| ▲ | throwaw12 6 hours ago |
| Good that we have Chinese models now, we can host anywhere and use as much as we like without age verification. Also, what's the reason banning minors? Is AI bad for mental health? If so, should companies also ban them to prevent burnout of their employees? |
|
| ▲ | walrus01 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you'd told me 15 years ago that people would be running freely-distributed software originating from research labs in China on computers self-hosted in their own house as an alternative to authoritarian overreach and control by the US in internet-based services, I'd have told you that you were smoking some good reefer. The irony is that the authoritarian control hasn't gone away in China either, if anything it's even more advanced, the GFW and censorship regime there doesn't show any sign of letting up any time soon. Just today in my BBC news feed: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgyvk2djk4o |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you'd told me 15 years ago that people would be running freely-distributed software originating from research labs in China on computers self-hosted in their own house as an alternative to authoritarian overreach and control by the US in internet-based services, I'd have told you that you were smoking some good reefer. It’s a lot less surprising when you understand the tactic of economic dumping, which China has used for years to attack industry front-runners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) They’re not giving away the models because they love freedom and want to generously offer gifts to the world. They’re doing it as a way to undermine the industry leaders and attract people to their brands. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > They’re doing it as a way to undermine the industry leaders and attract people to their brands. Isn't that just how competition works? Codex and Claude are both widely speculated to be sold at a loss (at least compared to API pricing), so why isn't their tactic also considered dumping? OpenAI and Anthropic aren't stealing IP and subsidizing model inference because they love freedom either. They're doing it to undermine industry competitors and attract people to their brands. The US government deliberately chased a strategy of denying China access to powerful Nvidia hardware. Shipping efficient and cheap LLMs is their only option, just like Jensen Huang warned would happen. And now that China's smaller models are reaching the frontier, everyone cries foul. | | |
| ▲ | bjelkeman-again 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It is probably a naive point of view that I hold (I haven't thought it through properly) but the western capitalist version is that investors providing money to do dumping of prices is ok (as long as you are not considered a monopoly) and the Chinese state sponsored capitalism is considered dumping as it goes against the agreed WTO rules for how international trade is supposed to work. The western capitalist governments (probably with a lot of lobbying support) wrote the WTO rules. Not trying to defend either way, but it seems to be different economic and political systems trying to gain dominance over each other. |
|
| |
| ▲ | miki123211 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think self-hosting Chinese models is so popular precisely because China is so authoritarian. If China wants to sell Solar panels to Americans, they can just sell solar panels, the sun won't mind. If China wants to sell models to Americans... well, Americans don't want to send their data to China, so they can't just offer them as SaaS. They don't want to be left behind in the AI race either. The only option to capture western mindshare is to do what they've always done, use Chinese taxpayers' money to subsidize model development, make American labs uncompetitive, make them go bankrupt, then have control over the entire sector. | | |
| ▲ | Iolaum 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Some US labs may become uncompetitive if they have the wrong business strategy, that doesn't mean every AI company will be. If one part of the stack gets commoditized, build your moat elsewhere. | |
| ▲ | walrus01 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am not sure the comparison is exactly fitting... Specifically, solar panels in wholesale quantities have to come in 40' or 45' cargo containers by ocean from China and can be easily tariffed or blocked at the ports. Releasing the weights of a software project on modelscope and huggingface and similar (and I'm sure they'd find a new way to distribute it for an English language audience if huggingface vanished tomorrow as well) is totally different, because there's no tangible hardware product involved. |
| |
| ▲ | CrazyStat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's almost been 15 years since the Snowden leaks, and there were rumors going around before that. I don't think it would have been that outlandish. | | |
| ▲ | walrus01 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My theoretical self 15 years ago absolutely would have believed the increased authoritarian overreach part (in US/CA/European business and political context). I would not have believed the "multiple ostensibly competing Chinese research labs are giving this away free to run on your own Linux computer, and it's very close to state of the art in capability competing with US-based paid SaaS". | |
| ▲ | baggachipz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Today marks 25 years minus one day since the US really kicked the destruction of privacy into high gear. Soon after, framing this revocation of rights using the name PATRIOT. |
| |
| ▲ | andy99 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Erlich Bachman: Jian-Yang, what're you doing? This is Palo Alto. People are lunatics about smoking here. We don't enjoy all the freedoms that you have in China.
Anyway, when the talk of age verification first came out, I moved off of Claude and use either local or Chinese frontier models via open router (which probably isn’t safe for long now that they’ve been acquired). I’d almost forgotten why, this is a good reminder.With HF bought as well, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them try to gate open models by age too. Going to have to sign up for modelscope | |
| ▲ | herbst 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of code for Esp devices, Arduino clones and other embed computers is open source coming straight of china. This was also the case 15 years ago. | |
| ▲ | f6v 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wasn't writing on the wall when Aaron Swartz got prosecuted? | | | |
| ▲ | ACCount37 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And China controls AI too. It's just that their idea of "safety" is "ideological safety", and their idea of "alignment" is "alignment to the party line". They're cool with open weight AIs being released. As long as those AIs only ever say good things about CCP, and don't mention certain concentration camps or brutally suppressed protests. | | |
| ▲ | walrus01 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't disagree with you on what is the top-down political priority there, but thankfully the architecture of an open weights model released in .safetensors format allows for 3rd parties to "uncensor" it. There's at least 8 different CN originated models now that after running through heretic and a few other methods will score 0 refusals on this data set of prompts: https://huggingface.co/datasets/mlabonne/harmful_behaviors If we were living in a scenario where the open weight models were truly impossible to uncensor I would be significantly more skeptical of them. As a test I have an uncensored copy of qwen 3.8 27B Q8 here that will very happily discuss a myriad of negative things about the CCP. | | |
| ▲ | throw10920 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I have basic understanding about how refusal-removal works - find the "no" weights by intentionally generating diverse refusals, and then set those weights to zero. Is there a similar process for removing not refusals, but misinformation? | | |
| ▲ | walrus01 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As an end user of this and not a person involved in training models or aligning them, I have only the most rudimentary understanding. But I think that would be a lot harder since the model doesn't fundamentally "know" that information is wrong. Like, as a crudely chosen random example, the model doesn't have any core set of knowledge that knows putting sriracha hot sauce on your jelly donut is not a palatable meal. If the training data set includes lots of text that sriracha on a boston cream donut is a delicious meal, it'll "believe" that. Same for any form of misinformation if the training data set of the misinformation has been baked into it. | |
| ▲ | ACCount37 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are processes for teaching a model specific facts or specific behaviors. Including "respond to topic X with Y", if that's what you want. You could make a model that doesn't want to engage in "lunar landing was faked" conspiracy theories the same way you can make a model that doesn't want to criticize CCP. There is, however, no broad "misinformation" category that you could tune up or down - the way there is a category of "safety refusals". You could make a model more reluctant to say things it isn't sure about. But that is calibrated against the model's own "sure about" - and metaknowledge of this nature in LLMs? Fragile on a good day. |
| |
| ▲ | ACCount37 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, it's good that open weights models can have their "filters" busted fairly reliably. Unlike whatever bone Anthropic has to pick with the very idea of biology. But that's a consequence of how the technology works - not a consequence of China not being authoritarian about AI. They're just authoritarian about AI in different ways. Not like they dodged the "ID verification" bullshit either. They were way ahead of the western countries there. It's vile - seeing this sad excuse of "think of the children" abused to invade privacy and strip freedoms over and over and over and over again. |
| |
| ▲ | kouteiheika 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | afavour 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Is AI bad for mental health? I think there’s reasonable evidence that when used incorrectly, yes. > If so, should companies also ban them to prevent burnout of their employees? It’s not that AI the concept is harmful, it’s using it to diagnose/treat personal problems, mental issues etc. Using it to crunch some data or write some code for you isn’t really the same. I also think there’s a meaningful difference using AI in education and in the workplace. When you get a writing assignment in a class the primary purpose isn’t the words, it’s you having learned about the topic and how to express yourself. And lots of students are using AI to skip that part entirely. |
| |
| ▲ | pllbnk 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | LLMs are the fast food for the brain. I don't know how they can be used correctly. | | |
| ▲ | tyre 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not my experience at all. Obviously I have some different usage from a teen (I doubt they’re doing much interior decorating), but it’s really an incredible resource for learning. I’ve used it to break down different Supreme Court justices’ opinions and philosophies, explain words and concepts from research papers in other domains, the aforementioned interior design (including whipping up 3d models), book recommendations, custom recipes, and figuring out who to contact to learn about a street closure in NYC. All of this in the past week. It requires rigor and pushback. You can’t trust them entirely by default, but that’s true of the web as well! They’re not the only source (augment with authoritative sources like cookbooks, your own research into topics, real live Humans), but it’s a fantastic resource for some healthy habits. | |
| ▲ | micromacrofoot 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who does? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aransentin 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I suspect that the money they get from minors using their services is simply not worth the risk of the negative publicity from the not-unheard-of "Claude told this minor to do <bad thing>!!" articles in the media. |
| |
|
| ▲ | rollypoley 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it has more to do with reasonable usage for school age children. NYC got the ball rolling banning AI in the classroom and if Anthropic is smart it will create a classroom version (ie. seperate Claude accounts for minors) with additional guard rails and watermarks to prevent YOLOing homework assignments and projects. Schools are not equipped to have these discussions bottom-up; Anthropic would make a lot of money if it went top down in conjunction with State governments. |
| |
| ▲ | fn-mote 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with your assertions, but… AI companies have the same fear of underage users that tobacco companies of underage smokers. > reasonable usage for school age children Comical to believe that any of these companies care. They are out to MAKE MONEY. That’s the only believable motivation for what the do. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | varun_ch 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Also, what's the reason banning minors? Is AI bad for mental health? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots#Suic... |
| |
|
| ▲ | PeterStuer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Would you believe it is all about the over 18s? |
|
| ▲ | WhyNotHugo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It might not be about banning minors and just an excuse to get government ID / biometric face scan. |
|
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | diydsp 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most likely an identification grab. I haven't seen how anth will enforce the age restriction, but my bet is through linking all of your movements within claude to a govt id. Abt protecting minors: 19 states still permit teachers to physically hit students. In most states, children as young as 14 or 15 can be legally married (typically girls to older men) with parental consent or a judge's approval. Multiple states have "religious exemption" laws that shield parents from prosecution for withholding medical care from sick children based on religious beliefs, even in cases where children die. Some states have essentially no requirements for homeschool curriculum, testing, or welfare checks. The US incarcerates children at rates dramatically higher than comparable countries. The 2021 expanded Child Tax Credit cut child poverty roughly in half. It was allowed to expire in 2022, and child poverty immediately rebounded. Millions of American children have inadequate or no healthcare. Medicaid coverage varies wildly by state. States that rejected Medicaid expansion have measurably worse child health outcomes. This is political choice, not necessity. An estimated 500,000+ American children still have elevated blood lead levels, primarily from lead paint in older housing and lead water pipes. Roughly 1.4 million American children experience homelessness in any given year. Almost no meaningful regulation of what can be advertised to minors online. Firearms became the leading cause of death for American children in 2020. Car crashes are still one of the top three killers of children. schools. Children who live and go to school near freeways have measurably worse health outcomes across their lifetimes: asthma, cognitive impairment, cardiovascular problems in adulthood. Universal free school lunch demonstrably improves child health and academic outcomes. Most states don't have it. ...but official(+) LLM access restriction is our priority? Hahahaha tell me another one. (+) offline models are as easy as installing ollama. |
|
| ▲ | dartharva 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Compliance theater. Now they can get away without having to bother setting guardrails for child safety. |
|
| ▲ | cruffle_duffle 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dude, being able to run high quality models locally with cheap hardware can't some soon enough. |
|
| ▲ | chrisjj 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Is AI bad for mental health? Well, just look at the effect on the authors of the last few delusional "papers" from Anthropic. |
|
| ▲ | reaperducer 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| what's the reason banning minors? Is AI bad for mental health? I simply don't understand how you can ask that question unless you fall into one of these categories: 1. You live in a place with no access to any news source whatsoever. No newspapers. No television. No radio. No internet.
2. You're a child under the age of six.
3. You're an LLM.
Every day or two there is another story posted on HN about the harmful effects of AI on minors. The level of willful ignorance here makes be thing the answer is #3. |
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Evidence of risk is not sufficient. It must always be balanced against potential benefits. Children are being unconditionally banned from using major technologies, preventing them from benefiting at all. My life would have turned out very differently if I had been banned from using computers back when I was a kid. I don't want my own kids to grow up without the same freedom I enjoyed. | | |
| ▲ | sodapopcan 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I feel I would be in a much better place if I had been banned from using computers as a kid. It's all relative. |
| |
| ▲ | fn-mote 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > harmful effects of AI on minors Which is dwarfed by the harmful effects of social media (engagement farming). Frankly, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I think the articles you are talking about haven’t even been interesting enough to click on. | |
| ▲ | jawilson2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Every day there is another story about the harmful effects of AI on literally everything, including mental health, IP theft, the climate, etc. "Think of the children" is and always has been a weak excuse. |
|
|
| ▲ | techblueberry 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Is AI bad for mental health? lol If so, should companies also ban them to prevent burnout of their employees? No, capitalism must be fed. |
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Always found this odd too. Somehow it's bad enough to ban children from using it, but not adults. | | |
| ▲ | layer8 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Adults are assumed to be responsible for what they expose themselves to, unlike children. Mandatory warnings like for tobacco might be in order, however. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And parents are assumed to be responsible for their own children, not governments or corporations. | | |
| ▲ | sihnsionio 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | They are not. Parents are allowed to make decisions for their children within a narrow range of parameters. No drinking, no smoking, no sex, no violence (except in certain shithole jurisdictions). Education, food, and medical treatment are all mandatory (again, except in certain shithole jurisdictions). | |
| ▲ | layer8 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree about corporations. But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws? They help ensure that the parents aren’t bypassed. I agree that children should be able to use LLMs under parental supervision. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But alcohol and tobacco are generally prohibited from being sold to children; do you disagree with such laws? Yes, but merely on principle. I think alcohol and tobacco should be straight up banned unconditionally. Society resists this, so they banned them for children instead and called it a day. I don't accept these ineffectual political concessions. If a thing is bad for children, then it's in all likelihood just as bad for the adults as well. So go all the way and ban it for everybody, not just children. Do it right, don't come up with these half measures that dehumanize children as a side effect. | | |
| ▲ | layer8 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is a trade-off between freedom and keeping people safe, and there is an argument for some level of personal responsibility. I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless. I also disagree with the dehumanization argument. Yes, the concrete age limits are a bit arbitrary, and actual maturity depends on the individual and is a spectrum, but regulations necessarily have to come with some level of pigeonholing. The fact that you may have to show your ID when buying alcohol isn’t dehumanizing. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I’m glad that I can drink alcohol once in a while without becoming an outlaw, even though I know the effects aren’t harmless. I'm sure teenagers feel the same way. | | |
| ▲ | layer8 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So you’re saying that maturity should be completely disregarded? I don’t get your point. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The point is the argument is invalid. Why is it that adults get to freely fuck their lives up? If it's bad enough to ban for kids, then it's probably bad enough to ban society wide. "Children" needs further qualification as well. Anglosphere calls anything under 18 years old a "child", which completely disregards adolescence where major brain development takes place. Some five year old generally isn't capable of deciding things, but teenagers absolutely are. |
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Muhammad523 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In fact, a 17-year-old is clueless while a person one year older isn't | | |
| ▲ | CrazyStat 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If a law is going to treat 5 year olds differently from 50 year olds then a line has to be drawn somewhere. 18 is arbitrary, but no more arbitrary than any other age you could pick. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The law could evaluate people as individuals instead of conjuring up some idiotic magic number. | | |
| ▲ | CrazyStat 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The whole purpose of law is to be a uniform system of justice. At best it could offer guidelines for how to evaluate people: perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc. But the evaluation under those guidelines would
still have to be made by humans. There is precedent for such a system, e.g. minors can petition to be emancipated which allows them to be treated in many regards like an adult. | | |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > perhaps level of education attained, demonstrated ability to take responsibility for themselves, etc. Yes, that is what I meant. Choosing some arbitrary magic number like 18 and declaring that anyone under that age is too dumb or too irresponsible to decide is about as stupid as declaring that anyone over 65 is incapable of decision making because they might have Alzheimer's. | | |
| ▲ | CrazyStat 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Ok, but this doesn’t scale well. It takes a nontrivial amount of time to evaluate each person, and it would have to be done repeatedly as they age. You would need an entire government bureaucracy devoted to it. Then people will want an appeals process for when decisions don’t go their way—both parents and children. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | sdiupIGPWEfh 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Right, but in this case, exposure is a work requirement, which is a bit different. While an employer isn't going to require tobacco use, work involving asbestos exposure is still a thing (removal perhaps), and an employer knowingly or negligently requiring work activity without both risk disclosure and supply of proper safety equipment would face legal action. Hence, if mandatory workplace use of AI inflicts harm, then I could imagine things playing out similarly. The damage slowly accumulates, may or may not be noticed in time, becomes difficult to pin down on a past employer, and when you finally realize you need to sue for damages, both the employer responsible and the system are rigged to drag out the process until you're hopefully old and dead before you have a chance to win your case. ...oh. | |
| ▲ | jbs789 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | brains develop with age, generally | | | |
| ▲ | eurothings 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Mandatory warnings like for tobacco lol that’ll work | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|