But this really isn't a registry key or tool, though. Did you click my link? It's a simple on/off toggle in the system settings menu. You just open the settings and click "off." I don't see how much simpler they could make it.
Do you really believe you can disable and remove all of the numerous data collection and spyware components that are baked into all aspects of the OS?
Yes. Because Windows is used by a lot of big giant corporations that would sue the hell out of Microsoft if it wasn't possible to disable those features.
I trust that Microsoft fears the lawsuits that would ensue if they were caught lying about it, and that they wouldn't derive any significant benefit from lying about it. Why would they?
Whereas I use Windows 11 on all of my machines, including one I use for my job as a programmer and regularly put through the wringer, and I don't actually know what the Windows 11 version of the blue screen of death looks like because I have never crashed the OS. I can't recall the last time I saw a bug like what you're describing, either. So I don't know what you're doing wrong with your Windows 11 install, but it seems I've somehow avoided it without particularly trying.
The problem appears to be that the magazine deceptively portrayed it as an interview with the actual Michael Schumacher, rather than explaining that it was fictional. The lawsuit would probably be the same if the magazine had had a human writer come up with it all instead.
Yeah, it's unclear whether copyright is even relevant when it comes to training AI. It feels a lot like people who feel very strongly about intellectual property but have clearly confused trademarks, patents, copyright, and maybe even regular old property law - they've got an idea of what they think is "right" and "wrong" but it's not closely attached to any actual legal theory.
Well, I haven't gone to any of my image AIs and actually asked them to generate naked pictures of young people. So unless you want to go there this will necessarily involve some degree of theoretical elements.
However, according to the article it's possible to generate this stuff with Stable Diffusion models, and Stable Diffusion models have a negligible amount of CSAM in the training set. So short of actually doing the experiment that would seem to settle it.
I think a lot of people don't appreciate just how surprisingly sophisticated the "world model" that these image AIs have learned is. There was a paper a while back where some researchers were trying to analyze how image generators were working internally, and they discovered that if you were to for example ask one to make a picture of a bicycle it will first come up with a depth map of the image before it starts doing anything to the visual output. That shows that the AI has figured out what the three-dimensional form of a bicycle is based entirely on a pile of two-dimensional training images, with no other clues telling it that the third dimension even exists in the first place.
We aren't disagreeing because that's not what I was addressing in the first place. The comment I'm responding to, from Dave, reads:
In that case probably the strongest argument is that if it were legal, many people would get off charges of real CSAM because the prosecuter can't prove that it wasn't AI generated.
Emphasis added. The premise of the scenario is that possession of such images (ie, AI-generated CSAM) is not illegal. Given that, for purposes of argument, it follows that this would indeed be a valid defense. You'd need to prove in court that the CSAM pictures that you're charging someone with possessing are not AI-generated, in that scenario.
If you want to have a wider discussion of whether AI-generated CSAM images should be illegal, that's a separate matter.
It's not the specific thing being made illegal, it's the underlying philosophy of "Better a dozen innocent men go to prison than one guilty man go free" I'm arguing against here. Most western justice systems operate under a principle of requiring guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is doubt then guilt cannot be considered proven and the person is not convicted.
The comment I'm responding to is proposing a situation where non-AI-generated images are illegal but AI-generated ones aren't, and that there's no way to tell the difference just by looking at the image itself. In that situation you couldn't convict someone merely based on the existence of the image because it could have been AI-generated. That's fundamental to the "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" philosophy I'm talking about, to do otherwise would mean that innocent people could very easily be convicted of crimes they didn't do.