Earlier quoted context omitted.
and its 1 pixel wide. I propose the term pixtit
Also the Dixel for the male option.
Males have tits too
Claude is only available to people over 18 years
681–690 of 692 posts
Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#682Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#683Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the word fuck isn't offensive, there's absolutely no reason to use it.
Yet every culture across the globe has and has always had swearing, profanity, taboo words, fart jokes, and gate keepers decrying such things. While the reasons may elude, the ubiquity speaks to something foundational.
If casual use of profane and taboo words isn't offensive, are they really profane and taboo?
Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#684Good that we have Chinese models now, we can host anywhere and use as much as we like without age verification. Also, what's the reason banning minors? Is AI bad for mental health? If so, should companies also ban them to prevent burnout of their employees?
Most likely an identification grab. I haven't seen how anth will enforce the age restriction, but my bet is through linking all of your movements within claude to a govt id. Abt protecting minors: 19 states still permit teachers to physically hit students. In most states, children as young as 14 or 15 can be legally married (typically girls to older men) with parental consent or a judge's approval. Multiple states ha…
Grateful for the downvotes. I'll limit my sympathy for children in the future.
Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#685Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is almost right, but it shouldn’t be “is a child using the device?” It should be “is this a child-locked device?” There should be a children’s Internet, just like there are children’s libraries, and child-locked devices should give access to it. Adults should be able to use the children’s Internet to see what’s there and children should be able to use the adult Internet when supervised by parents and teachers. T…
There should not be an HTTP header indicating that the client is a child-locked device. That puts the onus on the server to respect the header, and HTTP doesn't require any action on unrecognized headers. Also, it reveals to the server that the client's user is likely vulnerable to manipulation — exactly the opposite of what you want! Instead, there should be an HTTP header indicating that the server is an adult-only…
That standard is mostly used to indicate “adult” websites (porn, basically) which is useful, but rather a different thing than what I’m advocating. There are many websites intended for adults that should not be blocked when Google’s safe search is turned on.
It should be possible to write a web crawler for the children’s Internet. Whether it’s a client-side or server-side header doesn’t matter for that use case.
Roughly distinguishing between children and adults based on behavior can’t be stopped and shouldn’t be considered a privacy violation. For example, see how Lego does it: https://www.lego.com/en-us
A client-side header would let them do a redirect instead of a dialog box. There could be alternatively be a server-side header that causes a redirect, but either way, they could distinguish child-locked devices from unlocked based on the destination of the redirect.
Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#686Earlier quoted context omitted.
Websites that don't cooperate would need to be blocked by child-locked devices. That part wouldn't be any different from today.
Do you even know what a proxy is? It has nothing to do with website cooperating or not
There are many kinds of proxies. Proxies would have to be blocked if they don’t cooperate. Obviously a child-locked device shouldn’t let a client-side proxy be installed.
Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#687Earlier quoted context omitted.
> more often than not Any data on that? Because to me it sounds like “because they are sometimes true, we should assume they are always true” But I’m open to data.
Is anyone tracking every prediction ever made in a spreadsheet that you could use to verify that the rate is literally >50%? No, not that I'm aware of. The only anecdata I can give is "look around you", how all major (and many smaller) companies are implementing invasive spying tech into their products, harvesting our personal information, selling it, or abusing it any way they can. They sell the products as one thin…
[dead]
Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#688Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, I made no mention of the state or responsibility. All I said was a statement of moral values: that all children deserve the best opportunity we as a species can provide for them. There are many possible mechanisms and social institutions that can participate in that process. Parents are one, the state is another, but there are certainly many more.
Such as?
Society?
Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#689Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only. I am strongly sympathetic of this point. But, also, children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too. This is an extremely difficult balancing act. Various laws and organizations get it wrong all the time, but it does require balance because there is no simple solution here that just works. There…
> children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too. I had an abusive caregiver as a child and I can confidently say that age-gating websites wouldn't have done shit to help me. The way to protect these children is through the family court and foster care systems, which are both seriously under-resourced and overwhelmed.
I had an abusive stepfather who began seriously hitting me when I was 6. No change to any family court system or foster care system would've changed that a single whit. Those may be the primary factors you've settled upon for yourself and others in your specific view, but were we to adopt that as "The Way" (to protect children from intergenerational harm), then we'd be leaving great swathes of children in harm's way for whom authorities like those aren't even a part of the picture.
That man was always going to hit people. Because he was mercilessly hit as a kid himself. And it was baked into the culture of the country. And because society had, by that time, broken my young mother down with a chain of weird family dysfunction, sexual abuse, naturally leading to school failure, turfing out of society, and then mental health issues, young pregnancy, married, divorced by 21. So y'know, she wasn't available to protect me. Nobody was. Nobody was ever going to call any court or tell any authority. It's society, and it's many many layers deep.
"Let's spin up extra bureaucracy, to increase our technical efficiency at rooting out the issue" is, I am sorry to say, never going to solve more than a small portion.
It is society we need to change.
Re: Claude is only available to people over 18 years
#690Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're absolutely doing this as a hedge against litigation, and given the trillion dollar lawsuits flying around, it's hard for me to blame them. Regulation by litigation rather than law creates ambiguous legal precedents that make it much harder to do business safely. That's why the most economically successful countries in the world tend to have the strongest rule of law. The actual root cause of this is our cultu…
I actually disagree, I think the problem is that heavy-handed companies have been dictating choices to us and our children, in contradiction to existing laws, and people are finally saying enough, these companies need to follow the laws.
The problem is that part of "the people" that these new digital world corporations are dictating to... is 'our governments'.
I mean, the big ones are more powerful than most of the world's countries. And in ways incredibly influential.