5 ms·

> You literally provide your name... Not if you are using through your employer. > they're doing for legal purposes The USA is becoming a Banana Repulic. Hav

> You literally provide your name... Not if you are using through your employer. > they're doing for legal purposes The USA is becoming a Banana Repulic. Having grown up in one, you end up learning that "the law" is never meant to be used for the benefit of the people but only to give the veneer of legitimacy for the authoritarian abuse by those in power. “To my friends, anything; to my enemies, the law”: https://www.undp.org/latin-america/blog/graph-for-thought/%E2%80%9C-my-friends-anything-my-enemies-law%E2%80%9D https://www.undp.org/latin-america/blog/graph-for-thought/%E...

ElProlactin 4mo ago
Differential application of the law has been a part of American society for a very long time. I suppose you could argue that it's more brazen and accepted (or even celebrated in some cases) these days, but that could also be a function of people just being more willing to see it because America's reputation/standing in the world is in decline.
- rglullis 4mo ago
  Right, but do you agree then this explains why people are not willing to give their identity details to a company, even if the company is able to deduct/obtain these details through other means if it wanted?
  - ElProlactin 4mo ago
    No. I really don't see the connection in this instance. Many companies are required by law to verify the identities of their customers (for money laundering, sanctions compliance, etc.) and to do so in a certain way they can document. Thinking that the US is a Banana Republic in which laws are applied differentially doesn't inherently mean that every rule that requires you to go through a process you don't like is unfair/unjust.
    - rglullis 4mo ago
      It's not a matter of being "unfair", it's a matter of people not trusting the institutions.
      - ElProlactin 4mo ago
        And? Yes, people have good reason to not trust institutions these days. But does not trusting institutions mean that you no longer have to comply with the rules, or that every rule is not based on a legitimate concern?
        rglullis 4mo ago
        > not trusting institutions mean that you no longer have to comply with the rules Not if you can avoid it, no. > every rule is not based on a legitimate concern? This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern.
        ElProlactin 4mo ago
        > This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern. Well, there are multiple legitimate reasons for Anthropic to ask some customers to do identity verification: 1. To comply with export controls. 2. To prevent abuse. 3. To process requests for increased usage or spend limits. 4. To defend against payment fraud. This really isn't uncommon. I've been asked to do identity verification for something as innocuous as registering a domain name, setting up an account to bid on collectibles, etc. If you've ever worked in ecommerce, payments or a related sector, you know how many bad actors are trying to game systems every single day and what the consequences are to the business if they succeed. Even when you're not dealing with non-negotiable compliance requirements (like KYC, export controls, etc.), there are lots of situations in which you'd have a reasonable need to establish that the people you're serving are who they say they are.
        rglullis 4mo ago
        Yeah, we can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their new policy, but at the end of the day it's clear that this policy only came after Fable got blocked. You keep trying to find a way to rationalize their action, when it is clear that the adopted this policy for one simple reason: it's an attempt to appease the US government. Why is that? Why is so hard for you to see that Anthropic by pushing the "our models are so good that regular people should not have access to it" narrative, they ended up shooting themselves in the foot?

ElProlactin 4mo ago

Differential application of the law has been a part of American society for a very long time. I suppose you could argue that it's more brazen and accepted (or even celebrated in some cases) these days, but that could also be a function of people just being more willing to see it because America's reputation/standing in the world is in decline.

rglullis 4mo ago
Right, but do you agree then this explains why people are not willing to give their identity details to a company, even if the company is able to deduct/obtain these details through other means if it wanted?
- ElProlactin 4mo ago
  No. I really don't see the connection in this instance. Many companies are required by law to verify the identities of their customers (for money laundering, sanctions compliance, etc.) and to do so in a certain way they can document. Thinking that the US is a Banana Republic in which laws are applied differentially doesn't inherently mean that every rule that requires you to go through a process you don't like is unfair/unjust.
  - rglullis 4mo ago
    It's not a matter of being "unfair", it's a matter of people not trusting the institutions.
    - ElProlactin 4mo ago
      And? Yes, people have good reason to not trust institutions these days. But does not trusting institutions mean that you no longer have to comply with the rules, or that every rule is not based on a legitimate concern?
      - rglullis 4mo ago
        > not trusting institutions mean that you no longer have to comply with the rules Not if you can avoid it, no. > every rule is not based on a legitimate concern? This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern.
        ElProlactin 4mo ago
        > This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern. Well, there are multiple legitimate reasons for Anthropic to ask some customers to do identity verification: 1. To comply with export controls. 2. To prevent abuse. 3. To process requests for increased usage or spend limits. 4. To defend against payment fraud. This really isn't uncommon. I've been asked to do identity verification for something as innocuous as registering a domain name, setting up an account to bid on collectibles, etc. If you've ever worked in ecommerce, payments or a related sector, you know how many bad actors are trying to game systems every single day and what the consequences are to the business if they succeed. Even when you're not dealing with non-negotiable compliance requirements (like KYC, export controls, etc.), there are lots of situations in which you'd have a reasonable need to establish that the people you're serving are who they say they are.
        rglullis 4mo ago
        Yeah, we can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their new policy, but at the end of the day it's clear that this policy only came after Fable got blocked. You keep trying to find a way to rationalize their action, when it is clear that the adopted this policy for one simple reason: it's an attempt to appease the US government. Why is that? Why is so hard for you to see that Anthropic by pushing the "our models are so good that regular people should not have access to it" narrative, they ended up shooting themselves in the foot?