[joe_the_user]

Well, if all the data people uploaded to these models provided ironclad personal identification, would Anthropic need to have these identity verification processes? They could have directed Claude to disconnect all non-citizens when the order came, for example. Perhaps they don't to frighten people with that ability. But most likely all the inputs together only add to a rough identity hash.

[ElProlactin]

> Well, if all the data people uploaded to these models provided ironclad personal identification, would Anthropic need to have these identity verification processes?

> But most likely all the inputs together only add to a rough identity hash.

You literally provide your name, email address, address and credit card number when you create an account and subscribe.

The identity verification they're doing is for legal purposes. Even if they have a way to take your name and IP address and figure out who you are with near-absolute certainty (including through the use of third-party databases), they're doing this so they have a legally-defensible process by which identities were established.

[rglullis]

> 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/%E...

[ElProlactin]

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]

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]

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]

It's not a matter of being "unfair", it's a matter of people not trusting the institutions.

[BeetleB]

> You literally provide your name, email address, address and credit card number when you create an account and subscribe.

I don't recall Anthropic's payment systems, but I use Paypal wherever supported. I don't think Paypal sends my address, but am not sure. I'm pretty sure they don't send the CC information.

And often, not even the name (e.g. have often had people use my CC to buy stuff (with my permission)).

Also, I still routinely buy stuff from one service that thinks I'm in a state I haven't lived in for over 20 years, because that's the address I provided back then.

So no, generally, sending your payment info doesn't equate to sending them my address.

[ElProlactin]

https://www.paypal.com/us/privacy-center/privacy-practices

> When you check out with PayPal, the merchant will receive info that is necessary to process the transaction and prevent fraud. This may include:

> Your name, email address, amount received

> Your shipping address and phone number

[gck1]

PayPal sends everything you listed to the merchant except for CC number.