4 ms·
Well, I went to try it, but it requires a phone number for some bizarre reason. Fine, gave it my primary number, a google voice number I've had for a decade, a
by silisili 2y ago
Well, I went to try it, but it requires a phone number for some bizarre reason. Fine, gave it my primary number, a google voice number I've had for a decade, and it won't accept it. That's the end of my Claude journey, forever.
If you want me to try your service, try using some flow with less friction than sandpaper, folks.
- seaal 2y agoGoogle Voice blacklist is pretty common.
- silisili 2y agoI have about a dozen credit cards, 4 bank accounts, mortgage, car payment, utility accounts, github 2fa, aws 2fa, Fidelity retirement, etc. Not one has an issue with my number. I did have some service refuse it, I want to say Twitter? But I'd definitely not consider it common. This is probably only the second or third time I've seen it, tbh.
- simonw 2y agoI'm going to guess the reason Anthropic do verified phone numbers is that, unlike email addresses, most people don't have an easy way to create multiple phone numbers. Since Anthropic accounts come with free rate-limited access to their models they're trying to avoid freeloaders who sign up for hundreds of accounts in order to work around those caps. Google Voice numbers are blocked because people can create multiple of those, which would allow them to circumvent those limits.
- mulmen 2y agoWhat's the opportunity cost there? How much does a rate limited account cost and how much is a signup worth?
- mewpmewp2 2y agoThese systems are likely under heavy sign up attacks and so must have a way to guard against that since their costs are quite high.
- mulmen 2y agoI’m really curious where that line is and how it is identified. How much business is lost to the onboarding friction? Is it more or less than the cost of the attacks? On one extreme usage of the service is totally open to everyone. On the other it is completely locked down and nobody can use it ever. Clearly neither of those are workable. So it’s a question of how far to go with validation.
- mewpmewp2 2y agoThere is just no choice at all. Due to cost of running those LLMs it would be very easy for adversary to spam bots to use their service for free.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago2fa and those services are different. LLM api calls are relatively costly and in demand so they must have a decent barrier of entry so people couldn't just spam automated accounts with automated requests to use the app for free. There are systems that abuse that and even existing API integrations are being abused by proxying and using for other purposes if they are free and don't have good security. Any place that wants to defend against bots can't trust those phone numbers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 2y agoFor a sales lead? Why?
- mulmen 2y agoThey don't want you to do anything. The friction they ware attempting to reduce is between phone numbers and wallets. This isn't much different than the typo-laden email scam. It's working as intended.
- valval 2y agoI find these powerful and self-entitled statements about losing an individual's customership FOREVER quite funny. You're ranting about some niche concern of yours and proudly proclaim to us that you'll never be a user as if we'd care, and not so softly imply that everybody else should also watch out.
- silisili 2y agoYou read way too much into my statement. I don't know who you are, or why you care(you spent long enough to get worked up and write a reply, afterall). My message was simply my opinion as a user, to anyone who may have a similar flow. No more, no less.