Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our approach to age prediction

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 235 posts

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#91

Post by [deleted] »

fakedang wrote: post #79
big_toast wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope Anthropic or someone pulls an Apple and has the taste to say no to ads. Maybe it will just be Apple. (Even their resistance is slowly fading..) We don't need to jam ads into every orifice. I hope there's more value to be had not doing ads than there is to include them. I'd cancel my codex/chatgpt/claude if someone planted the flag. OpenAI seems to think it has infinite trust to burn.

You give too much credit to Apple in the AI age. Especially since they've already partnered with Google to power Siri with Gemini now. Apple is a has-been. Anthropic is best positioned to take up the privacy mantle, and may even be forced to, given that most of their revenue is enterprise and B2B.

[deleted]

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#92

Post by samename »

embedding-shape wrote: post #86
samename wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, all under the guise of "protect the children" - a tried and true surveillance and control trope.

For context though, people have been screaming lately at OpenAI and other AI companies about not doing enough to protect the children. Almost like there is no winning, and one should just make everything 18+ to actually make people happy.

It doesn't make everyone happy though. I think it would be useful to examine who is asking OpenAI to protect the children, and why.

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#93

Post by gridspy »

nubg wrote: post #16

They're trying to make ChatGPT more attractive to advertisers.

Random reply: 20 days ago you asked for my ChatGPT custom instructions to be more skeptical. It is :

Use an encouraging tone. Adopt a skeptical, questioning approach. Call me on things which don't seem right. List possible assumptions I'm making if any.

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#94

Post by throwaway132448 »

pixl97 wrote: post #90
throwaway132448 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you on about? Laws are a codification of social norms. I’m not suggesting anything outside of existing social norms. Quite the opposite, I’m suggesting we stop changing them.

That we stop changing social norms? How do you propose that, by making a law?

That’s literally what laws do. You continue to contribute nothing to the discussion.

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#95

Post by [deleted] »

samename wrote: post #92
embedding-shape wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context though, people have been screaming lately at OpenAI and other AI companies about not doing enough to protect the children. Almost like there is no winning, and one should just make everything 18+ to actually make people happy.

It doesn't make everyone happy though. I think it would be useful to examine who is asking OpenAI to protect the children, and why.

[deleted]

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#96

Post by jedberg »

sigmar wrote: post #77
zardo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chat history would be a good signal to predict age until you give kids a reason to try to confound it.

I, for one, would love to see the gen alphas tiktoking about what 401k questions to type into chatgpt

Anyone remember the game Leisure Suit Larry? To get the full 18+ experience, you had to answer five trivia questions that only adults should know. But it turns out smart teens who like trivia knew most of them too (and you could just ask mom and dad, they had no clue why you were asking which President appeared on Laugh In).

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#97

Post by nurumaik »

embedding-shape wrote: post #86
samename wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, all under the guise of "protect the children" - a tried and true surveillance and control trope.

For context though, people have been screaming lately at OpenAI and other AI companies about not doing enough to protect the children. Almost like there is no winning, and one should just make everything 18+ to actually make people happy.

What a coincidence: "protect the children" narrative got amplified right about when implementing profiling became needed for openai profits. Pure magic

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#99

Post by Der_Einzige »

sho_hn wrote: post #17
DarkNova6 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"

I'm an engineer working on safety-critical systems and have to live with that responsibility every day. When I read the chat logs of the first teenager who committed suicide with the help and encouragement of ChatGPT I was immediately thinking about ways that could be avoided that make sense in the product. I want companies like OpenAI to have the same reaction and try things. I'm just glad they are. I'm also fully a…

Sorry, but for every chat log with one teenager who commited suicide due to AI, I'm sure you can find many more of people/teens with suicide thoughts or intent that are explicitly NOT doing it because of advice from AI systems.

I'm pretty sure AI has saved more lives than it has taken, and there's pretty strong arguments to say that someone whose thinking of committing suicide will likely be thinking about it with or without AI systems.

Yes, sometimes you really do "have to take one for the team" in regards to tragedy. Indeed, Charlie Kirk was literally talking about this the EXACT moment he took one for the team. It is a very good thing that this website is primarily not parents, as they cannot reason with a clear unbiased opinion. This is why we have dispassionate lawyers to try to find justice, and why we should have non parents primarily making policy involving systems like this.

Also, parents today are already going WAY to far with non consensual actions taken towards children. If you circumcised your male child, you have already done something very evil that might make them consider suicide later. Such actions are so normalized in the USA that not doing it will make you be seen as weird.

Re: Our approach to age prediction

#100

Post by b112 »

nurumaik wrote: post #97
embedding-shape wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For context though, people have been screaming lately at OpenAI and other AI companies about not doing enough to protect the children. Almost like there is no winning, and one should just make everything 18+ to actually make people happy.

What a coincidence: "protect the children" narrative got amplified right about when implementing profiling became needed for openai profits. Pure magic

I get why you're questioning motives, I'm sure it's convenient for them at this time.

But age verification is all over the place. Entire countries (see Australia) have either passed laws, or have laws moving through legislative bodies.

Many platforms have voluntarily complied. I expect by 2030, there won't be a place on Earth where not just age verification, but identity is required to access online platforms. If it wasn't for all the massive attempts to subvert our democracies by state actors, and even political movements within democratic societies, it wouldn't be so pushed.

But with AI generated videos, chats, audio, images, I don't think anyone will be able to post anything on major platforms without their ID being verified. Not a chat, not an upload, nothing.

I think consumption will be age vetted, not ID vetted.

But any form of publishing, linked to ID. Posting on X. Anything.

I've fought for freedom on the Internet, grew up when IRC was a thing, knew more freedom on the net than most using it today. But when 95% of what is posted on the net, is placed there with the aim to harm? Harm our societies, our peoples?

Well, something's got to give.

Then conjoin that with the great mental harm that smart phones and social media do to youth, and.. well, anonymity on the net is over. Like I said at the start, likely by 2030.

(Note: having your ID known doesn't mean it's public. You can be registered, with ID, on X, on youtube, so the platform knows who you are. You can still be MrDude as an alias...)

Post reply on HN