In the past, The Asahi Shimbun distributed “shain techo” (employee notebook/planner) pocket diaries to all employees at the end of the year.
I remember opening my new techo to a blank page and vowing to use it regularly—at least for a while, anyway. I would mark the dates of upcoming interviews, appointments and other plans, being mindful of keeping my handwriting neat and legible.
“Techorui Toshoshitsu” in Tokyo’s Yoyogi district is a small, library-like institution that keeps a collection of pocket planners and diaries with handwritten entries.
It is run by Masafumi Shirado, 45, a game programmer who became fascinated by people’s “personal records that were not intended to be shown to anyone.” Over time, Shirado purchased or received donations of about 2,000 such items.
I viewed a diary of a male company worker in his 50s. By coincidence, one entry, dated Dec. 26, 2003, was a Friday, just like this year.
“Received my salary today,” it went. “Repaid my loan of 50,000 yen, but on my way home I lost 25,000 yen playing pachinko. I’ll be in serious trouble unless I lie really low during the New Year’s holiday.”
And he scribbled in the margin over and over: “Got to be frugal, thrifty.”
But on Jan. 2, he confessed to what made me giggle: “Am I weak-willed? Had my annual gambling kickoff.”
Another man in his 60s asked himself on the last page of his planner, “Did this year go without incident, again?” This was written in red ink and straddled several days’ worth of space.
People make their resolutions, break them and then promise again to do better. This is all so human.
For many people, Dec. 26 must have been their last day of work this year. I wonder if they have successfully achieved what they wished for at the start of the year.
Alas, my wish was to be able to write a more worthwhile column.
For now, I think I’ll start by buying a new paper diary or planner for the first time in quite a while and write down the same wish in super-big letters.
–The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 27
* * *
Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a popular daily column that takes up a wide range of topics, including culture, arts and social trends and developments. Written by veteran Asahi Shimbun writers, the column provides useful perspectives on and insights into contemporary Japan and its culture.
The State Bank of Pakistan injected Rs2.06 trillion into the banking system on Friday through conventional and Shariah-compliant open market operations to meet increased liquidity needs linked to government borrowing.
Under the conventional open market operation, the SBP injected Rs1.728 trillion for five days at an average rate of 10.51%. Separately, Rs335 billion was provided through a Shariah-compliant Mudarabah-based OMO for the same tenor at a rate of 10.53%, according to the central bank.
Commenting on the development, Saad Hanif, head of research at Ismail Iqbal Securities, said liquidity conditions continue to reflect the banking sector’s central role in financing the fiscal deficit.
He said the Rs2.06tr injection showed that system liquidity tightens when government cash balances rise or tax collections accelerate, leading banks to depend on central bank funding to manage short-term mismatches.
Hanif noted that full bid acceptance in both conventional and Islamic OMOs indicated persistent liquidity demand driven by government financing requirements rather than private-sector credit growth. He added that, in such conditions, OMOs function primarily as an operational tool to recycle liquidity and keep money-market rates within the policy corridor.
Earlier this month, the SBP reduced its benchmark policy rate by 50 basis points to 10.5pc, after holding rates at 11pc for four consecutive policy meetings. The central bank last cut rates in May 2025.
With the latest reduction, the SBP’s Monetary Policy Committee has lowered the policy rate by a cumulative 1,150 basis points since it peaked at 22pc in June 2024.
A Bethel cold case murder spotlights faults in the Alaska justice system. Plus, Juneau residents should expect a lot of snow in the coming days. And, an Utqiaġvik artist is designing a workbook to help young children learn Iñupiaq.
Reports tonight from:
Clarise Larson and Jamie Diep in Juneau, Evan Erickson in Bethel, Katherine Rose in Sitka, Alena Naiden in Anchorage.
This episode of Alaska News Nightly is hosted by Wesley Early with audio engineering from Crystal Hyde and producing by Madilyn Rose.
On December 17, the Federal Reserve Board rescinded its 2023 Policy Statement interpreting Section 9(13) of the Federal Reserve Act, which had effectively precluded all state member banks from engaging as principal in activities that are not permitted for national banks or insured state-chartered banks.[1] At the same time, the Board ordered the withdrawal of the Federal Register preamble text that had accompanied the 2023 Policy Statement, which had described in particularly restrictive terms how the 2023 Policy Statement would apply to particular crypto-asset activities, such as holding crypto-assets as principal.[2] In place of the 2023 Policy Statement, the Federal Reserve adopted a new Policy Statement that articulates a more permissive approach to defining the scope of activities that may be engaged in by state member banks, if authorized under state law.[3] This action represents a further step in the broader liberalization of the approach taken by the Federal Reserve and other federal banking agencies toward digital asset-related activities.[4]
Legal Framework and Policy Statement
Under Section 9(13) of the Federal Reserve Act, a state member bank may “exercise all corporate powers granted it by the State in which it was created … except that the [Board] may limit the activities of State member banks and subsidiaries of State member banks in a manner consistent with Section 24 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [(the “FDIA”)].”[5] Section 24 of the FDIA and Part 362 of the FDIC’s regulations in turn generally prohibit insured state banks (including insured state member banks) from engaging as principal in any type of activity that is not permissible for national banks, unless the FDIC has determined the activity would not pose significant risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund, and the insured state bank continues to be in compliance with applicable capital standards.[6] National banks are granted certain enumerated powers by the National Bank Act, as well as “all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking,” as determined by the OCC.[7]
The Federal Reserve’s 2023 Policy Statement established a presumption that the Federal Reserve would exercise its discretion under 9(13) to restrict both insured and uninsured state member banks to those activities that would be permissible for national banks under the National Bank Act and OCC regulations—subject any terms, conditions and limitations placed on national banks by the OCC, including any requirement to obtain supervisory preclearance—or for insured state banks under the FDIA and Part 362 of the FDIC regulations.[8]
The Federal Reserve’s new Policy Statement replaces the 2023 Policy Statement in its entirety. The text of the new Policy Statement continues to prohibit insured state member banks from engaging in any activity not permitted to national banks except to the extent allowed by the FDIC, although it makes clear that no separate application to the Federal Reserve is required for an insured state member bank to do so. The new Policy Statement directs insured state banks to apply to the FDIC in the absence of statutory or regulatory authority to engage in an activity, and does not require any additional application to the Board.[9] Accordingly, the Federal Reserve will defer to the FDIC’s individualized determinations with respect to the permissibility of the activities of insured state member banks going forward.
With respect to uninsured state member banks (or new or existing uninsured state banks that might consider applying for Federal Reserve membership), the new Policy Statement represents a more significant shift. As in the 2023 Policy Statement, uninsured state member banks seeking to exercise a power granted under state law are instructed to look first to the OCC’s rules governing national banks and the FDIC’s rules governing insured state banks. In the absence of authority from either source, an uninsured state member bank must seek permission from the Federal Reserve to engage in the activity under Section 208.3(d)(2) of Regulation H, which deals with changes to the general character of the member bank’s business or the scope of the corporate powers it exercises, or in its application to obtain Federal Reserve membership.[10] Under the 2023 Policy Statement, the Federal Reserve would have presumptively denied that permission absent a “clear and compelling rationale for the Board to allow the proposed deviation in regulatory treatment among federally supervised banks.”[11] By contrast, under the new Policy Statement, the Federal Reserve will assess such requests more permissively, considering “whether the uninsured state member bank would be capable of engaging in such activity in a safe and sound manner,” taking into account the bank’s regulatory framework, the risks of the proposed activity, and how the bank would mitigate risks posed by the lack of deposit insurance.[12]
Although the 2023 Policy Statement, on its face, applied to all activities in which a state member bank might wish to engage, it was clearly focused on the risks of “crypto-asset-related activities” and was accompanied by preamble text setting out the Federal Reserve’s position that many such activities, including “holding most crypto-assets, including bitcoin and ether, as principal in any amount,” would be presumptively prohibited for state member banks.[13] In rescinding the 2023 Policy Statement, the Federal Reserve has also withdrawn the guidance contained in that 2023 preamble text “given its evolving understanding of the risks of the crypto-asset sector and its desire to facilitate innovation in a manner consistent with safety and soundness and preserving the stability of the U.S. financial system.”[14] The withdrawn guidance includes the statement in the 2023 preamble that the Federal Reserve Board “generally believes that issuing tokens on open, public and/or decentralized networks, or similar systems is highly likely to be inconsistent with safe and sound banking practices.”[15]
Implications
The 2023 Policy Statement, which was unanimously adopted by the Federal Reserve Board at the time, was expressly justified by reference to the principle that “the same bank activity, presenting the same risks, should be subject to the same regulatory framework.”[16] The 2023 Policy Statement sought to apply the powers limitations applicable to national banks and insured state banks uniformly to state member banks, whether insured or uninsured, on the basis that there should be a level playing field in terms of available powers among all federally supervised banks. In adopting the new Policy Statement, the Federal Reserve Board has emphasized what it describes as the corresponding “reciprocal principle” of “different activity, different risks, different regulation” to adopt a very different substantive position “designed to facilitate innovation by state member banks.”[17]
The new Policy Statement represents a further step in the broader liberalization of the approach taken by the Federal Reserve and other federal banking agencies toward digital asset-related activities. For insured state member banks, the Federal Reserve’s indication that it will defer to the FDIC’s determinations regarding permissible activities and will not require a separate application for permission to engage in such activities may contribute to a clearer path to more extensive digital asset-related activity by insured state member banks, especially when combined with other recent actions taken by the FDIC and other banking agencies. For new or existing uninsured state banks, including those which engage in crypto-asset activities, the new Policy Statement and the accompanying preamble may suggest greater receptivity by the Board to applications for Federal Reserve membership by uninsured state banks engaged in such activities.
In what may be considered a thematically similar action, the Federal Reserve on December 19 released a request for public input and comment on a prototype for special purpose Federal Reserve Bank “payment accounts” that would be available to eligible financial institutions without a full-service Federal Reserve Bank “master account.”[18] Under the payment account proposal, uninsured state member banks that may potentially be empowered under the new Policy Statement to exercise a broader scope of state-granted powers would also be eligible to receive a payment account. Moreover, to the extent the new Policy Statement makes it easier for uninsured state member banks that intend to exercise broader state-granted powers to gain Federal Reserve membership, it would correspondingly enable some of these institutions to be accorded Tier 2 rather than Tier 3 status under the Federal Reserve Account Access Guidelines, potentially improving their prospects to be granted a Federal Reserve account in some form.[19]
[1] See Press Release, Board of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., Federal Reserve Board Withdraws 2023 Policy Statement and Issues New Policy Statement Regarding the Treatment of Certain Board-supervised Banks that Facilitates Responsible Innovation (Dec. 17, 2025), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20251217a.htm; Board of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., Policy Statement on Section 9(13) of the Federal Reserve Act, 90 Fed. Reg. 59731 (Dec. 22, 2025) [hereinafter 2025 Policy Statement] (codified at 12 C.F.R. § 208.112). For the rescinded 2023 policy statement, see Board of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., Policy Statement on Section 9(13) of the Federal Reserve Act, 88 Fed. Reg. 7848 (Feb. 7, 2023) [hereinafter 2023 Policy Statement]. The action was undertaken by a 6-1 vote of the Board, with Governor Barr dissenting.
[2] See 2023 Policy Statement,88 Fed. Reg. at 7850.
[3] Insured state member banks will remain subject to the limitations imposed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The rescission became effective upon the publication of the revised policy statement in the Federal Register on December 22. Both the 2023 and 2025 policy statements also apply to subsidiaries of state member banks.
[4] For more information, see our prior client memoranda such as, for example, S&C Memo, OCC Clarifies Permissible Crypto-Asset Activities (Mar. 9, 2025), /SullivanCromwell/_Assets/PDFs/Memos/OCC-Clarifies-Permissible-Crypto-Asset-Activities.pdf; S&C Memo, FDIC Simplifies Process for Banks to Engage in Crypto-Related Activities (Apr. 2, 2025), /SullivanCromwell/_Assets/PDFs/Memos/FDIC-Simplifies-Process-Banks-Engage-Crypto-Activities.pdf; S&C Memo, Federal Reserve Board and FDIC Withdraw Crypto-Asset Activities Guidance (Apr. 25, 2025), /insights/memo/2025/April/Federal-Reserve-Board-FDIC-Withdraw-Crypto-Asset-Activities-Guidance; S&C Memo, OCC Clarifies Bank Authority to Engage in Crypto Custody and Execution Services (May 9, 2025), available at /insights/memo/2025/May/OCC-Clarifies-Bank-Authority-Engage-Crypto-Custody-Execution-Services; and S&C Memo, Federal Banking Regulators Issue Crypto-Asset Safekeeping Statement (July 16, 2025), /insights/memo/2025/July/Federal-Banking-Regulators-Issue-Crypto-Asset-Safekeeping-Statement.
[8] 2023 Policy Statement, 88 Fed. Reg. at 7851. On the same day as it adopted the 2023 policy statement, the Board announced that it had denied the application by Custodia Bank, Inc., an uninsured Wyoming state bank focused on crypto-assets, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System and to open a master account. See Press Release, Board of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., Federal Reserve Board Announces Denial of Application by Custodia Bank, Inc. to Become a Member of the Federal Reserve System (Jan. 27, 2023), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/orders20230127a.htm. For our prior client memorandum discussing the 2023 policy statement and associated guidance, see S&C Memo, Federal Reserve Board Policy Statement on Permissible State Member Bank Activities (Jan. 30, 2023), /SullivanCromwell/_Assets/PDFs/Memos/sc-publication-federal-reserve-policy-statement-permissible-activities.pdf.
[9] See 2025 Policy Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. at 59732 (“If there is no authority for an insured state-chartered bank to engage in a particular activity as principal under federal statute or part 362 of the FDIC’s regulations, an insured state member bank should apply to the FDIC for permission to engage in the activity as principal under part 362 of the FDIC’s regulations.”); id., 90 Fed. Reg. at 59733 (“If there is no authority for an insured State-chartered bank to engage in a particular activity as principal under Federal statute or part 362 of the FDIC’s regulations, that activity must be authorized for insured depository institutions by the FDIC under section 24 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.”). Where the 2023 Policy Statement contemplates “a state member bank” seeking Board approval under Section 208.3(d)(2) of Regulation H, the new Policy Statement only describes an “uninsured State member bank” making such an application. 2023 Policy Statement, 88 Fed. Reg. at 7851; 2025 Policy Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. at 59733 (emphasis added).
[10] 2025 Policy Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. at 59733.
[11] 2023 Policy Statement, 88 Fed. Reg. at 7851.
[12] 2025 Policy Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. at 59732-33. The preamble associated with the 2025 policy statement elaborated on this evaluation, stating: “Among other things, the Board may consider whether the uninsured state member bank has a financial profile that is at least as effective as deposit insurance in minimizing the risk of deposit runs and contagion. This may, for example, be demonstrated if the uninsured state member bank has (i) a sufficient amount of total loss-absorbing capacity (consisting of capital and long-term debt) that is subordinate to the bank’s deposits and other short-term liabilities; or (ii) high-quality liquid assets [(“HQLA”)] equal to 100 percent of the bank’s demand deposits and other short-term liabilities. The Board may also consider whether the uninsured state member bank has a resolution plan that demonstrates how the bank could be recapitalized or wound down in an orderly manner if it fails to remain a viable going concern.” Id., 90 Fed. Reg. at 59732. In taking this approach, the Federal Reserve appears to be opening the door for fully reserved or “narrow banks,” such as the special purpose depository institutions chartered by Wyoming (which are required by law to hold HQLA equal to at least 100 percent of outstanding deposits, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 13-12-105 (2025)), to obtain Federal Reserve membership (and in turn potentially a Federal Reserve account), a significant shift from the Federal Reserve’s position in recent years.
[13] 2023 Policy Statement, 88 Fed. Reg. at 7850.
[14] 2025 Policy Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. at 59732.
[15] 2023 Policy Statement, 88 Fed. Reg. at 7850.
[16] 2023 Policy Statement, 88 Fed. Reg. at 7848, 7851.
[17] 2025 Policy Statement, 90 Fed. Reg. at 59731.
Train stations, airports and expressways around Japan are expected to be crowded with year-end travelers on Saturday as vacations start and people head for their hometowns.
Japan Railway group companies say almost all seats on Shinkansen bullet trains out of Tokyo on the Tokaido, Sanyo, Joetsu, Hokuriku, Tohoku, Akita and Yamagata lines are booked for Saturday. Outbound routes are expected to remain congested through Tuesday.
All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines say domestic flights departing from Tokyo or Osaka are near full capacity through Tuesday.
A tailback of more than 20 kilometers is expected on the outbound lanes of the Tomei Expressway near the Ayase Smart Interchange in Kanagawa Prefecture through Wednesday.
A 20-kilometer traffic jam is also projected in the morning on Sunday and Monday on the Higashi-Meihan Expressway near the Kameyama parking area in Mie Prefecture.
Hassle-free returns may be a thing of the past, and if you’re staring at a stack of unwanted Christmas gifts, you may have to think twice before mailing them back.
Several major retailers are now charging customers to return items even if they are unopened and in perfect condition.
Macy’s now charges $9.99 for mail-in returns, while TJ Maxx and Marshalls each charge $11.99.
J. Crew charges $7.50 for mail-in returns, Abercrombie & Fitch charges $7, H&M charges $3.99 and Zara charges $4.95.
It can now cost as much as $45 to return certain electronics at Best Buy.
Amazon has also tightened its policy, charging some customers unless they use its box-free, in-person drop-off option.
According to a report from the National Retail Federation, Americans will return an estimated $850 billion worth of items to stores this year. And nearly 20% of all the things U.S. consumers purchase online are returned, according to the NRF.
David Sobie, who co-founded Happy Returns, a company that uses artificial intelligence robots to help make returns easier, says that the White House’s tariff policies could be to blame.
“Merchants now are under a tremendous amount of cost pressure,” Sobie told CBS News. “…They’re really trying to offset some of the costs that they face in returns by asking shoppers to share some of the burden.”
Sobie advises that the best way to avoid the fees is “to read the retailer’s return policy before you check out in the first place.”
Kaaviya Sambasivam, left, is a popular influencer. Gigi, right, is an AI influencer
In some ways, Gigi is like any other young social media influencer.
With perfect hair and makeup, she logs on and talks to her fans. She shares clips: eating, doing skin care, putting on lipstick. She even has a cute baby who appears in some videos.
But after a few seconds, something may seem a little off.
She can munch on pizza made out of molten lava, or apply snowflakes and cotton candy as lip gloss. Her hands sometimes pass through what she’s holding.
That’s because Gigi isn’t real. She’s the AI creation of University of Illinois student Simone Mckenzie – who needed to make some money over the summer.
Ms Mckenzie, 21, is part of a fast-growing cohort of digital creators who churn out a stream of videos by entering simple prompts into AI chatbots, like Google Veo 3. Experts say this genre, dubbed “AI slop” by some critics and begrudging viewers, is taking over social media feeds.
And its creators are finding considerable success.
“One video made me $1,600 in just four days,” Ms Mckenzie said. “I was like, okay, let me keep doing this.”
After two months, Gigi had millions of views, making Ms Mckenzie thousands through TikTok’s creator fund, a programme that pays creators based on how many views they get. But she’s far from the only person using AI to reach easy virality, experts said.
“It’s surging right now and it’s probably going to continue,” said Jessa Lingel, associate professor and digital culture expert at the University of Pennsylvania.
Its progenitors – who now can generate videos of literally anything in just a few minutes – have the potential to disrupt the lucrative influencer economy.
But while some say AI is ruining social media, others see its potential to democratise who gains fame online, Lingel said. Those who don’t have the money or time for a fancy background, camera setup or video editing tools can now go viral, too.
Simone Mckenzie / Google Veo 3
Part of the prompt McKenzie used to create her most viral video of Gigi
Traditional influencers being pushed out?
Social media influencing only recently became a legitimate career path. But in just a few years, the industry has grown to be worth over $250bn, according to investment firm Goldman Sachs. Online creators often use their own lives – their vacations, their pets, their makeup routines – to make content and attract a following.
AI creators who can make the same thing – only faster, cheaper and without the constraints of reality.
“It certainly has the potential to upset the creator space,” said Brooke Duffy, a digital and social media scholar at Cornell University.
Ms Mckenzie, creator of Gigi, said videos take her only a few minutes to generate and she sometimes posts three per day.
That’s not feasible for human influencers like Kaaviya Sambasivam, 26, who has around 1.3 million followers across multiple platforms.
Depending on the kind of video she’s making – whether it’s a recipe, a day-in-my life vlog, or a makeup tutorial – it may take anywhere from a few hours to a few days to fully produce. She has to shop, plan, set up her background and lighting, shoot and then edit.
AI creators can skip nearly all of those steps.
“It bears the question: Is this going to be something that we can out compete? Because I am a human. My output is limited,” Ms Sambasivam, based in North Carolina, said. “There are months where I will be down in the dumps, and I’ll post just the bare minimum. I can’t compete with robots.”
She started building her channel while living with her parents during the Covid pandemic. Without a set-up, she said she duct-taped her phone to the wall to film. Eventually, she spent money she made as an influencer buying tripods, lighting, makeup and food for her videos. It took years to build her following.
Ms Mckenzie said she considered being a more traditional influencer, but didn’t have the money, time or setup. That’s why she created Gigi.
“My desk at home has a lot of books and stuff,” she said. “It’s not the most visually appealing. It definitely makes it easier that you can just pick whatever background you want with AI.”
Kaaviya Sambasivam
Kaaviya Sambasivam
“Real” life on AI videos
When Ms Mckenzie started, she turned to Google’s Veo 3 chatbot, asking it to generate a woman – someone to stand in as her.
Gigi is her age, 21, with tanned skin, green eyes, freckles, winged eyeliner and long black hair. She then asked the chatbot to make Gigi talk. Gigi now starts each video chiding commentators who accuse her of being AI. Then, mockingly proving them right, she eats a bedazzled avocado or a cookie made of slime.
Ms Duffy said digital alterations aren’t new. First, there were programs like Photoshop, used for image editing. Next, apps like FaceTune made it easier for users to change their faces for social media. But she said the main precursor to today’s hyper-realistic AI videos were celebrity deepfakes, emerging in the late 2010s.
But they now look much, much more real, Ms Duffy said, and they can spread faster.
AI videos run the gamut from the absurd – a cartoon of a cat working at McDonald’s – to the hyper-realistic, like fake doorbell camera footage. They represent every genre – horror, comedy, culinary. But none of it is real.
“It’s become, in some ways, a form of meme culture,” Ms Duffy said.
One 31-year-old American woman living in South Korea has a TikTok page dedicated to an AI-generated puppy, Gamja, who wears headphones, cooks and curls his hair. She’s received millions of views as well as partnerships from companies who want to be featured in her videos.
“I wanted to blend things that people love, which include food and puppies, in a way that hadn’t been done before,” she said.
One of the biggest AI content creators on TikTok is 27-year-old Daniel Riley. He has an audience of millions, but they have never seen his face. Rather, his “time travel” videos have earned him nearly 600,000 subscribers and tens of millions of views.
“POV: You wake up in Pompeii on eruption day” and “POV: You wake up as Queen Cleopatra” are some of his most popular titles, taking viewers through a 30-second-long fictionalised day in ancient history.
“I realised I could tell stories that would normally cost millions to produce and give people a look into different eras through their phone,” he said.
And he’s developed another stream of income – a bootcamp to teach others how to make similar AI videos for a monthly fee.
Will anyone know the difference?
“Stop calling me AI,” Gigi says at the beginning of each TikTok. She’s arguing with sceptics’ – but some audience members unquestioningly believe she’s real.
On one hand, AI videos that are almost indistinguishable from reality pose a real problem, Ms Lingel said, especially for young kids who don’t yet have media literacy.
“I think it’ll be almost impossible for an ordinary human to tell the difference soon,” she said. “You’re going to see a rise in misinformation, you’re going to see a rise in scams, you’re going to see a rise in content that’s just…crappy.”
On the other, AI videos can be mesmerising, experts said, offering cartoonish, exaggerated material.
“It’s those images and posts that seem to toe the line between reality and duplicity that capture our attention and encourage us to share,” Ms Duffy said.
A Harvard University study indicated that among AI users between the ages of 14-22, many say they use it to generate things like images and music.
Still, she said, the question is if human discernment can keep up with rapidly improving technology.
Almost every day, the creator of Gamja said she hears from people online, worried about her AI-generated puppy: They think he’s eating foods that are unhealthy, they say – because they think they’re watching a real dog.
