dathinab

there is a huge difference here between that and the central bank

the central bank is semi part of the state, AI Labs are not, AI Labs are fully under directly control of a extremely small number of people in a way which has nothing to do with democracy

founding a Organisation like the FCC but for AI oversight is a completely different topic, but that isn't what he is proposing

> Italy hand over the Vatican to the Church?

because it always had been a nano country under Church control, this is not comparable at all

> Church or Religious institutions.

most democracies have a separation of state and religion where religion has little to no governing power. When this isn't the case it's a failure of the state (often for historic reason). This isn't desirable at all.

this should and must not happen

at least in a democracy, even if flawed, power comes from the people, that is the fundamental raison d'être for people allowing a government to exist

this isn't the case of "AI Labs"

what he is proposing is nothing less then establishing at least partial oligarchy, or in other words while indirectly he is relatively openly saying he wants to overthrow not just the US constitution but more or all every democracies constitution (at least in spirit)

EDIT: Assuming AI Labs == existing private AI Labs like OpenAI. Something analog to the FCC for AI or similar is a completely different topic. But this wouldn't be called AI Labs as it wouldn't be a AI Lab. But a faster moving, less bureaucratic, commission (or similar group) which works in tight communication with AI Labs. So I'm pretty sure he means giving OpenAI and co. power officially comparable to the government in some sectors. Which means practical including corruption etc. it might be above that of the government.

yes, quite likely

and if we look on some of the more extreme cases: France Nuclear doctrine is not "we could decide to use nukes if our country is invaded" but roughly more like "we use them by default in such a case and you would need to overrule this to not use them"

Through this is for a "full on invasion in the classical sense". This is unlikely to bee seen as triggered for e.g. colonies or some back and force on border disputes (including e.g. attack on supply lines behind the border).

nukes only work as a deterrent if you are willing to use them if a (deep) bottom line is crossed, like foreign tanks heading to your capital

I'm not saying this is good, just that you really shouldn't rely on people not using nukes.

> You seriously believe coal fired power hasn’t evolved in the last 40 years?

no but even with evolution it still is way worse then literally every other (practical used/usable) alternative

e.g. the quality of German brown coal is so bad that there is a saying that burning plastic wast gives you both more and cleaner energy

> approximately nowhere

you mean no where except everywhere where you have decent sized hills or mountains (and even in flat land under some circumstances) and is already build and in use in Germany in multiple case (and also not just Germany)

I litterally wrote a comment saying going by a single statistic is not sufficient.

and it's not China being hadwaving "special" but the measurement you are applying really not working well for a country which is only half capitalist and half planed economy. Which is a separate argument from dark factories which is about (non low end) production in China getting increasingly decoupled from human worker and in turn is way less affected from a population collapse then it would be in other countries. This has nothing to do with robot armies, an argument you just made up, even if China would lose half their population they still had more people and in turn can theoretically man a larger army _even if they have a by % much larger population collapse_, they don't need any Robot army. Similar no one said their system is superior. Or do you mean the US, as a two party system with an extremely powerful president is something some would call semi authoritarian. Either way China having done some pretty effective decisions in recent years in some areas doesn't in any way mean it's the better system. Like a Monarch can do grate decisions, but Monarchy is still is a very bad system.

Either way I also can't follow you how you jump from a listing of rough facts to there supposedly being a fact free zone.

What there isn't is a single simpel conclusion.

I mean it's a discussion where a single bad decision of a larger power can easily cause a unpredictable chain reaction which completely changes what are and aren't likely outcomes.

The world is inherently complex and not everything has a simple black/white conclusion, actually most things don't have one. You can only look at all available metrics and do a guess what the future will bring.

is that a serious quest?

like

- electric trains

- electric cars

outside of the US most trains try to run electric when they can as it's just plain better (cheaper, more convenient too). Yes bunch of fright trains still run diesel, but that is mostly due to historic reasons and them often going to niche side tracks which have not been electrified. Fun fact a supper heavy mining fright train in Austrailia doesn't just run electric but basically 0-cost. It gets loaded in the mountains uses mostly gravity to run to the sea charging batteries while breaking and then when empty goes back up using the charges gained from breaking.

And electric trucks exist and work, too.

You don't even need latest battery tech as e.g. Swiss/Zürich hybrid bus/trams have been showing since some decades.

As another fun fact Beelitz-Heilstätten only allowed electric car around 1900!! (because it was healing lung issues and even way over 100 years ago it was well understood that air pollution from cars makes that worse).

Like, this was never about weather it's technical doable. But all about gigantic well established industries doing everything in their power to sabotage forced changes as such changes would make them obsolete. So a technical working solution isn't sufficient it must be noticeable cheaper or better so that it can disrupt the industry in a more "capitalist" way.

no, it's not physics but politics which are the problem here

_decent, clean_ gas generators have a bottleneck

cheap, dirty, loud "tbh. shouldn't exist" kind fo gas generators are far more available and what is widely used

but also huge part of the solar supply bottleneck is artificial due to import regulations from china and both the US and EU having failed to secure meaningful domestic solar supply chains.

Idk. about any specific data center but many of this data centers aren't for AI training / making advancements on the AI race. They have sufficient resources for that already AFIK.

They are to run AI, so that the 100th app can force an AI agent down your throat weather your want or not /s. (Or in more optimistic words, so that the AI adoption can spread as fast as their is demand.)

and they (and many other AI data centers) run on some of the environmental/health hazard worst kinds of gas turbines available (i.e. cheap portable ones)

A well build gas power plane can be one of the cleanest fossile fuel power plants with neither huge issues of air nor sound pollution (compared to other fossile fuel, it still isn't perfect by far)

Same btw. for data center cooling, my office was for 3 years above a data center of a super computer in the mittle of a city and there where no sound issues at all (through yes it was a special case in many ways).

I mean yes, it costs more and many well established companies for high quality gas turbines are booked out.

Still using the kind of gas turbines which can bring back literal acid rain shouldn't be an option at all.

Lets also not speak about the environmental/health damage the production of the natural gas through fracking does.

Which bring us to a common nonsense argument, people going on and on about hoe economically expensive/harmful climate protection is, but totally missing that many oft he circumvented laws are not for climate protection but are for environmental protection for the sake of humans health.

To make thinks worse most of this data centers seems to be more about making money, then being in any way relevant for winning any AI race...

> claims it won't be a world power at all:

which is very much possible

50 years once just a blink in human history is today enough to have 2 major industrial revolutions

nukes are not an argument for anything but main land defense from invasions

Look Russia, it was considered on of the most powerful countries military wise and cleanly in the top 10 economically. Many treated it as a 3rd place behind USA/China. It probably will be neither military nor economically overly relevant in 10 years. Through comparing a war economy with peace economies by most normal usable standards (e.g. GDP) isn't very meaningful. Yes it has nukes, no one will invade it (in a traditional large scale sense out side of some border conflict). But it's economy looks like the kind of war economy which leads to a complete economical collapse once the war ends (i.e. burning core substance) end while it's military could be very experienced now, by treating soldiers as highly disposable its unclear how much that actually is true.

Now look at the US, it has lost the majority of soft power thanks to incompetence (and it was maybe the nation with the most effective soft power). It has alienated most of it's allies, especially it's closest allies. Both from a military and economical POV. It's highly dependent on China, and tries to change that have shown very mid to bad outcomes. On the other hand China is increasingly less dependent on it (and the EU) and increasingly less attackable by sea blockades and other non-hot war counter measures the US had. It's behind on automated production. Countries are increasingly less willing to tolerate US bases on their ground which are essential for it being able to project power. The economy is increasingly dependent on a few pillars, which are strong but can crack anyway. The might claim AI leadership, but practically it looks like the price they payed to get there is one which not only will not pay of but can not pay off, it's just way to high. War is also increasingly going back to ways where even if you have superiority the cost of waging it is still severely high, in such a situation you can't force leadership by military force, if you try it likely will end similar to Germany in WW1. Lastly the internal instability Trump has brought by dismantling checks and balances and arbitrary gutting of programs which turned out pretty essential for stability is bad enough to argue things like a putsch series or civil war being _realistic possibilities_ (not guaranteed at all, but possible where it wasn't realistically possible before).

If you put everything together the US dropping temporary out of the top 10 of overall most powerful countries is, not very likely but, very much possible.

It does have absurd geographical advantages, and nukes to make sure it keeps them basically for ever (as long as it doesn't splinter which isn't very likely tbh.). So the drop would be most likely be temporary at most.

Still it is possible, it's the price to pay for first squandering all trust/goodwill gained from WW2 over a few decades of greedy, egoistic, egocentric, ethical catastrophic politics. And then going complete "unpredictable, untrustable, instabile, high risk, publicly considering to start war with NATO or at least half of the EU (JEF+some others)" in recent years.

GDP is subtle broken in many ways

A "in general" correlates with geopolitical power doesn't necessary mean you can point at a specific case look at their GDP and come to a good conclusion. Especially not if it's as much of a special case as China.

> wouldn't that imply India, and then later Africa are going to be superpowers?

which might actually happen. If the US falls further from grace and the situations stays like that for a few decades, or the US and another huge power (e.g. China) fall into some costly conflict then India or a union of African countries have a serious chance to become a world super power.

---

=> But more relevantly this discussion is going into red hering argument direction:

- No one argued that you should go _only_ by population, the argument is, that if a country with a gigantic population shrinks hugely they still have enough people left to wage large scale wars.

- Similar no one (should) argue that GDP is by itself meaningful for such an assessment, it's one imperfect not supper reliable statistical point. Especially given how things move wrt. dark factories (i.e. fully automated => no light one as no human there), AI and similar. Yes, if GDP is supper low or high that says a lot, but a lot is not everything and a average GDP for decade long trends in a word looking to face a major time of change means not much in any direction.

- Similar we are speaking about decade long developments, current military strength ist also just another non fully reliable indicator. E.g. Germany post WW1 had close to actual 0/no military strength, and then there was WW2 just a few years later...

> What's going to replace it?

I'm not sure if I'm mis-reading your comment, but:

The idea that you "need a single extremely powerful country to replace it or the US will stay in its position" just doesn't add up. I'm not fully sure if that is what you meant but I have seen that argument a few times.

_There doesn't need to be a replacement._

For most of the worlds history there wasn't a single leading world supper power, just regional super powers, or supper powers in specific sectors.

And if we speak about who could become a supper power _after the US stops being one and there isn't one for some decades_. Then there are a bunch of candidates.

E.g. China has a population collapse issues, but due to it's cut throat ruthless government and total population number and lead in factory automation might be from all countries with similar problems by margin the most likely to overcome it without power collapse.

E.g. the EU might have many issues (as it's members has many issues) but the general concept has proven hugely successful. And what people forget is EU is the cherry on top of a huge stack of treaties which can be extended to 3rd parties independent of full EU membership. Like e.g. Canada, which doesn't plan to become an EU member, but might join some of this treaties as result of the non stop hostility from the US. Same for military treaties between NATO members which are independent of NATO like e.g. JEF, which would likely be open for letting Canada join. Anyway way to many words. But the end result may be a world supper power which is not one entity but a complex lossy coupled network of countries.

Then there have been some other cross country unions and countries, which want to gain super power relevance but have so far been too irrelevant due to a combination of corruption, bad luck and sabotage by existing powers etc. But if we speak about going for a few decades without any leading super power and maybe prime canidates harming each other (e.g. a US <-> Chineese war) then they do actually have a chance.

yes, worth adding: Various changes/improvements in the way wind mills are build, have marking & lights on them are expected to reduce the number by quite a bit. Through a lot of already build existing wind mill and limited pressure to apply such changes means we will have to see how much of this actually will help iff even relevantly used at all.

Another problem is that the actual impact on bats for _offshore_ wind seems unclear. Yes it happens, bats do migrate across sea areas in some places. But we have very little knowledge about bat migration routes and amounts in such cases AFIK.

no

this way of thinking, is not very useful and can be pretty harmful, just because something is imperfect doesn't mean it's fully broken. Just because people have always manipulated democracy doesn't mean it "basically just shadow government".

And sure, the US is a very bad case, _especially_ in recent years. But also let's not forgot that for most of it's history just one of the countless scandals of Trump would have been enough to highly risk impeachment for a president and be equal to political suicide. I.e. there has been quite a bit of limits on corruption and influences from behind the scene. It's just that the US went and broke itself. And yes a two party system was never truly democratic, it's still better then a one party system nor the same as a full shadow government.

Which brings us to another point, there never was "the" shadow government, just many different people which had way to much influence behind the scene in not so democratic ways. A shadow government implies some form of organization/structure which actually governs and then puppets in front, but that was never really the case in the US AFIK. Even today it isn't as a lot of the escalating corruption is just pretty much out in the open by the governing people, instead of in any shadow, by people not in a official position.

> fact is solar is too cheap and, unlike wind, very easy to deploy, so it doesn’t matter what your political views are, you will eventually support it

this is my point, too

renewables, especially solar, just have gotten very competitive to a point they will gain ground even if not subsidized

and I believe we will see (and in some niches have already seen) this happening for electric cars, too. They are plain simple just better technology which for now is still in the earlier stages.

How much relevance wind will have we have to see, it's less advantages then solar and less easy to deploy. It's pretty good in some very windy northern (i.e. also less solar efficient) places and often iff it's extremely windy it's not extremely sunny and if extremely sunny it's often not extremely windy. This makes them complement each other quite nicely. So I still see a future for it even outside of the more northern regions.

> on ramming Net Zero down our power lines

except this is AFIK just plain wrong

much more relevant factors seem

- spikes in energy need, mainly AI in recent years

- extremely badly handling of power grids in a high multitude of ways not related to net zero (like seriously, the German grid is pretty bad compared to an optimal grid. But compared to the nonsense many parts of the US have, it looks like a pristine optimal solution.)

- health/environmental protections _not to be confused with climate protection_!! Not wanting your citizens to have massive health issues due to air pollution, acid rains etc. has _nothing_ to do with net zero. People tend to somehow always conflate it. But a lot of the policies the US ended up doing (compared to the ones they say they want to do) where more about that then anything climate related.

- inflation statistics being... badly done. Like if most relevant daily use products have price increases noticeable above inflation then your way to measure inflation is the problem.

And a lot of the net zero things, tend to actually produce relatively cheap energy, even if you include cost for e.g. some gravity energy store and similar buffers. Just if you don't properly modernize, then you can run into troubles. As part of the US has never been in favor of renewables at all you can guess what happens there wrt. making decisions to which make things work compared to decisions which hinder things and then blame the technology instead of your bad politics.

- calculate in all building cost, side cost, post-lifetime cost, accident risk cost etc. i.e. "all cost"

- calculate expected total produced electricity which can be used

- divide one by another

- if one if majorly cheaper and chose it then that is the "common sense" strategy of choosing what works best

yes the "all cost" part is tricky to estimate.

yes you don't choose a "single technology and only use it", resilience always works best with redundancy and diversity.

still you can run the number, you can estimate error bars, and sometimes this gives already clear answers. Like a technology being quite expensive even if you lose the lowest (unrealistic cheap) bar for all costs? Then that is a bad technology and it doesn't matter that you have very wide error bars as you are already looking at the optimal choice.

----

EDIT: Me going of on a tangent, maybe ignore :/

Some technologies complement each other well (like most like solar + wind + some gravity storage, as both can have uneven output, but (at live where I live) extremely windy days are often reduced sunny and extremely sunny days often not so windy, and gravity storage can handle "dunkelflauten" sufficiently (and is has already been build and is in use(!), not some hypothetical tech like some people pretend it is)).

But also some technology works against each other, e.g. non _fully_ subsidized nuclear sells a roughly constant power output at a constant (and quite high! if not highly subsidized) cost. But if other electricity can "sometimes" produce supper cheap electricity for some hours, days or even weeks then nuclear can not compete _at all_ during this times, makes losses and need to increase the yearly average price to compensate. Which makes it even less competitive. Hence in a actual "dynamic/free" energy market nuclear makes no sense even if you ignore long term waste storage or risk for contaminating essential parts of your country risks. Still a _fully_ subsidized nuclear base power level might work if you can't generate enough electricity in average through other means. Still this IMHO makes it somewhat of a "only if there is no other solution, not competing on the free marked" choice, i.e. a bad choice you might have to do but might be able to fully avoid (e.g. by using hydro power).

Oh and please stop brown coal, especially low quality brown coal. In all categories of health damage, environmental damage, climate damage it has _horrible_ scores both during mining and usage even for modern versions with filters etc. Sure it looks cheap on paper, but it's maybe THE worst kind of power source there is. Especially if run on low quality coal and without modern filter technology. Brown coal should be a "never choose this no matter what" choice.

is it just me or does that seems to be a decision driven fully by a personal dislike of wind energy without having actually run the numbers, or in other words the art of a deal isn't that

like yes there was binding commitment to RWE getting some level of subsidies, hence he had to "pay them of" around the amount of profit they have likely list, and probably more

but... compared to not paying that much more in subsidies _and_ getting more electricity out of it which the US seem to currently be quite tight one this seems to be a terrible bad deal

---

EDIT: Sorry for the rant below, it's just pretty annoying how dishonest non fact based politics has been becoming where I live:

furthermore you can stop future subsidies, so if wind energy is as "fake" as he claims this is something RWE would be stuck with not them, even if it drive them bankrupt it wouldn't be a USA problem (and more a German one)

so the only way this deal makes sense is if you a) hate wind energy and want it cone irrationally b) know it actually works and as such would "stay around" for sure (or if you really really really care about birds, no way this is true for Trump)

(And also practically it already has proven that off shore wind farms can work profitable, so b, isn't really a question. But I guess if you have a president who says all the wind farms in China are fake for show while China produce roughly as much wind energy as all of the EU together then sure you can't except logic).

In general the amount of nonsense you hear when it comes to the topic of renewable energies is pretty crazy both in how people "proof how bad it is" .. based on early technology from well over 20+ years ago, systematically ignoring relevant components of a complete solution, pretending certain already in-use technologies don't exist and don't make sense etc. To ignoring issues with whatever technology they favor and often comparing wrongly calculated "non subsidized" renewable prices with "highly subsidized" non renewable prices. Don't get me wrong it also is done the other way around. But at least where I live, that direction of propaganda isn't really relevantly used while the other direction is spread everywhere non stop (while also pretending that any honest calculation is supposedly "faked" because it doesn't fit their world view).

no age verification is not ID verification

through meta might have lobbied on both

but they lobby for specific (often pretty bad) forms of age verification to be able to

- spy on people better

- have a regulatory moat where due to beady designed laws new alternatives have a much higher hurdle/initial investments and in turn never get anywhere

yesn't in case of Russia a lot of their military just "didn't work properly"/"was ineffective in a very fundamental way"

this wasn't the case for the US, their military did work and was effective in context of the specific think they where used for. It's just that the thing they where used for isn't effective in winning the kind of conflict the US did start.

while this is "just" the "non effective" part being some where else it is a very fundamental difference in the end

like to put it this way,

if weapons of mass destruction like nukes, bio weapons etc. would magically disappear an invasion and takeover of (part of mainland) Russia would be relatively viable (mainly by China, but others might want a slice, too).

on the other hand even without weapons of mass destruction trying to invade the mainland US still seems futile/to be a losing battle, no matter who tries it.

> something wrong

like waging a war while insisting they aren't really waging a war and it's just a special military operation and as a side effect having effectively no access to a lot of the resources/means normally used

> German is a requirement.

should be,

but de-facto isn't, like seriously you can live decades in Berlin without learning German. As a German I could fully stop understanding German from tomorrow on and in any situation except my parents it would work out, with only very limited issues here and there. Most which normally solvable with camera based translation apps (e.g. Google Lense), and some other by deciding which part of Berlin I spend my time in.

and legally it's only required if you try to get a German pass

in EU it's normal

- a company run the busses

- its partially of fully owned by the city/state, i.e. NOT private investors, not private liquidity, no one expects any payouts

- its commonly a special form of "company", e.g. "Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts" in this case which you can roughly read as "installment/company based on public-law"

Practical that is "mostly" the same as state run when looking at it from a distance. But with some differences. Like it's still a company, has it's own company structure, it's own bookkeeping, it's own employees etc. This leads to a much more clean separation when it comes to budged managing, and where possible removes/reduces direct political influence into daily operations (just direct one, indirectly through ownership etc. there is very much still influence, but this makes it somewhat less suspect to damage from changing political parties non stop changing directions).

Through things can get far more complicated then just one company, in one legal form.

Because you did something very weird ;)

- for insurance reasons it's not allowed for them to let you one once they "departed" from the curb, even if just by 20cm. They can literally lose their job over it and while it is a very exhausting job it doesn't pay that badly. (This wasn't always this way).

- due to how Berlin has historically grown and the congestion issues that brought with it the buses have a hard time being on time(1) on the 6,589 bus stops across 152 (day) lines (~40-45 stops per line). So they try to avoid any additional delays, especially if this delay might cause them to miss a green light.

(1): Berlins love to blame the public transportation provider(s) for this delays. And in some cases (S-Bahn) this is partially true, but for the busses it is much more on the "actual hard problem" side then for S-Bahn. And some of the other problems also go back to politics, like so often.

no, it's the Berlin experience, even for many Germans

1. speaking German doesn't matter too much in Berlin, except older "Berlin Berlins" most people speak conversational English. I have even seen cases of _all_ personal in a caffe not speaking German..., more then once.

2. Over half the people in Berlin are "expat-like": ~20% of people in Berlin are not from Germany, 30-40% or so are not from Berlin and only there fro some years/decades to study or similar. And the distribution isn't uniform across Berlins, i.e. the areas you are most likely to end up as an (actual) expat (or similar) are the ones with way higher ratios. Like if you connect someone in such a area (weather physical or area-of-life) it's actually surprising if that person if "from" Berlin. Like you as a person "from" Berlin are more a special case then idk. someone from Poland ;).

I have been living in Berlin since my birth and your experience is one _many Germans have in Berlin, too_. Berlin is it's own thing, both in good and bad, I would not treat it as representative for Germany at all.

1. Berlin is the _least_ German Germany city, by far.

2. around ~20% of people living in Berlin aren't from Germany, I can't find the numbers but I think another 30-40% where not born in Berlin and likely won't stay more then 10-20 years. So _most people in Berlin are there temporary_, with people constantly moving in and out.

2.2. and the distribution of people long term living in Berlin and such being there temporary for studies, party, work, etc. isn't even across Berlin. In some areas you might mostly find people not "from" Berlin. To a point when meeting people in Berlin they sometimes are quite surprised if someone actually is from Berlin and not just lives there "for now"...

2.3. and in some parts of the city a non small part of "Berlins" born here are have parents or grandparents from Turkey which moved here in the 60th.

3. Berlin has a lot of sub-culturs which can be grate and fun, but also a common background rule is "you do what you want and I want I want" this can be really grate, or terrible as (not sure how to say it) the background social network which tends to integrate people into a local society is somewhat absence. Or to put it differently a lot (but not all) of people don't care about you, they won't harass you for being different, but they won't help you either if you don't happen to be a close friend. On the other hand in many other parts of Germany people are more strict about "you somewhat fitting in" but in turn if you try might also help you in the most unexpected ways (as I said I'm not sure how to best express this, this point is starkly oversimplified and can be misread in a lot of ways).

4. through Berlin has _a lot_ of different faces, some even people living there for decades might not have seen. So if you are in the right corner/community 3rd might not apply to you at all. Trying to describe Berlin in one way is a bit like pretending all of Germany is Bavaria.

5. Berlin is a swamp. Not just because the name might be based on birl~„Sumpf“ in some partially lost old languages. Or because some parts have frequently ~80+% Air Humidity (in fall/spring/warmer winter days; at ground level). Or because of it being the political centrum and as such associated with all the non Bavaria specific political corruption. But also because people "become marshy" (not good translation) here. I.e. they come here and then slowly and continuously slow down and get stuck here, never really arriving, but also not getting forward or backward.

Now this isn't complete and more focused on the bad parts, Berlin can also be grate, for a large city it's extremely green, most side streets and many main streets have road side trees and there are ~2000 additional "green areas" (like e.g. parks, but some very very small). There are tons of places to enjoy the evening in all kinds of ways, ton's of culture from clubs to theater, opera and shows. A lot of history. A lot of sub-cultures of all kind etc. But also it is just green (not flowery), you might not care about most culture things and just because there are many sub-cutlures doesn't mean it's something for you or you manage to connect to them. Also it's kinda dirty and this has gotten worse thanks multiple factors including the current city Government cutting costs in the wrong places...

Eh, anyway, my recommendation is:

- If you want to experience Berlin go to Berlin, if you want to party/enjoy evening non stop for a few years also go to Berlin, same for students where a Uni here matches their goals nicely. But if you want to experience Germany, then don't come here.

- If your life is stuck in Berlin (no matter if you are German or not) seriously consider leaving, for some people Berlin is long term poison which slowly eats away their happiness. There is a reason a large part of people in Berlin only stay there for a few decades at most.

- Don't expect to meet Berlins is Berlin (it's less then half the population in some regions way less). And in some areas of life don't even expect to meet/connect to that many "typical" Germans.

> Pros: none

> Cons: New ways for sociopaths for corruption, embezzlement and censorship.

bot points are just plain wrong, to a point where I'm wondering if you intentionally pretend to be ignorant because it's beyond understanding how anyone can end up with both points

there is no censorship in this law, if people don't want to see AI content and as such don't see your content _this is free market selection working as it should, not censorship_, and if people are fine with AI generated content then that is also market selection working as it should. But it gives people a choice.

> That is my point.

your only point is saying bad bad bad without giving any reasoning of how you even ended up at points multiple levels detached from the intend of the law

where does the censorship come from?, because this laws isn't doing censorship

where does the corruption and embezzlement come from? because that argument seem even more detached from reality

pros none? when there is currently a sever risk to democracies based on deep fake propaganda this law would at least reduce, this is clearly not none.

> has no downsides

no one said there are no downsides, you are putting words in other peoples mouths. But this law is basically applying content ingredient laws from e.g. food to AI generated content in a comparatively limited/mundane form.

> Your thinking seems to be dangerously naive to you and people around you.

Then please reason and not throw jumps to conclusions without reasoning at people and then complain that people don't reason with you and if they do just repeat the same jumps without any reasoning and indirectly tell people they are retarded or think dangerously while also using dishonest argumentative practices like taking their "it seems a good idea" and pretending they said "it has no downsides".

requiring deep fakes to be labeled as deep fakes has nothing to do with censorship

there is also nothing selectively about it, it applies to all deep fake equally

if you had read the article you would know that this is mainly about deep fakes and other deceptive content, not every use of an AI tool (e.g. line smoothing) requires an AI label, specifically it's only about content "generative AI" usage _in a context where it's potentially deceptive_.

> AI commissars who will decide which company will survive

a huge jump in logic not related to anything in this article

> I doubt EU will survive the next decade or two without major crisis or war tbh.

again unrelated, but any country which doesn't fights deep fake propaganda will most likely not survive as a democratic state of law, soo if anything this action increases the chance of survival

> Edit: Instead of downvoting, how about you try retorting?

- then maybe read the article properly, your comments put it highly in question you did

- also maybe don't have non logically sustained jumps in reasoning in your article, especially not when you jumps in reasoning come with tons of sarcasm

> I don't think I'm incorrect here. But maybe I am!

well yes, you have even missed the long known, explicitly pointed out sever threat deep fake propaganda is for any state and especially democracies. That is not a good bases for any argument.

Also passive aggressive edits are a good way to get even more down votes if anything.

In general, in EU

- law doesn't play "wording nitpicking", "Simon said" or similar nonsense. And this applies here, too.

- law doesn't care about what you or any "specific" person thinks something means/looks.

i.e. if you ask 1000 random people if something "looks authentic" and more then a very very small fractions says it is "authentic looking" then it is authentic looking (idk. what "more then a very small fraction" is, but 10% is definitely more)

Honestly any honest interpretation of "do you try or thing a random person from the street might mistake it as authentic (based on the _looks_, not content)" is giving you a pretty good idea for what it means. (honest here == not definition nitpicking, not egocentric, not elitist, not defaultist, etc. )

But also most relevant:

_This (authentic looking) is the wording of the article not the law/regulation._

This is mostly about content which tries to manipulate people with deep fakes.

And stuff like it being clear if e.g. a AI backed voice translation was used, as there had been more then one or two cases of voice translations being wrong in a way you would attribute to malice for a human translator.

E.g. Ai generated voice overs putting