on the scaffold so comparisons are always a bit murky.

Right now, it's not even clear how to create parental controls at a reasonable level so there's no clear path for what to do or how to respond.

I think this is a reasonable balance without being invasive as there's now a defined path to do reasonable parenting without being a sysadmin and operators cannot claim ignorance because the user input a random birthday. The information leaked is also fairly minimal so even assuming ads are using that as signal, it doesn't add too many bits to tracking compared to everything else. I think the California bill needs a bit of work to clarify what exactly this applies to (e.g. exclude servers) but I also think this is a reasonable framework to satisfy this debate.

I've seen the argument that this could lead to actual age verification but I think that's a line that's clearly definable and could be fought separately.