[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.

[rglullis]

> seems to be based on lack of knowledge of the fact that the US government has broad authority to regulate AI services

I understand they have the authority. The point that you keep evading to answer is "Why Anthropic only? Why now?".

More than that: why do you keep arguing that people should just accept it? Why do you think that we should just roll over and accept these rules?

I am not asking you "what the courts would say", I am asking you personally: you really don't see a problem in normalizing a world where people can only conduct business if they subject themselves to give away personal data? Do you think that Surveillance Capitalism is just something that people need to accept as some natural state of affairs?

[ElProlactin]

> I am not asking you "what the courts would say", I am asking you personally: you really don't see a problem in normalizing a world where people can only conduct business if they subject themselves to give away personal data?

Companies like Meta and Google collude with media/publishers/online service providers to track you across the web and use your data to target you for advertising even when you aren't registered or logged into their services. Data brokers whose names nobody knows gather and sell information about every single American. Credit bureaus track some of your most sensitive financial data whether you like or not, and sell it to companies who use it to make some of the most important decisions that affect you financially.

Anthropic asking customers who voluntarily choose to do business with Anthropic for ID so that they can comply with sanctions laws is not the same thing.

[rglullis]

> Companies like Meta and Google

This is some weird whataboutism, and it doesn't answer my question.

> Anthropic asking customers who voluntarily choose to do business

Anthropic is changing the terms. It used to be until last week that ID is not required. Now it is. Some of these customers are now reconsidering their relationship, and it seems you are here saying they should just accept it without a second thought, because "this is what other companies do it anyway". This is the part I am struggling to understand.

[ElProlactin]

> Anthropic is changing the terms. It used to be until last week that ID is not required. Now it is.

The Anthropic page related to ID verification is not new. It existed in April and had some minor changes made last week.

https://www.diffchecker.com/HuY8QMOX/

We can disagree, but please don't misrepresent the facts: new customers are not being required to verify their ID by default, nor are existing customers being contacted en masse to do so. ID verification is being used with some customers and it appears this is primarily related to account suspensions that are typically due to usage patterns, fraud concerns, etc.

> Some of these customers are now reconsidering their relationship, and it seems you are here saying they should just accept it without a second thought, because "this is what other companies do it anyway".

I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that I find it odd to base a decision to close a Claude account on the basis that asking for ID verification represents an assault against privacy.

Even though Anthropic says that its ID verification is not related to Mythos/Fable, in our discussion, I have pointed out that as a US company, Anthropic could be required to comply with various export controls that are implemented under well-established and perfectly-legal export control regulations.

It is also perfectly normal for companies to require ID verification for some customers under certain circumstances to address legitimate usage and fraud concerns.

[rglullis]

> new customers are not being required to verify their ID by default

If they want to use Mythos, they need to provide the ID. It has become a two-class service.

> I find it odd to base a decision to close a Claude account on the basis that asking for ID verification represents an assault against privacy.

The decision does not have one specific reason. For example, I closed my account when they stopped allowing usage of OpenCode with a regular subscription. Some other people are now asking if the service they are getting is really worth it and if they should support a company which actively working towards this two-class system.