| ▲ | mayhemducks 5 hours ago |
| Need we remind Anthropic of the 153 million drirvers licenses available for sale on the dark web thanks to a 3rd party ID verification service? https://krebsonsecurity.com/2026/09/fbi-probes-service-selli... The fact that Anthropic only receives a result, not the data itself, does not make me feel any better about this. I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. Leave the companies and governments out of it. |
|
| ▲ | munificent an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. I am strongly sympathetic of this point. But, also, children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too. This is an extremely difficult balancing act. Various laws and organizations get it wrong all the time, but it does require balance because there is no simple solution here that just works. There is a fundamental, unsolvable tension between: * In a just society, your opportunity in life should not depend on being lucky with who your parents are. * In a free society, parents should be able to support their children as they see fit. (Stephen Pinker was the first one I've seen to point out this problem.) |
|
| ▲ | Valodim 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. Leave the companies and governments out of it. If you'd like to advocate for this position for a living, the tobacco, alcohol, and gambling industries will all be happy to pay you. |
| |
| ▲ | Retr0id an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The tobacco, alcohol, and gambling industries want a lot of things, but it doesn't make those things bad by default. | |
| ▲ | Cider9986 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't have a problem showing an ID, I have a problem with an ID being recorded so it can be leaked. | | |
| ▲ | lkramer 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Unless you think they are outright lying, the press release does say it will be immediately deleted. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway323929 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Kids do all of this stuff anyways, making it illegal doesn't stop it from happening. But we're not talking about a product that kills its users, we're talking about a polymath that can help its users build and create things. Are you intellectually prepared to believe that Claude Code is as dangerous as cigarettes, a product that kills 50% of its users? Do you genuinely believe, as a core belief, that Claude Code will kill 50% of the people that use it? | | |
| ▲ | phoghed 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > making it illegal doesn't stop it from happening. Arguing to give kids unfettered access to it but won’t even use it yourself to fact check your own nonsense | |
| ▲ | maipen 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Kids do all of this stuff anyways, making it illegal doesn't stop it from happening. This so completely untrue! These things are absolutely effective for the majority of kids.
Just because some stand out in a crowd, doesn't mean others are doing it too. When trying to prevent something, the more friction you add the better. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway323929 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why do you want to add friction to teens having a creativity tool that can help them learn and build things? I don't know what kind of kid you were, but as a kid I would have loved access to my own 24/7 polymath, it would have been an incredibly positive thing in my life. I often think of how much more cool stuff I would have accomplished with that ability. It would have actually benefited my mental health issues a lot, which often rotated around the boredom of living an isolated life in the suburbs and my imagination being unable to keep up with my free time and abilities. If you add friction to good things in addition to bad things, you're just increasing the likelihood that the bad things will be chosen more often. You're also increasing the chances that people will not trust you when you say the actually bad things are bad, because you lied to them about the other thing so maybe you're lying to them about all of it? | | |
| ▲ | x187463 a few seconds ago | parent | next [-] | | This has 'social media will bring us all together' vibes. | |
| ▲ | phoghed 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Seeing what it’s done to my VP’s and execs I can’t imagine the damage it’s going to children smh |
|
| |
| ▲ | jachee 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > we're not talking about a product that kills its users Yeah, it just pushes the ones with the tendency to do it themselves. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway323929 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are you being sardonic, or can you seriously not tell the difference in harm between smoking cigarettes and Claude? I genuinely don't understand how you can survive in the world with a risk assessment system this damaged. | | |
| ▲ | musha68k 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Think of the kids!" OK but the impact of this technology shouldn't be underestimated and one doesn't only have to read up on the extreme ends. From personal experience, have you ever "chatted" with a model outside of technical/work related stuff? Both Anthropic as well as OpenAI models have been overstepping personal (user) boundaries for years now. There are multiple reasons for why Google hasn't capitalized on the transformer much earlier.. I'm neither a proponent of the recent Zuckerberg maneuver to "protect the children!" nor of the EU based zero-knowledge proof track, but the people in those companies need to be kept accountable. The new Claude availability constraints seem to me then like a (late) hedge against any major litigations on that front.. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AI-induced_psycho... | | |
| ▲ | throwaway323929 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | They're absolutely doing this as a hedge against litigation, and given the trillion dollar lawsuits flying around, it's hard for me to blame them. Regulation by litigation rather than law creates ambiguous legal precedents that make it much harder to do business safely. That's why the most economically successful countries in the world tend to have the strongest rule of law. The actual root cause of this is our culture moving away from the idea that individuals and families should be free to make these sorts of decisions, and instead believing that heavy-handed authoritarian governments should dictate those choices to us instead. | | |
| ▲ | eigencoder 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I actually disagree, I think the problem is that heavy-handed companies have been dictating choices to us and our children, in contradiction to existing laws, and people are finally saying enough, these companies need to follow the laws. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | webdood90 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Are you intellectually prepared to believe that Claude Code is as dangerous as cigarettes Yes. Death is just one of the results. There are many, many other ways this could dangerously impact children. | | |
| ▲ | AlienRobot an hour ago | parent [-] | | People have a right to privacy. People should value that more, before it's all gone. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | doright 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. And if your parents suck? (Mine did.) I think the power for parents to have free reign over everything in a child's life should be reduced if the parents are abusive, but of course there is no way to do this short of infallible and invasive surveillance. All to say, there is no easy solution here. Abusive parents are not going to "think of the children" either way, no matter what arguments the well-meaning parents give. They will not see a problem with their own behavior. So assuming the parent is a sacrosanct figure that always knows what's best is unworkable. I understand that no parent wants to be accused of being abusive, but just because it is taboo to say it out loud, does not mean these people do not exist. They're out there. They will fuck up their child's minds and cause long-lasting damage, Internet access or not. It's no wonder children react poorly to the Internet when the two people they have to depend on for their literal survival don't support them at a good enough level. They seek out comfort when they can't get it elsewhere and now it's supposedly a tech CEO's fault they're addicted. My life could have been different if one single adult I could trust had supported me, but I didn't get one. Not all children will, either. |
|
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. Leave the companies and governments out of it. This is the way! |
|
| ▲ | fluidcruft 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They at least have some sort of a take a selfie and some app guesses your age based on the photo option that I had not heard of. > Accepted age verification methods > Yoti offers several ways to confirm you're 18 or over. You can choose whichever works best for you: > * Facial age estimation: Take a selfie and Yoti's technology estimates your age. No ID document needed. > * ID verification: Take a photo of your ID (such as a passport, driving license, or national ID card) and upload it from your device. See Yoti's full list of supported documents for country-specific options. > * Yoti’s Digital ID app: If you already have the Yoti app, share a verified "over 18" attribute from it. |
|
| ▲ | rirze 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Unfortunately we live in a litigious society. The more you observe, you'll see that companies and government make decisions to reduce culpability and offload risk. |
|
| ▲ | alansaber 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Admittedly it's not as if the government is immune to massive data leaks either |
|
| ▲ | Hizonner 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. Leave the companies and governments out of it. You do understand that in order to do that, something or somebody has (a) know that the person being decided about is a minor, (b) know who that minor's parents are, and (c) have some way to get input from the parents. You get that, right? Right? "Make it the parents' decision" doesn't solve the privacy problem. It's also probably wrong as a universal answer to anything; parents aren't infallible, incorruptible oracles. |
