[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.

[ElProlactin]

And? Yes, people have good reason to not trust institutions these days. But does not trusting institutions mean that you no longer have to comply with the rules, or that every rule is not based on a legitimate concern?

[rglullis]

> not trusting institutions mean that you no longer have to comply with the rules

Not if you can avoid it, no.

> every rule is not based on a legitimate concern?

This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern.

[ElProlactin]

> This particular rule is not based on a legitimate concern.

Well, there are multiple legitimate reasons for Anthropic to ask some customers to do identity verification:

1. To comply with export controls.

2. To prevent abuse.

3. To process requests for increased usage or spend limits.

4. To defend against payment fraud.

This really isn't uncommon. I've been asked to do identity verification for something as innocuous as registering a domain name, setting up an account to bid on collectibles, etc.

If you've ever worked in ecommerce, payments or a related sector, you know how many bad actors are trying to game systems every single day and what the consequences are to the business if they succeed. Even when you're not dealing with non-negotiable compliance requirements (like KYC, export controls, etc.), there are lots of situations in which you'd have a reasonable need to establish that the people you're serving are who they say they are.

[rglullis]

Yeah, we can come up with all sorts of reasons to justify their new policy, but at the end of the day it's clear that this policy only came after Fable got blocked. You keep trying to find a way to rationalize their action, when it is clear that the adopted this policy for one simple reason: it's an attempt to appease the US government.

Why is that? Why is so hard for you to see that Anthropic by pushing the "our models are so good that regular people should not have access to it" narrative, they ended up shooting themselves in the foot?

[ElProlactin]

> You keep trying to find a way to rationalize their action, when it is clear that the adopted this policy for one simple reason: it's an attempt to appease the US government.

Your position seems to be based on lack of knowledge of the fact that the US government has broad authority to regulate AI services under existing national security and export control powers.

You can argue that those powers are wrong, but these powers are well-established and perfectly legal.

Anthropic could challenge these in court but, from what I've read, most attorneys specializing in this area of law believe it would face an uphill battle in courts because the related powers are so broad and well-established.