6 ms·
It's worrying that they don't specify in which cases they require identity checks.
by dinoqqq 6mo ago
It's worrying that they don't specify in which cases they require identity checks.
- wheybags 6mo agoBasically the only relevant question, and it's the one they didn't answer
- esperent 6mo agoAn equally valid question is "does the company you use for identify verification follow the same commitments with regards user privacy and selling/processing of user data as Anthropic itself?". And the answer to that question is: "Hell no! We used the cheapest, shadiest company we could find for that. They'll process and sell all your data. Thank you for continuing to be a valued Anthropic customer!".
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- daliusd 6mo agoI can guess at least one valid: * preventing North Korea, China, Russian, Iran and etc. actors from accessing service. They absolutely use workarounds to access AI, e.g. I bet there are companies who are proxy between Anthropic and those countries. I imagine there will be quite some false positives while identifying those.
- a2128 6mo agoThis will do absolutely nothing to prevent those actors from accessing Claude... they already recruit young unemployed Americans to do proxy job interviews[0][1], etc. They'll just pay young unemployed Americans to do verification for them. [0] https://www.tradingview.com/news/cointelegraph:6192f38e3094b:0-are-you-a-freelancer-north-korean-spies-may-be-using-you/ https://www.tradingview.com/news/cointelegraph:6192f38e3094b... [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=QebpXFM1ha0 https://youtube.com/watch?v=QebpXFM1ha0
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- RobotToaster 6mo agoAlso, as many teenagers know, it's trivial to get a fake ID card.
- Wowfunhappy 6mo agoThat sounds likely to increase their costs and create new opportunities to get caught. Not a silver bullet but not "absolutely nothing". Like how anti-money laundering laws don't wipe out all crime, but are still worthwhile.
- throwup238 6mo agoGet caught how? They don’t tell the person what they’re going to use the accounts for or who will use it. The star buyer patsy knows nothing. On the scale of intelligence budgets this would be in the realm of petty cash.
- a2128 6mo agoIf the API costs are gonna be thousands, or the subscription will be $20/month, is it really that expensive to pay some guy on Discord a $50 gift card to verify the account as a one-time setup? Better yet, we'll probably start seeing fake porn websites and other phishing sites that ask to verify your age but end up proxy verifying a bunch of these services in an automated manner with minimal costs, and you'll be able to buy verified Claude accounts for tens of cents on account marketplaces. Just as you have been able to buy verified Discord accounts, aged Steam accounts, etc...
- sifengaki 6mo agoI am a Chinese, and I can tell you definitively that it doesn't cost $50. It will only cost about $7 on the Chinese platform "Xianyu".
- alistairmayo 6mo agoThey won't even need to do that. With enough time and money, they can certainly figure out how to not trigger the ID verification system.
- helsinkiandrew 6mo agoThe "Why did my account get banned after verification?" section gives some reasons: - Repeated violations of our Usage Policy - Account creation from an unsupported location - Terms of Service violations - Under-18 usage
- Mordisquitos 6mo agoThose are reasons for banning after verification, not reasons for requesting identity verification in the first place.
- helsinkiandrew 6mo agoWouldn't the reasons for requesting identification be the same those for banning people - the system has flagged that you might be from the wrong location/under 18/creating multiple free acounts etc - so is validating.
- LoganDark 6mo agoThey request ID for bans so that they can ban you personally. ID checks may as well be a sign that you've already been banned and they're fishing for ways to make the ban harder to evade. Venmo does the same thing.
- mothballed 6mo agoMaybe Anthropic just likes creating a market for dark identities. Because that's the most likely effect of such stupidity; generating more ID theft victims with no change to services to criminals.
- LoganDark 6mo agoIs a "dark identity" one that's never been shared with an identity-theft-as-a-service? Or is it just of one that's (supposed to be) privacy-conscious (and wouldn't otherwise have been an easy victim)?
- 6mo ago
- llm_nerd 6mo agoJust a few days ago, on Friday, my 15 year old son had his Claude account suspended with a demand for ID to prove he is 18 or older. He had his own Claude Max subscription (he out-earns me fairly frequently in his circle of gaming programmers), and was unaware Anthropic had a must-be-18 rule, as was I. Their email said "Our team found signals that your account was used by a child. This breaks our rules, so we paused your access to Claude." So I guess if you ever ask a question that seems to originate from a teen or less, expect to hit an ID gate. So now he's a Codex user. OpenAI and Google both have a minimum age of 13. EDIT: I should note that Anthropic gave him a refund for the whole month that was underway, despite him being nearing the end of it. So good on them.
- trollbridge 6mo ago... so let me understand this. It is frequently said that programming directly is obsolete, and the skill you must have now is knowing how to operate agentic AIs. Yet you aren't allowed to do this until you're 18. So, developing software is now 18+ only?
- llm_nerd 6mo agoIt seems out of step and foolish, and the cynic in me says that Anthropic has a side hustle of identity harvesting and is looking for justifications, but on the flip side, there is a real risk of pearl clutching if a child ever uses AI, and maybe Anthropic just wants to steer clear of all of that. Though simply putting it in the ToS should be sufficient legal shielding, and the idea that they're chat harvesting to age fingerprint conversations seems dubious.
- square_usual 6mo ago> It is frequently said that programming directly is obsolete Who says this?
- sn0wleppard 6mo agoThe CEO of the company in question with the age limit, for one