If accurate (the idea, not the numbers), that sounds reasonable.

I'd argue there's much more to it that just calories in/out though.

Harm reduction should ideally account for as much of the system as possible.

I think they are kind of like a production house with an additional kickstarter backing thing, or small individual investors of some other kind, i'm not sure.

Here is the wiki

Their programming is pretty faithy, have a look at the lineup and you'll see from the titles.

I don't care much for that genre, but i don't see it as that much different than any other genre, it's just not for me.

What i will say is that their productions are the faith based equivalent of straight to vhs action movies.

It's generic dross with meh writing and some reasonable production values.

but that's just my opinion, perhaps it's worth a shot if you're into that kind of genre.

Well, shit....that would explain it, my bad.

Ah, i think i see where the difference in opinion is, claiming this event leads directly to (as in the very next step is) AI/ID verification could be considered an unreasonable jump i suppose.

In my case i was interpreting the argument as this event will almost certainly lead to further encroachment events into privacy, one of which would probably be the AI/ID verification.

To me this is a reasonable assumption because it's what has happened in pretty much all of the recent instances of similar event occurring and therefore not a slippery slope fallacy.

TL;DR

On further examination, the technical things you mention seem to be correct if you assume that this bill alone is the vector for privacy encroachment, but they don't pan out at all if it is assumed that other steps will follow; which, given precedent, is highly likely to happen.

On the technical implementation:

The reason its a slippery slope fallacy is the assumption that this law is a direct attempt to implement those systems, in spite of the fact that AB1043 implements a system that would be redundant with AI or ID based methods,

As an aside i'm not sure anyone is claiming that this bill is a direct attempt at a hard AI/ID verification system, rather they are claiming that this another step in a series of encroachments that will lead to escalating requirements and enforcement, AI/ID verification being an obvious step in that series.

From a technical standpoint you are correct, it outright states that photo ID upload isn't required, yet.

Opinion : A cynic might see this as indication that the politicians understand that political and public appetite for full photo id requirements is less than optimal, so this is just a small step in shifting the Overton window on this subject.

technically doesn’t offer any good way to transition into an AI or ID based system (since it all has to be done locally),

That is only correct in a very narrow set of circumstances, that local requirement isn't set in stone at all.

All that needs to happen to go from this to full ID checks is to mandate they use a "trusted" service for verification. It wouldn't need to be an always online thing either, think of how the bullshit online verification systems that already exist work, i.e. you need to go online every x days or your system/service/app will stop working.

opinion: I fully expect any "trusted" service they designate to be something that serves the governmental and corporate desire for as much data as they can get away with, this isn't even a stretch, just look at the service discord was trying to implement, the one with deep ties to palantir

and legally, imposes additional data protection laws that are likely to interfere with AI-based age verification.

This isn't wrong as much as it seems naive, we are talking about bills that change laws, any law introduced can be revoked, superseded or have "exceptions" carved out, such as the current favourite "think of the children" thin veneer they are using.

It wouldn't take much to move from "all data is protected" to "all data is protected, unless we need it to protect the children"

That's not even taking in to account that the laws are only as good as the system upholding them, the current US system is sketchy AF, other countries have similar issue with uneven application of laws.

Not to say we should throw out hands up, say "what’s the point?" and just do nothing, but pretending that these laws aren't susceptible to the same issue affecting everything else doesn't help anyone either.

The problem with AI and ID age verification isn’t the age verification. Its the data collection, limits on personal freedom, and to some, the inconvenience.

Agreed.

So far as I can tell, AB1043 doesn’t have a significant impact on data collection (it does add another metric that could be used for fingerprinting, but also adds stricter regulation on data collection when this flag is used,) or personal freedoms - esspecially not when compared to what is already the existing standard of asking the user for their age and/or if they’re over 18.

Mostly agreed.

the points i'd raise are that the whole idea of age verification is an encroachment upon personal freedoms for some, so there's an aspect of subjectivity to that.

I addition, relying on data collection regulations at this point is almost dangerously naive, corporations and governments alike have shown that they will basically ignore them outright or make up some exception, this isn't conjecture, this is something easily searchable, think flock, ring camera's, stringray , PRISM, anything palantir is involved in, cambridge analytica, broad warrantless data requests etc.

There is absolutely no reason to give the benefit of the doubt to parties that have repeatedly proven to be doing sketchy shit.

If you're going to reference the slippery slope fallacy so much, you should probably read where and when it actually applies.

From the wikipedia entry:

When the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects, this is called the slippery slope fallacy.

You yourself just acknowledged that the worst-case is already happening, so the assumption that the worst case will continue to happen is reasonable.

Unless you wish to argue that :

The worst-case scenario is already happening

followed by you saying

Okay, but

isn’t an acknowledgement ?

I appreciate the answer but that's not at all what i asked.

I have anecdotes and personal experience i could cite but that's not particularly helpful in a general sense.

Pointing to claude submissions in projects is actively less than helpful in this case because it only proves that single files in isolation look like they are well written, it gives no indication of overall project quality.

People that I know to be good developers have also shared their experiences with it and say yes, it has written good code for them. I’ve personally used ChatGPT to generate very mundane tasks and the code it output was more than adequate.

So in a very limited context the code generated for you personally was acceptable, that's great, i've found much the same, but that's a far cry from "AI writes great code; I think we just want it to suck."

It's somewhat my bad though, when i say "citation" i don't need a full research paper (though that would be nice) i'd like something a bit more substantial than a "trust me bro".

It introduces security bugs and subtle bugs at probably the same rate as a human (I have no “citation” there, just what I’ve seen)

That's a load-bearing probably, my experience has been the polar opposite of that, I’ve been involved in two major AI initiatives and both choked hard on security and domain bugs. That could very well be a project management or company specific issue, hence the search for successful projects to compare.

My quest continues.

Whoever wrote and approved that headline has no business dealing with words for a living.

Regardless of bias, that's the linguistic equivalent of

"Parents Tried to Shield Their Children From Food. Instead They Got Malnutrition and Starvation."

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to."

Though it is occasionally possible to point out how their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and get them to engage on it.

Only works with the ones not doing it on purpose, however.

Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.

One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.

It's very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.

The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.

The gist you actually provided was "you are doing a bad thing and I'm disappointed in you, smh" and then proceeded to do something very similar followed by a non-apology.

I actually agree with your point but it's still a shitty way to do it.

It is, as well as being 3/4 of the provided usages and a large proportion of the examples.

it's Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes