Yes. The main issue is hardware attestation, e.g. the bank's backend refusing to allow you to log in unless you can prove cryptographically that you are running a Google-certified device and operating system.
I suspect your hypothesis is not falsifiable. Maybe randomly advertising golf balls to random people is just as effective, but we don't have the tracking infrastructure in place for non-targeted ads in order to test that theory.
For a creator posting a video, Google gives specific guidelines on whether to tag it as AI:
"Was AI used to generate or edit your content in any of the following ways?
- Makes a real person appear to say or do something they didn’t say or do
- Alters footage of a real event or place
- Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn’t actually occur
To follow YouTube’s policy, you’re required to tell us about your use of AI. This includes realistic sounds or visuals made or edited with AI. [View examples](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491)"
So oddly an intro graphic only has to be tagged as AI if it shows a real/realistic person, place, or event, but (per the examples page) apparently any AI-generated music counts.
No, you see, they were right all along, they just "didn't anticipate the public outcry against data center expansion", thus the obviously inevitable AI takeover of the economy is being slowed by NIMBY curmudgeons who should be ignored and punished.
Wouldn't OHA agreements prevent shipping a non-Google-certified Android? Unless you mean a future device with GrapheneOS might potentially go through CTS and ship with Google apps preinstalled?
OEMs are fully allowed to include official support for GrapheneOS and sell batches of devices to companies selling those devices with GrapheneOS. It isn't hard to work around Google's licensing terms. It's already being done by multiple OEMs today.
Google's licensing terms are also clearly a blatant violation of antitrust law. The licensing terms have already been invalidated in multiple countries including South Korea. Samsung is no longer bound by the same terms, which isn't fair to other OEMs.
The labeling of groups as "terrorist" is intended to justify authorization for military action against those groups, where, prior to the Global War on Terror, state affiliation or outright sponsorship was typically needed for a military response.
reply