For some reason ChatGPT has suddenly started thinking i'm a teen. Every answer it starts out "Since you are a teen I will..." and prompts me to upload an ID to show my age. I'm 35.
OpenAI demanded I prove my age in November 2025. I’m an educated 50 year old and had been paying for the service for over a year.
When they insisted I prove my age I went through two layers of support but got nowhere. They insisted I go through their verification process.
I refused and cancelled my subscription.
This may be a losing battle but I’m not going to upload a photo to these services.
I don't get it. They're doing everything they can to create roadblocks to adoption. They don't accept prepaid cards, they restrict certain models behind extended verification processes and the list goes on. They got a lucky head-start and seem to have assumed they've built some impenetrable moat.
Does OpenAI have an incentive to get age prediction "wrong" so that more people "verify" their ages by uploading an ID or scanning their face, allowing "OpenAI" to collect more demographic data just in time to enable ads?
I have worked in this space, and my experience was that usually age / identity verification is driven by regulatory or fraud requirements. Usually externally imposed.
Product managers hate this, they want _minimum_ clicks for onboarding and to get value, any benefit or value that could be derived from the data is miniscule compared to the detrimental effect on signups or retention when this stuff is put in place. It's also surprisingly expensive per verification and wastes a lot of development and support bandwidth. Unless you successfully outsource the risk you end up with additional audit and security requirements due to handling radioactive data. The whole thing is usually an unwanted tarpit.
Depends on what product they manage, at least if they're good at their job. A product manager for social media company know it's not just about "least clicks to X", but about a lot of other things along the way.
Surely the product managers at OpenAI are briefed on the potential upsides with having the concrete ID for all users.
Making someone produce an identity document or turn on their camera for a selfie absolutely tanks your funnel. It's dire.
The effect is strong enough that a service which doesn't require that will outcompete a service which does. Which leads to nobody doing it in competitive industries unless a regulator forces it for everybody.
Companies that must verify will resort to every possible dark pattern to try to get you over this massive "hump" in their funnel; making you do all the other signup before demanding the docs, promising you free stuff or credit on successful completion of signup, etc. There is a lot of alpha in being able to figure out ways to defer it, reduce the impact or make the process simpler.
There is usually a fair bit of ceremony and regulation of how verification data is used and audits around what happens to it are always a possibility. Sensible companies keep idv data segregated from product data.
> Making someone produce an identity document or turn on their camera for a selfie absolutely tanks your funnel. It's dire.
Yes, but again, a good product manager wouldn't just eyeball the success percentage of a specific funnel and call it a day.
If your platform makes money by subtle including hints to what products to prefer, and forcing people to upload IDs as a part of the signup process, and you have the benefit of being the current market leader, then it might make sense for the company to actually make that sacrifice.
There is no way that the likes of OpenAI can make a credible case for this. What fraud angle would there be? If they were a bank then I can see the point.
Regulatory risk around child safety. DSA article 28 and stuff like that. Age prediction is actually the "soft" version; i.e, try not to bother most users with verification, but do enough to reasonably claim you meet requirements. They also get to control the parameters around how sensitive it is in response to the political / regulatory environment.
> we hope we’ll win in getting existing ones overturned and new ones prevented.
All the momentum is in the other direction and not slowing down. There are valid privacy concerns, but, buried in this very article, the EFF admit that it’s possible to do age-gating in a privacy-preserving way:
> it’s possible to only reveal your age information when you use a digital ID. If you’re given that choice, it can be a good privacy-preserving option
If they want to take a realistic approach to age-gating they should be campaigning to make this approach only option.
The fight is not just about privacy, it is about freedom. Age-gating websites violates the freedom of people who are under a certain age. Young people have the same rights to free expression and information access as anyone else.