I agree. While the article is correct that this problem of subtle bias exists, the solution for most cases is to realise that the computer "does what you say, not what you mean".

Not sure what a better term would be... Just being more specific might help, like "bias in the training data"?

But what does that mean? That the training distribution isn't representative of the population distribution, i.e. that it wasn't sampled IID? But the professors look pretty representative of real professors to me, so this doesn't sound very likely.

While I agree with you, and the article, that the larger problem is that the AI model simply hasn't experienced enough data to get an accurate grasp on the situation, or that the data was labelled in a way that influences the model's understanding, I think the problem here may be a human one. In the article update, the author says that they managed to craft a prompt that got the result they want by specifying the banana must be on its own. The model knows what a banana on its own looks like, but the human is expecting the model to "do what I mean" and getting frustrated when the model "did what I said". Now, I'll admit that I skimmed the last third of the article, but I didn't see any mention that things like Stable Diffusion and Midjourny have a syntax, saying "a single banana casting a shadow on a grey background" is different from "((single banana)), casting shadow, hard light, dramatic, grey background" for example.

Apparently those kinds of people consider you to be the one with the communication disorder. I consider them incapable of writing an abstract.

Facebook is foreign to me, and my country has no first amendment, we only allow their constant spying because we are part of the five eyes and it is beneficial for us to let the yanks do whatever the hell they want to us.

There's an emoji for handgun, but Apple and other big tech decided it needed to be a water gun. There is also a rifle character intended to represent the sport of shooting in a pentathlon, but again Apple threw its weight around and, while the character became codified in Unicode, it never became an emoji and no font from big tech supports it.

I'm glad you've explained it. Maybe I'm being dumb, but I can't see where the article actually says what laws are being violated.

Then make a dedicated fall detector and sell it to the elderly. They already make wrist bands with panic buttons that phone for help, put the sensor in the phone hub just in case they fall and lose consciousness.

I have a few wallets with alleged RFID blocking. For those its mainly to stop arse grabbing attacks where card info (or security badge info) could be cloned with a little badge reader held in someone's palm.

Smart cards store secret keys and modifiable internal state on-device. Older smart cards, with for example a MIFARE chip from around the year 2000, can be cloned relatively easily because they have many vulnerabilities, but newer cards with for example an NXP SmartMX2 P60 are, to date, impossible to clone unless you have access to the card for a large amount of time.

You'd also be surprised how powerful smart cards are these days. the aforementioned NXP chip has 586 KB ROM, 144 KB EEPROM and 11 KB RAM, crypto coprocessors for RSA/ECC/DES/AES, and a 32-bit CPU.