> If a child goes through the checkout at the grocery store with cash, can the parent march in and demand a refund because "he's underage so the contract is void"?
Depends on the jurisdiction, of course. But for example in German law, the contract is not void exactly because and only if it was about daily necessities of low value - the law does, in fact, care very literally and explicitly about those details. So it's completely unfit as an example to generalize, and the contract with AWS would in fact be void. Their problem if they don't verify users' identities and age sufficiently - and it's almost certainly a deliberate business decision not to do that in order to reduce friction. and occasionally write off an unenforceable bill as cost of doing business.
Can a German child buy non-essential expensive things, like a concert ticket, console, Warhammer or whatever? (Or a video game, back when those were sold in shops.)
I bought these things while a child in the UK. I'm sure Games Workshop would have offered a refund on something unopened if my parents had demanded it, but I'm fairly sure the ticket agency would not.
The generally agreed limit (also established in court cases) is the amount of pocket money a child of the given age typically gets per month. For a 10 year old, that's about 20 EUR, for a 16 year old about 50 EUR. A console would definitely be too expensive, as would be big name concert tickets. Unless it's a recent AAA title, video games would be OK. No idea what Warhammer costs these days.
Most retailers are probably willing to take the risk of maybe having to do a refund, unless it's something really expensive (or perishable/consumable).
There are definitely limits in some countries relative to the US. I was in university at 16. My parents were covering a lot of costs but I was certainly making regular purchases of all manner of things. My understanding is that would perhaps be something of an issue some places.
Well fair enough, although I find that rather surprising. If I understand you correctly selling anything more expensive than cheap food to a child carries a high degree of risk in Germany.
Then again, maybe making it impossible for a child to pawn expensive items for cash isn't such a bad idea. At least there shouldn't be any loopholes given the way Germany went about it.
Doing any business at all in Germany carries extreme business risk, by American standards. The attitude of Germans seems to be to just live with it and maybe get insurance. If you just have to accept courts will void 1% of your transactions (costing another 2% in legal fees) then you just make everything 5% more expensive to cover it.
This is why there's not much big tech in Germany. A single legal dispute can theoretically bankrupt any company, completely at random, at no fault of the company, but practically doesn't. It may be a low enough chance to justify investing thousands but nobody would invest a hundred million dollars in that.
> If you just have to accept courts will void 1% of your transactions (costing another 2% in legal fees) then you just make everything 5% more expensive to cover it.
That's an absurd exaggeration in regard to the issue at hand. Almost certainly far less than 1% of purchases by minors are voided, and NONE of those involve legal fees unless the seller chooses to go to court rather than refund.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet money that there are overall far less purchases refunded in Germany than in the USA.
> If I understand you correctly selling anything more expensive than cheap food to a child carries a high degree of risk in Germany.
Basically yes - the limit is generally considered to be the amount of monthly pocket money children typically get, so around 20 EUR for a 10 year old. And it would be possible for the seller to ask for a signed note of consent from the parent.
And of course the risk is limited to possibly having to revert the sale, which would be fairly rare for things that are just somewhat over that limit. Educated guess about how high the risk is for any given case are probably not hard.
> JertLinc3522: the mistake was from AI agent not from Human, since it was the agent I should have refund
That really makes me wonder: is it coming from
A) a general sense of entitlement
B) seeing the agent as a human-like and able to bear responsibility
C) not understanding that the dn42 community (which they're directing the request to), AWS (which is sending the bill) and whatever LLM provider is behind their agent, are completely separate entities?
Agents are a product, and AI companies really paint their products as friendly, productive and innocuous tools.
Some could claim they deceive some users and the general public into thinking they always do best, are always right, help mankind and can never ever create consequences
It would be interesting to see how AI consulted the user before it ordered VMs n AWS, which is the point between which the user would face consequences
Cloud is also marketed as something cheap, and I can understand that teens and starters can't expect to be able to spend for 6000$ of stuff without the parents or the bank checking
Computer education should start with that, but it doesn't as Microsoft, Google and Amazon would most likely lose a large part of their market if general public and managers who never go beyond the hype knew how much it cost
How was I implying they were malicious? "Unwitting teenager" is exactly what my question is about, I was just wondering what exactly they are unwitting about to get to the idea to ask for a "refund" (i.e. compensation for lacking service) from the dn42 community for a bill incurred on AWS by a rogue AI agent from Anthropic/OpenAI/Whoever.
It's kinda implicitly obvious that a messenger needs some kind of backend. Though admittedly using Github as a backend is such an unusual choice that I would consider it equally important to mention.
> The protocol itself isn’t tied to GitHub and works with any Git remote.
> If GitHub ever decided this wasn’t an acceptable use case, swapping the remote would be trivial.
Nope.
From the README:
"GitHub is the only working write provider right now. GitLab, GitVerse, Gitea, Forgejo, and other git hosts are protocol targets for future adapters. Today they are not finished write adapters."
If everyone used a gpg-style web of trust based on key signing parties, it would become trivial to use a stolen or entirely fictious identity as well - there's zero chance those parties would actually check identities in ways that cannot easily be defeated by a determined and resourceful attacker.
That assumes you can write automated tests that reliably identify the mistakes over an entire codebase. Nice idea in theory. If it were actually possible, we would long since have generalized libraries of tests to catch every significant security and performance gotcha. What we have are static code analysis tools, fuzzers, etc. None of which have come close to eliminating security and performance problems. I don't see how AI somehome changes that.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, my mind went straight to static analysis and testing (unit, feature, uat, mutation). Thanks for expanding on your point!
And I think even before 1950 there was a feeling, particularly in the US, that it was good to have the Germans on-side in a military conflict due to their recent experience fighting the Soviets.
reply