I really don't like that headlines have been surfacing about the US government putting pressure on Anthropic, and now a short time later they are requiring ID's (albeit for certain use cases, but that's a slippery slope).

I may very well stop using Claude due to this.

Also, who is providing the verification service? We don't want another Discord situation.

EDIT: Just saw it's Persona. Definitely dropping Claude now.

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect this new Anthropic requirement is coming from their ongoing negotiations with the government to re-enable Fable. Whatever "safety/security" measures the government requires of Anthropic will no doubt also be applied to other US "AI providers", perhaps based on assessed model capability. Apparently OpenAI already had an ID check in place before this.

What's going to be interesting is how the US government regulates US-based access to Chinese AI models, whether served domestically (e.g. GLM-5.2 from Amazon Bedrock, DeepInfra, etc), or from overseas.

I suppose if one fear is US domestic terrorists/hackers using AI, then restricting access to all models, regardless of country of origin, might make sense, but as far as restricting technology exports over national security concerns it wouldn't make much sense to restrict access to foreign models!

Crudely applied restrictions are likely to get worse before they potentially get better as the hype wears down and AI risk gets better assessed, but government control tends to be a one-way ratcheting up, so who knows. It's not inconceivable that the government may try to restrict use of local models too, which they could do by making it illegal to make open weights (maybe for selected models) available for download.

▲

rescbr 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> making it illegal to make open weights (maybe for selected models) available for download.

So giving another win to China?

▲

HarHarVeryFunny 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you assuming that China is/will allow it's own citizens unfettered access to AI ?!

	▲	preg_match 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		China is a much more collectivist culture. They’re willing to burn money and move in big strides IF it can get them (the country) to their goals. That’s why we consistently see that china is able to move much faster in new industries as opposed to the US. There’s a lot of individual actors in china, just like the US, but as a whole they take a “country” approach.
	▲	rescbr 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Currently they are the ones who are publishing stuff in the open. The American discourse is to close this market. I'm not Chinese or American. If China exports their AI technology and the US doesn't, I know who's going to be my supplier and I'd be very happy to pay them. If they block access to their own citizens, to be frank, I could care less. If their Party has their own version for what happened in the Tiananmen Square, so be it. They want to do business while the US is being hostile to everybody else.
	▲	dpkirchner 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If it gives them a leg up, sure, why not?

▲

anon373839 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> suspect this new Anthropic requirement is coming from their ongoing negotiations with the government

I would have put “negotiations” in scare quotes. Who reported the Fable jailbreak to the government? Anthropic’s biggest shareholder. Who is now sitting at the table designing the “benchmarks” that will dictate what other model builders will be allowed to deploy? Anthropic. Who is also in talks with the government about a bailout? Also Anthropic. I just can’t take any of this at face value because that’s preposterous.

	▲	HarHarVeryFunny 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed, Anthropic have been lobbying in favor of government regulation for a while now, and there is no indication that they are not getting exactly what they wanted. Maybe it helps to push any liability onto the government rather than themselves, and certainly let's them try to hand wash from any bad outcomes. I recall a Dario interview from a few years ago talking about security in terms of protecting their model weights and as I remember even back then they had hired ex. government security officials ... I would imagine they know exactly what to tell the government to make the "negotiation" go the way they want to. Unrelated to the current conversation, but one detail of that Dario interview I recall was mention that there is an assumption that in any organization over a given size trying to protect tech from foreign governments, there 100% will be spies on your staff, and you need to plan accordingly.

▲

tiahura 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What new requirement? The linked page is months old.

▲

lostmsu 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

May I remind you to download GLM 5.2 weights for just in case?

▲

ericmay 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It seems very likely that AI tools like this will end up with citizenship verification whether it’s American, Chinese, or European. Governments are going to want to know when you try and plan an assassination, or develop a novel pathogen, or start writing manifestos that go against the orthodoxy. And they’re going to want to make sure if you are a criminal or deemed to be one you can’t keep up in the economy due to neutered AI access.

I’m not condoning this, just speculating.

▲

Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> and now a short time later they are requiring ID's (albeit for certain use cases, but that's a slippery slope).

They’ve had this process in place for a long time.

This page is not new or recent. Someone just found it and submitted it again. It’s been discussed on HN months ago if you want to go look.