If your chatbot provided you 1.5 feet worth of value before shooting your foot it may have been worth it. The optimal self damage to maximize total value may be non 0.
>The optimal self damage to maximize total value may be non 0.
This is the calculus that large companies use all the time when committing acts that are 'most likely' illegal. While they may be fined million of dollars they at least believe they'll make 10s to 100s of millions on said action.
Now, for you as an individual things are far more risky.
You don't have a nest of heathen lawyers to keep you out of trouble.
You can't bully nation states, government entities, or even other large companies.
You individually may be held civilly or criminally liable if things go bad enough.
The law forbids government ID as the sole age verification mechanism, but does not prevent it from being an option:
> As stated in the law passed late last year, platforms also cannot rely solely on using government-issued ID for age verification, even though the government-backed technology study found this to be the most effective screening method.
> Instead, the guidelines will direct platforms to take a "layered" approach to assessing age with multiple methods and to "minimise friction" for their users — such as by using AI-driven models that assess age with facial scans or by tracking user behaviour.
AMD's PSP (now ASP) seems to be more of a local attack surface[2] that has its fair share of vulnerabilities.[3]
[1] https://www.franksworld.com/2025/09/18/the-intel-backdoor-no...
[2] https://www.digit.in/features/laptops/intel-me-and-amd-psp-t...
[3] https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/a...
reply