tangotaylor

Niki Parmar: am I a joke to you?

But some cases aren't so obvious, like the cases you mentioned of cartoons, shows, books, etc. Trying to censor any LLM output that might lead to self harm has dangerous implications for free speech and privacy. It might harm more people than it helps.

CA recently passed SB-1119 (Adam's Law) which I'm quite worried about. It forces all chatbot operators to default users into kid mode via § 21811(b), and they have to do age verification to get their adult status back. That could mean face scans and ID verification.

Then, SB-1119 also places limits on what chatbots can say to kids, and the most disturbing one to me is § 21812 (d)(5)(xiv) which prevents chatbots from "Encouraging or instructing a child user to circumvent parental controls or conceal usage."

That word "circumvent" is so triggering to me, given all the abuses of DMCA § 1201's anti-circumvention provision.

Like, if a child is trying to test something on an Android phone, and the chatbot tells them how to root the phone to help them out, now the child can modify the OS-provided age signal required by CA's Age Assurance Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.501) and fake that they're an adult. That might expose the LLM operator to huge liability and I bet most operators will self-censor or ban minors (as Anthropic did) rather than risk a lawsuit.

Who says I'm a tool?

You are a tool.

Brilliant. This is exactly the kind of content I seek when I visit Hacker News.

Truly art.

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.

> From LINUX Unplugged 680, “Go Hack Yourself” (Jupiter Broadcasting)

but I couldn't find any mention of it in that episode.

ONE still sees identity documents in the clear the first time when it verifies them, right? Otherwise we could upload fakes.

Also I'm not familiar with Oauth 2.0, but doesn't ONE know the client and relying party on each verification transaction? So ONE could theoretically store records of who accessed which website, perhaps by mistaken logging configuration or because they were coerced by law enforcement.

Anyway I appreciate the consideration given to privacy.