The world wants to verify the age of children so that they do not access social networks. Children’s solution: paint a mustache

The United Kingdom presume to have one of the strictest legislations in the world when it comes to protecting minors from social networks. The curious thing is that young people are managing to demonstrate that age verification technology has a unique Achilles heel: an eyebrow pencil. Look, I have a mustache. The British country has been forcing platforms to implement age verification measures in accordance with its Online Safety Act for months. However, a recent study from the NGO Internet Matters reveals that the limits imposed by these platforms are surprisingly easy to overcome. In fact, one of the methods is especially striking, because some children simply use an eyebrow pencil to paint a mustache and thus look older than they really are. Children 1 – Machines 0. This agency surveyed 1,000 children and parents in the United Kingdom and although it showed positive effects after activating these measures, it also made it clear that many children saw these systems as an easy obstacle to overcome rather than as a way to keep them safe. 46% of minors believe that the measures are easy to overcome. Only 17% believe that they are very difficult to avoid, while 19% say they do not know. Source: Internet Matters. Cheating machines is trivial. 46% of the children surveyed indicated that These age verification systems are easy to overcomeand only 17% found them difficult to avoid. There are several methods to overcome these systems, but most are simple. For example, using video game characters like ‘Death Stranding’ to show them in front of cameras trying to verify their age. Also show IDs of other people when asked, or simply use false birth dates. (At least) One in three skips the controls. But not everyone uses these methods: although the aforementioned 46% say that it is easy to overcome these systems and another 17% say that they are neither easy nor difficult, “only” 32% admit to having used some technique to overcome them. Of course, it is one thing that only 32% admit it and quite another that these figures are representative taking into account that they are confessing that they are doing something that they should not do. Methods vary, but many use fake birth dates or log in with their parents’ or siblings’ accounts. Complicit parents. The effectiveness of the Online Safety Act depends largely on the family environment, with data suggesting that at least a quarter of parents are uncooperative. The study indicates that 26% of parents have allowed their children to ignore or overcome these age verification systems, and in fact 17% admit have actively helped their children to evade these controls while 9% simply turn a blind eye. It’s not that big of a deal. Many parents justify this “help” by indicating that they understand the risks of their children accessing these platforms, but prefer to supervise the use of services such as TikTok or video games themselves. The idea: allow your children to bypass restrictions to play with friends or stream, but theoretically under your supervision. The failure of putting doors to the field. It’s not just that age verification systems are easy to overcome: The thing is that they do not eliminate risks completely either. In the Internet Matters study, almost half of the minors surveyed (49%) indicated that they had recently encountered toxic material on the Internet. This makes it clear that even children who do not try to bypass these controls still encounter inappropriate content. There are those who advocate going further and push for the end of online anonymity. Image | Jeremiah Lawrence In Xataka | The EU has just ready its app to verify age on the internet. And Ursula von der Leyen warns: “There are no more excuses”

Silicon-carbon seems to be the holy grail in batteries. I have spoken to an Honor engineer to verify this

For years, smartphones have been asked for something that didn’t seem so complicated: that their battery last more than two days. It turns out that it was complicated, and that manufacturers have had to wait for the only technology that, for the moment, makes this possible to mature. This technology is the silicon-carbonand companies like Honor were pioneers in its implementation in commercial phones. He Honor Magic5 Prolaunched in 2023, was the first high-end smartphone to incorporate it. Three years later, the industry trend leaves no room for doubt: –this is the way– that is the way. After the launch of Honor 600at Xataka we have had the opportunity to speak with Lun Lu, one of the engineers in Honor’s battery department. And yes, he told us little things. Just because One of the greatest limitations of the human being has to do with the “what ifs”, followed by a negative consequence. In the case of silicon-carbon batteries, no manufacturer dared to implement them commercially. Until Honor decided to accompany her “what if…” with a positive consequence. I ask Lu when it was clear to them, when they knew it was the right time to make the jump to silicon-carbon. He tells me that a year before, in 2021, they felt that they were ready and were clear that the technology was mature. They began to allocate resources to design the architecture and start talking to their partners for mass production. This is precisely one of the keys that makes the process so slow. The chemistry of these batteriesthe changes that need to be made at the design level, the security measures that its implementation requires… it is a slow and delicate engineering process. And this answers my question why do you think that some of the Western manufacturers (Apple, Google) They are not yet on the boat. But… what exactly are we talking about? We are clear that Honor was the pioneer in introducing silicon-carbon but… what exactly are we talking about? How could we explain to someone who has no idea about technology what these types of batteries are and what they provide? Lu explains it without any complications: we are facing a great advance through which we can introduce batteries with much more energy in the same size. In other words, where certain mAh used to fit, now many more fit. Much more lithium per gram can be stored in silicon-carbon batteries than in traditional batteries, up to ten times more on a theoretical level. In the new Honor 600, without going any further, they have introduced a 6,400mAh battery in a body of only 7.8mm. It is much thinner than most of its direct rivals with 5,000mAh batteries, and in our analysis it has reached three days of use. Yes, but If the path to silicon-carbon was only surrounded by flowers, there would be no doubts about its implementation. But everything has fine print. We asked about the biggest challenges when implementing this technology. And the answer is clear: your safety, without room for discussion. Introducing silicon greatly complicates the internal stability of the cell, since its volumetric expansion when absorbing lithium ions is considerable and The fear of possible fans is present in the industry. Zhua says that designing this type of battery is a challenge, but that the department takes into account each of the limitations and possible problems of this technology with a view to the long term, since Honor knows that the trend in the industry is towards maintaining the same mobile phone for a few years. Another fairly recurring doubt with these batteries has to do with the cycles they support. In recent years, one of the obsessions has been to ensure that traditional batteries do not degrade excessively. after 1,000 cycles (about what we would do in a couple of years of heavy use). Although he does not reveal all his secrets, Lu says that Honor has been researching for years how to alleviate the early degradation of silicon-carbon, optimizing manufacturing processes to keep them to a minimum. The E1 and E2 chips, implemented in the Magic family and responsible for energy management (co-processors that accompany the main CPU), are responsible for controlling charging and discharging in real time, adjusting consumption according to temperature, voltage and use, and trying to improve cold performance. The last big limitation has to do with what Lu considers “a big problem,” and answers my question of how a manufacturer like Honor deals with having to make a device with one battery destined for China and another destined for Europe. The European Union has strict controls and restrictions with battery imports, and this is slowing down the advances that China is developing. “We would like to provide batteries with the most advanced technology and the highest energy density all over the world, but regulations cannot be discussed. What we can do right now is somewhat limited, because regulations are a red line that we cannot cross.” From the bar counter The phone battery is one of the components most subject to bar counter conversations. “Fast charging is bad.” “It is better to charge up to 80%.” “Silicon carbon batteries have almost no silicon.” Claims that are sometimes made without knowing the scientific support that supports them (or not). So I take the opportunity to ask Lu about some recurring myths and the direction in which these batteries are going. To the first question, it makes it quite clear to me that today there is no difference between charge quickly and charge slowly. There is some truth to the myth: uncontrolled fast charging is harmful, but current battery and charger design takes this issue into account. Regarding the famous 80-20% ruleit is something totally proven. There is no problem in charging to 100%, but keeping the battery in this range helps to extend its useful life. It is risky to give specific information on how many cycles we can gain, since it will depend on … Read more

Europe wants users to verify their age to navigate the Internet. Google does not need it: you can estimate it with AI

In February Google advertisement They were going to start starting an experimental system based on AI and automatic learning (Machine Learning) for Estimate the age of users of its services. That technology, initially thought to avoid access to adult content on YouTube, will now serve much more, although for now it will be restricted to the United States. Automated restrictions. If Google detects that a user is under 18 in the US, it will apply the same restrictions that it applies when users are proactively identified as minors – for example, when creating Gmail accounts. Thus, it will enable reminders to go to sleep on YouTube, it will limit content recommendations and disable both personalized advertising and access to Adult applications in Play Store. What happens if AI is wrong. If Google’s system incorrectly estimates that a user is under 18, said user will be able to send a photo of his identity card (in the US, that of driving usually), of a credit card or even a selfie. First, that Google ends up having a photo of those documents It is quite disturbing. Second, the selfie option is especially surprising, because a priori might not be enough to verify that someone is not a minor. Remembering How-Ord.net. Microsoft a decade ago launched an AI experiment according to which a user could upload a photo of one or more people, and the service He tried to guess the age of those people. The tool quickly went viral, but it was also controversial because of its possible impact on privacy. A study Of 2022 he revealed that various systems of this type were quite precise when guessing age in young people, but not so much in older people. Companies specialized in this area as Yoti explain that The margin of error is already reducedand its system has an average 1.3 -year error in young people between 13 and 17 years old. How to estimate the google age. Google’s age estimation model will use the existing data of its users, including the websites they visit, what type of videos do they see on YouTube or how long their accounts have had. What about privacy. According to Google, this approach “does not imply the collection of additional data”, but of all that information that you already have thanks to the profiles that users use to access their services. They also ensure that they will not share that estimate with apps or websites. Goal already implemented A similar system on Instagram months ago. The age verification fever. The movements in this regard are increasingly striking. Before the excuse for companies and governments to spy on us and knew more about us was the terrorist threat. Now it is that minors They can access adult content. There is a unique fever for developing age verification systems everywhere, and we are seeing it especially in Europe … and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom teaches us how the future can be. One of the first countries to move in this area is the United Kingdom, which these days these days has activated its regulation so that minors cannot access adult content. The age verification systems must be present in all types of platforms, something that has been especially controversial there and that has generated a surprising (or perhaps not so much) Collateral effect: British users They have begun to subscribe in mass to VPN services to avoid having to pass those age verification controls. The EU wants its own “pajporte”. The controversy introduction of the Digital portfolio beta In Spain —Popularly known as “Pajortport” – is one of the great steps that EU member countries are facing the future European digital identity. Among the options that will enable this mobile application will be to verify the age of the users, and in fact the Spanish initiative is serving as inspiration For a European system. Said system, yes, is not exempt from controversy. It remains to be seen if the Google system is really effective, and if it is, how its deployment progresses and what impact that has on the intentions of various countries to control the age of users. In Xataka | Allowing an app to “all photos” of our gallery looks like the most harmless action in the world. It is not at all

We have tried to use AI to verify if the images of the war between Iran and Israel were made with AI. It has been a disaster

False images circulate on social networks is no novelty, but in the era of AI It is increasingly difficult to detect them And they have even made Let’s distrust real photos. That photos taken with AI are viral when an important event is the new normality is; We saw it After the blackout And also with him Conflict between Israel and Iran. It is clear to us that AI is very good to generate false images, but what if we use it precisely for the contrary? Not so much. The photos in question. At the same time as a Half Iranian published The news that Iran had demolished an Israeli F-35, two images began to run like gunpowder on social networks, although We soon knew they were false. One of them, that of the star and surrounded by curious F35, is especially striking. To begin with, the proportions make no sense: the plane seems giant when actually measures 16 meters and people are larger than buildings. And that not to mention that the damage of the plane is minimal to have been shot down. These images were not the only ones generated by AI that circulated in the first days of the conflict. Several videos such as this one of a huge Iranian missile that it seems quite real until we see that the water brand has been left to see that it is made with the, or East of a tel aviv shattered. AI is terrible doing FACT-CHECK. Means dedicated to FACT-CHECKING as Damn already denied These and other images created with AI in the context of the conflict between Iran and Israel. However, there were users who tried to resort to AI tools to check the authenticity of the images and obtained quite confusing answers. Is What happened in X with Grok. An analysis of more than 130,000 posts revealed that Musk’s AI was not able to detect some false images or identify the sources from which they came. The community notes written by the users themselves were much more reliable. We have tried it. To check the AI ​​capacities, we have used the image of the disproportionate F-35 and have asked several AI tools. This is what they have answered: Chatgpt: The Openai tool begins “This image does not seem real” and then proceeds to make an analysis of the proportion of the plane, which correctly identifies as a F35, and states that the damage does not seem coherent. Perplexity: Like Chatgpt, he tells us that proportions, perspective, and airplane damage and other details suggest that the photo has been digitally manipulated. Gemini: It tells us that the image is real, but that it is not an attack in combat, but of a clash with birds that happened in Israel in 2017. When we answer that the sources show us, it happens several links to the news, but in none of them the image appears. After a while sending us confusing information, he ends up recognizing that he was wrong and apologizes for “the serious mistake.” Claude: It is the only one that states with forcefulness that the image is not real and gives us the exact context of what has happened “this is one of the many false images that have circulated as part of misinformation campaigns during the conflict between Israel and Iran.” The reliability, pending subject. In our test, Gemini has completely invented the answer, while Chatgpt and Perplexity succeed, although they do not get wet. Claude is the only one that gives us all the information and hits fully. Although language models have improved a lot in a short time, Many answers continue to be invented Despite having access to the Internet and searches. Undoubtedly, reliability is the pending subject of generative AI and where more improvement margin has. Images | 404 average In Xataka | Chatgpt guide: 22 functions and things you can do to squeeze this artificial intelligence to the maximum

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.