It would just mean your total fixed subscription cost is apportioned across all of the artists you play in the month in proportion. It’s not an extremely difficult calculation.
Well, that’s about as low effort as Suno gets, so I’m
not sure you should expect to like it more than a laugh. But when you put effort into the songwriting and shaping you can produce legitimately good music. This is my third highest ranking streaming song and it actually got some airplay on US radio stations - https://music.apple.com/au/album/too-much-winning/1788045206...
It is a reference to specific testing of general models. Specific models can probably do this pretty easily, but genearl vision models acting on video still struggle. Not sure why this is controversial or down voted. Go and test it for yourself.
G'day mate - Australian here too, but I have to strongly disagree with equating social media age verification to buying alcohol or tobacco.
There's a fundamental difference between regulated privileges that can physically harm/kill people (drinking, smoking, driving) and basic rights of communication and information access that democracies depend on.
Your government ID verification example actually highlights the key problem - whether it's platforms or government holding the data, you're creating a permanent link between real identity and every comment, like, share and interaction. That's not at all like showing ID at a bottle shop - it's more like having to show ID before every conversation you have at the pub, with someone keeping a permanent record. This verification applies to everyone, not just kids. In any case, they should not have their access to information restricted. Currently, X is the most legitimate source of real news with Community notes, where legacy media has completed failed - WMD, Lab Leak, etc. Etc.
Think about what that means for:
- Whistleblowers exposing corruption
- People discussing sensitive health issues
- Anyone criticizing powerful institutions
- Workers organizing or discussing workplace issues
- People exploring political views different from their family/employer
- Activists trying to create positive change
The "conflict of interest" argument cuts both ways - governments have a clear interest in expanding surveillance capabilities. Many of us opposing this genuinely care about preserving democratic freedoms, not corporate profits.
I get the desire to protect kids (I'm a parent too), but this is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We can push for better parental controls, algorithmic transparency, and targeting of specific harmful behaviors without compromising the anonymous speech that democracies need to function.
Surveillance creep has real effects on public discourse, and this is classic authoritarianism wrapped in “think of the children”.
The fact that an overwhelming amount of the 15,000 responses in 24hr oppose this makes your humble opinion that you want it in a tiny minority.