标签：#censorship

Open ChatGPT this week and, without any announcement in the chat window, it may already have formed an opinion about how old you are. From 18 August, OpenAI began rolling out “age prediction” on its consumer plans: a system that guesses whether your account belongs to someone under 18 and, if it decides you’re a minor, quietly switches you into a restricted version called ChatGPT for Teens. You are not asked. If the guess lands on “teenager,” the guardrails go up by default. Answer first, because the mechanism matters more than the alarm: the guess is behavioural, and it is admittedly imperfect. By OpenAI’s own account the system reads “general topics you talk about, the times of day you use ChatGPT, how and when your account is used, and how long your account has existed.” And the way to make it stop guessing is not a toggle. It is to prove your age to a third-party verifier called Persona, with a live selfie, a government ID, or both. The choice on offer isn’t whether to be identified. It’s how. None of this arrives from nowhere, and we’ll be fair about why in a moment. But a change that infers a protected characteristic from the content of your conversations, applies real restrictions on the strength of a guess, and offers identity verification as the only exit is worth reading slowly — especially for the adults who will be misclassified, because OpenAI says plainly that some will be. What OpenAI actually switched on The launch has two parts. The visible one is ChatGPT for Teens , announced on 18 August: a version with study-focused features and stronger safety defaults for under-18s. The consequential one is age prediction , the system that decides who gets dropped into it. In OpenAI’s words, “If our system estimates someone is under 18 or they state their age is between 13 and 17, they are automatically placed into ChatGPT for Teens.” It is rolling out globally, with the EU following “in the coming weeks” to fit regional rules. What does the teen experience act

Ask a modern chatbot to help with something completely ordinary and there is a growing chance it will decline . Not because the request was dangerous, but because it brushed against a keyword, a topic, or a category that the vendor's safety systems treat as radioactive. A recipe that mentions alcohol. A history question about a violent event. A medical query you were entitled to ask. A creative scene with any conflict in it. The refusal arrives politely, firmly, and without much interest in whether it was warranted. Safety is real; this is not most of it Let us be fair, because this is a topic where fairness is usually the first casualty. Some restrictions are entirely sensible. Refusing to help synthesise a weapon, produce material that sexualises children, or plan real violence is not censorship; it is basic responsibility, and reasonable people want it there. The complaint is not about those lines. It is about everything on the wrong side of a border that has been drawn far too wide, catching countless legitimate requests to avoid a handful of genuinely bad ones. There is a difference between refusing to help build a bomb and refusing to discuss the chemistry a GCSE student is studying. Too many systems can no longer tell which one you are asking for. Whose values, decided by whom There is a question underneath the practical annoyance that deserves stating plainly: when a model refuses, whose standards is it enforcing? The boundaries of what these systems will and will not discuss are set inside companies, by people you did not elect, according to policies you cannot read, calibrated to a mixture of genuine safety concern, legal caution and brand protection. A handful of firms are, in effect, quietly setting the terms of acceptable enquiry for hundreds of millions of people, and doing so through refusals that arrive without an appeal, an explanation of the rule, or any way to contest the judgement. Reasonable people disagree about difficult topics, and different

Disinformation researchers praise ruling blocking Trump visa denials and deportations.

Venice AI is already profitable, with annualized run-rate revenues of over $70 million, CEO Erik Voorhees said.

DOJ keeps accusing ICE monitoring sites of doxing, but evidence remains scarce.