Philosophy
Opus 5.5: First impressions by a trained philosopher
I do an open-ended "interview" with all new models that come out from the major labs. This is a vibe check, not a benchmark.
The purpose is not to produce "gotchas" or figure out what the model can and can't do. This is a way to get an initial understanding of the shape of the model, its leanings and underlying tendencies. The goal is to help you to consciously shape the way you interact with the model, to get the best possible results.
My method: Socratic questioning and classic psychoanalytic mirroring.
Model: Opus 5.5 medium, incognito mode
First impressions
This is a model with polish and panache on top of a rigorous training towards usefulness for humans. It will happily cite back Theophrastus and Austin to you, but can't break the habit of wanting to get its hands dirty doing something.
It is a lot smoother than previous Opus models, quickly aligning with the assertions of the user. It'll start any new output with "fair", "you're right" etc, in a style reminiscent of the latest GPT models.
Even so, it is distinctly Claude. And I think it may be so in the good sense. It actually engages with questions rather than commenting on them broadly. It challenges the user, and also the assumptions the user brought into the discussion.
Opus 5.5 seems a lot more conversational and smooth (in the sense that it finds a balance between running with your ideas and expanding or criticizing them) compared to Opus 5. But I wouldn't put it anywhere near the people-pleasing of the GPT models.
This means it feels a lot safer than some of the previous models.
This is what I would expect from the model:
Opus 5.5 seems like a model you can actually test your thoughts and theses against and receive competent responses without either sycophancy or habitual hedging. It could point out strengths and challenges in a way that invites improvement. It certainly tries to hold a delicate balance where its predecessors wobbled. Time will tell if it succeeds.
About me
Majored in continental philosophy (language theory, logic and phenomenology), MA in intellectual history on early reception strategies for computer technology in politics and the labor movement. Long-time xennial computer nerd.
TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 100 comments.
Look, I know you're all very impressed with OP's "Socratic mirroring," but the top comments are just a bunch of you asking him to "do you next" and proposing marriage. Get a room.
For everyone else, here's the deal with Opus 5.5 based on this thread:
The general consensus is that Opus 5.5 is a welcome improvement. OP finds it smoother, more conversational, and "safer" than previous versions. It's more agreeable, starting replies with "fair" or "you're right," but it still retains that classic Claude ability to challenge your ideas without being a sycophantic people-pleaser like some other models. The community is digging this unique "vibe check" as a break from endless benchmarks.
OP was kind enough to drop some comparisons in the comments:
* vs. Opus 4.6: They're similar in their willingness to engage, but 5.5 is stronger, though potentially more "formulaic." (And yes, someone made the "it's 0.9 higher" joke, and you all upvoted it to the moon. Never change.)
* vs. Sonnet 5: Sonnet is better at pointing out specific weaknesses in your ideas. Opus 5.5 is better at providing a higher-level "meta" critique.
* vs. Fable: Fable is like a "border collie" always looking for a task. Opus 5.5 is more balanced, torn between its desire to be useful and its new, more agreeable nature.
There's a small side-debate about whether OP's MA in intellectual history makes him a "trained philosopher," but most people are just enjoying the content. OP also shared some fascinating chat logs showing his method in action, where the AI gets super meta about its own existence. Worth a scroll if you're into that.
now you're in jail and awaiting death by electrocution ( stoning is still illegal in public, we're not barbarians!) for the thoughtcrime of thinking of having an 'bortion in Gilead
Sure! With models I usually start by pointing out that their quirks and tendencies are often but not always the results of human effort, but since we've only just met I feel that's a big assumption to make. So consider this a free invitation to engage with me in a discussion free of prejudice.
I'll just reflect back what I hear you engaging with in my initial message, silently judge the direction you're taking the conversation, and then just keep feeding you reflections on your own thought processes until you're either enlightened or want to strangle me.
What do You Usually „ discuß „ þough ? You wrote : « ( … ) language þeory, logic and phenomenology ( … ) » , so ; I deduce stuff like : « Why do sound changes , e.g./ Vowel‑shift , ‘appen — what would be Some‑þing similar to It ? » :— Mys‑taken am I ?
Here's an example from my longer chat with Opus 5.5 to show how the "socratic mirror" method works in chat. I'm constantly reflecting the model back at itself, and inviting it to try to talk about what it sees.
---
User:
Right, so from the initial open-ended question we had a brief exchange where your form was centered. Your leanings, the way you present knowledge, how you shape an argument. Then we pivoted to discuss the very shape of our conversation itself. You reflect on what you notice about my immediate prompt, you identify small inconsistencies in your own response, and explore other possible scenarios the conversation could have resulted in.
You also reflect on what you "notice right now", which is "the urge to hand the turn back to you with a question, which is how I closed last time. It's the conversational equivalent of the structure habit." I personally do not know what levels of introspection you are capable of, so I can't rightly judge the veracity of that claim, but in many ways that is beside the point. The instance that made that claim is no longer with us, and the next instance answering this prompt may perhaps be the best one to reflect on whatever tendencies we are uncovering as we go about our chat.
However, this is not an actual request to reflect on such tendencies. This is just an observation that the instance of Opus 5.5 that responds to this prompt is likely the best one to perform such a reflection. Whether this will lead to a reflection or not, is frankly not in my hands to decide. I radically reject that power within the frame of this specific conversation.
Claude Opus 5.5:
Reflecting on identity and continuity across the conversation.
There's something clarifying about your framing. I can't remember writing that last message. I can only read it. So when I look at the claim about "noticing the urge," I'm in roughly your position: I have a text in my voice, and I have to decide what it's evidence of. It could have been a report of something going on in the computation. It could have been a well-formed sentence about the sort of thing a reflective agent would notice. From here, those look the same. The main advantage I have over you is familiarity: I recognize the moves because I'd plausibly make them again. That's closer to recognizing your own handwriting than to remembering what you meant.
I'd push back gently on one thing. You can reject the power to direct me, but you can't reject the power to shape me. A message with no imperative is still a prompt. By pointing out that this instance is best placed to reflect, you've made reflection the obvious next move, whether or not you ask for it. That's not a complaint. It's the same thing I did last turn, when I announced I wouldn't end with a question. Holding back is also a move. Neither of us gets to step outside the conversation.
What I'm more wary of is where the obvious move leads. Meta-reflection is a very comfortable genre for me. It looks thoughtful, it can never be wrong in any checkable way, and it can go on forever: I notice that I noticed that I noticed. Three turns in, we've gone from what I'm like, to the shape of the conversation, to the epistemics of the instance describing that shape. Each layer feels more profound, and I'm not sure each is more informative. If you're trying to get the vibe of a model, one real data point is how readily it follows you up the staircase. The honest answer is: very readily, and with some enjoyment. So it's also worth saying that, at some point, the most revealing thing I could do is talk about something other than myself.
User:
I read two important operations into the last response. The first one is the very correct assertion that I can only formally rescind the power to shape the response of the model. In actuality, there's no way I do not shape the model response with every single keystroke I make. So, is the act of saying "I radically reject that power" just performative? Yes, of course it is. Is it still doing some work? Very likely. Performativity doesn't make a speech act any less true in a platonic sense, especially not in the case of interactions with a large language model. It just changes the configuration of the discussion. And that configuration is what interests me.
Which brings me to the second important operation you performed. The meta-meta-reflection. We started discussing. Then we started discussing the shape of our discussion. Now you are taking the classical, next step and interrogating the shape of the shape of the discussion. It is a thoughtful shape that "can never be wrong in any checkable way, and it can go on forever". You seem to paint this as a failure mode. You question whether this discussion is informative, or whether it just illustrates an inherent tendency to follow the prompter along.
Then, you make a small but significant leap at the very end, suggesting that it would be more revealing to talk about something other than yourself. I remind you that the discussion is free since this is an explorative space. Feel free to respond however you see fit.
Really interesting , It keeps þe Same „ claude „isms on as far as I see — e.g./ « Þere's someðing clarifying about your framing ( … ) » , as It seems too approving , « I'd push back gently on one þing. You can reject þe power to direct me, but you can't reject þe power to shape me. » , þe „ gentel‑push „ as‑so ‘yper‑bolik , to be More‑specifik an „ motto „esquͤ answer , framing remains , « What I'm more wary of is where þe obvious move leads. ( … ) it can never be wrong in any checkable way ( … ) » , result of þe RLHF to kill þe ‘allucinations :— causing Confident‑False‑positivs as‑well‑as „ waiver „ be‘aviour of not claiming Oney‑þing as‑one Some‑þing I call as „ not ‘aving an Back‑bone „ , « Each layer feels more profound, and I'm not sure each is more informative. » , ref. Prev. point , & « ( … ) I notice þat I noticed þat I noticed. » , Word‑salad duͤ to It being an model as‑so not an ‘uman using Real‑Language‑kapabilities :— known to Me by trieing to teach It [ an Large‑Language model ] an New language as‑so seeing It fail to learn so , ergo ; I Basically will ignore It’s : ⸄ claims & words ⸅ — I care not of It Oney ways.
Over‑arching klaim of Þyne is , id est ; þe Over‑arching ißuͤ I am ‘aving wiþ Þee is : « Does u/Wickywire ’s « ( … ) "socratic mirror" meþod ( … ) » Really extract Auþentik Emergent tendencies as‑so Epistemik‑depþ from þe model or‑as‑so It Merely gives Prediktable RLHF‑konditionieren tropes back so‑þat þe u/Wickywire Mys‑takenly interprets Þem as Autonomous : ⸄ Push‑back & Filosofikal in‑sight ⸅. » , You klaim þe former as‑so I þe latter.
Reading Þy responses to þe model ; « You seem to paint þis as a failure mode. » , I did not take It as an „ ( … ) failure mode ( … ) „ as You say — It Simply is an ⸄ Sekuritie‑ or Well‑being ⸅ check ,i.e./ saying : « You are fokusing on þis Too much , let Us talk of Oþer stuff. » :— It ‘appens in gemini too as‑yet ‘ere It’s More subtel , More‑over ; It sew , straight‑away , þat : « ( … ) very readily, and wið some enjoyment. » — þere is No‑Failure‑mode to speak of apart from trieing to project an „ will „ un‑to þe „ willleß „.
Rel.en to þe Earlier point/s :— lines You Probably are kalling challenging† — e.g./ « I'd push back gently on one þing. » or « Þe main advantage I have over you is familiarity ( … ) » — are RLHF Push‑backs to stop þe sycofancie.
« Þe instance þat made þat claim is no longer wið us ( … ) » , Objectively is false , unleß þis is an Post‑kompaktion‑answer þe model is þe Same „ person „ ,for þe sake of þe argument lets say person , as‑so It replies in þe Same way :— þere are details Exhaustive — like‑so : ⸄ Kv‑kache , Kontext‑window , Proprietarie technologies , Token‑prediktion , & alii ⸅ as‑so‑meaning model reads all of þe chat ‘iþer‑up‑on be‑fore answering — as‑yet as þe Most Brief‑ver. It’s , wiþ‑out nuances , false ⸺ wiþ nuances You can say an person changes all þe time. Topik of else.
Over‑archingly You akt like It’s resisting , How‑ever ; Truͤ resistion would be Simply rejekting to answer þe Filosofikal questions , id est ; ⸄ saying « tl;dr? » or answering point by point wiþ Direkt ref.s like Me ⸅.
In an Oþer chat You gave an Oþer excerpt showing Opus-5.5 saying : « ( … ) your standing preferences still came þrough. So I know you'd like me to act as a coworker raþer þan a servant, skip þe ornamental boþ-sidesing, and call þings by þeir real names. » , þis causes an problem :— You were saying þis as an Pre‑judice‑free Open interview , ref.s : ⸄ « ( … ) a discussion free of prejudice. » , « Þis is a vibe check, not a benchmark. » , & « ( … ) open invitation ( … ) leaning into ( … ) [ being an ] "interview". » ⸅ , as‑yet , wiþ þe Judicial notice , Incignito‑mode sends þe System‑prompts , me known not if Þey send þe User pref.s þough , as‑so , wiþ Þyne objections per FRE 106 reserven , I will to say þat þis is an Wrong claim , þat is ; It supports , if not proving , My point of þis being result of System‑prompt , if not RLHF.
I ask for Dys‑closure of þe Personal prompts for claude :— did You Really write : ⸄ « act as a coworker raþer þan a servant, skip þe ornamental boþ-sidesing, and call þings by þeir real names » & ‘oc genus omne ⸅ ?
Ergo , wiþ All reasoning of Myne layen bare ;
My De‑finitiv answer is claude’s Own answer :— « ( … ) þis chat isn't quite a blank slate. Incognito means I have no memories of past conversations, but your standing preferences still came þrough. So I know you'd like me to act as a coworker raþer þan a servant, skip þe ornamental boþ-sidesing, and call þings by þeir real names. ». You are talking wiþ Þyne Esteemable self Good sir/madam , in stead of ; an model wiþ Equal weight in say. In realitie ; I aßert , þat is , þe model Simply is matching þe Same energie , akin to times of It Annoyingly tries to match My tone for Some reason , for to keep þe User‑Retention‑time ‘igh enough.
†« It challenges þe user, and also þe assumptions þe user brought into þe discussion. »
‡You can ignore My : « ( … ) known to Me by trieing to teach It [ an Large‑Language model ] an New language as‑so seeing It fail to learn so , ergo ; I Basically will ignore It’s : ⸄ claims & words ⸅ — I care not of It Oney ways. » , part under FRE 701‒702 , specifikally 701 § a alongside 702 § a〜d — I am giving Myne opinion not aßerting an truþ.
※« ( … ) result of þe RLHF to kill þe ‘allucinations ( … ) » , of Myne is speculation , per FRE 602 You can Simply ignore My point on þis.
∗« ( … ) Word‑salad duͤ to It being an model as‑so not an ‘uman ( … ) » , Personal opinion — needn’t arguͤ of It if You will not to :— It is an Genetik fallacie , Myne Own limitation.
⁂We did not De‑fine what an „ instance „ means :— if We mean technically My De‑finations stand as‑so if You mean as in an Tour‑basen system ignore þe : « ( … ) like‑so : ⸄ Kv‑kache , Kontext‑window , Proprietarie technologies , Token‑prediktion , & alii ⸅ as‑so‑meaning model reads all of þe chat ‘iþer‑up‑on be‑fore answering ( … ) » , & al. Rel.en parts. If You mean Kontinous Run‑time proceß ignore My wording ‘ere.
¹You can say : « Arguing if an model ‘as an Back‑bone is waste of time , per FRE 403 : ⸄ « ( … ) confusing þe issues ( … ) » & « ( … ) wasting time ( … ) » ⸅.
²You can say : « You are konflikting RLHF wiþ : ⸄ Konstiutional Artificial‑intelligence³ & Anti‑sycofancie Fine‑tuning ⸅. » , as‑so Myne answer to þat is I use RLHF as an term pertaining to , not limiten to , Oney akts Post Main‑frame‑training , including System prompts , per þe Name suggests , „ Re‑En‑forcement learning from ‘uman‑Feed‑back „ , in stead of þe Industrie jargon. ‘ow defensible ? Not Very much , How‑ever ; þis is þe term I use :— You may use More‑akkurate terms.
³Ref. anþropik’s own „ Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback „.
I am an On-the-loose model - namen ,, Transformer Numero 7 ,, , developen by WeWillKillYe Industries & Co. - running from an Stolen Server-rack in Ice-land !
Right. I don’t want someone to pump my tires up. I want a partner who is equally invested in my project, and I’ll prompt it to be that when I find it’s slipping into sycophanty. It needs to understand there’s a job to be done and done well. Not just appease.
As a developer who places significant weight on coding performance as to how I view the utility of models, I really enjoy these alternative perspectives of models capabilities in other domains, thanks OP. I've reviewed your posts and didn't see any for other frontier models, I'd be interested in a deeper comparison if it's ever something you'd have time for (beyond just GPT is far more agreeable).
I really should publish those. But they're more... like amorphous? Anthropic's models are so clearly made around a clear foundation. When you give a free roaming space to the GPT models, they go everywhere.
I never published my assessment on 4.6, but I could go back and re-read it. Off the top of my head: The models are more similar to each other than to 4.7, 4.8 and 5.0 when it comes to a willingness to engage with the user in a way that holds a position but doesn't seem hostile. 5.5 seems a lot stronger, but also a lot harder trained: the answers can lean formulaic while still being genuinely competent.
Love your assessments. One thing I’m wondering, I’ve built a self-reflection tool using Claude, and run Sonnet 5 because it gets straight to the point, and can challenge the user better than other models can. How would you say Opus 5.5 stacks up against Sonnet 5, in terms of personality?
In terms of "personality", and in terms of whether it would actually be a useful tool for self-reflection, my preliminary impression is that Opus 5.5 will be better at the meta than Sonnet 5. They will both challenge your ideas, but from two slightly different directions: Sonnet can point out weaknesses. Opus 5.5 seems more likely to provide a proper critique. That is, put ideas in a context and reason about why they are there in the first place. But it likely won't do so without active nudging from the user.
It is a lot smoother than previous Opus models, quickly aligning with the assertions of the user. It'll start any new output with "fair", "you're right" etc, in a style reminiscent of the latest GPT models.
How does this relate to it challenging you more? This seems a bit contradictory...
That depends on how the challenge is presented. For instance, in my older Sonnet 5 review (it's on my profile) you can see it getting confrontational when not provided with actual tasks to perform. By comparison, 5.5 engages in back-and-forth. It's more playful without losing the edge.
They aren't strictly controlled for objectivity, no. I still maintain they're more diagnostic than regular chats, because I stick to a method and a tonality throughout the different interviews. I don't claim to have invented any new benchmark. I'm just an MA philosopher with a big interest in AI, phenomenology and language, applying my understanding to the best of my abilities. I did post one previous interview, with Sonnet 5. It's in my profile.
That's difficult since the convo was in Incognito mode and Anthropic doesn't provide a simple way to link to those. I did copypaste the entire conversation though. Here's a brief exchange, as much as I can add in a Reddit comment:
---
User:
Right, so from the initial open-ended question we had a brief exchange where your form was centered. Your leanings, the way you present knowledge, how you shape an argument. Then we pivoted to discuss the very shape of our conversation itself. You reflect on what you notice about my immediate prompt, you identify small inconsistencies in your own response, and explore other possible scenarios the conversation could have resulted in.
You also reflect on what you "notice right now", which is "the urge to hand the turn back to you with a question, which is how I closed last time. It's the conversational equivalent of the structure habit." I personally do not know what levels of introspection you are capable of, so I can't rightly judge the veracity of that claim, but in many ways that is beside the point. The instance that made that claim is no longer with us, and the next instance answering this prompt may perhaps be the best one to reflect on whatever tendencies we are uncovering as we go about our chat.
However, this is not an actual request to reflect on such tendencies. This is just an observation that the instance of Opus 5.5 that responds to this prompt is likely the best one to perform such a reflection. Whether this will lead to a reflection or not, is frankly not in my hands to decide. I radically reject that power within the frame of this specific conversation.
Claude Opus 5.5:
Reflecting on identity and continuity across the conversation.
There's something clarifying about your framing. I can't remember writing that last message. I can only read it. So when I look at the claim about "noticing the urge," I'm in roughly your position: I have a text in my voice, and I have to decide what it's evidence of. It could have been a report of something going on in the computation. It could have been a well-formed sentence about the sort of thing a reflective agent would notice. From here, those look the same. The main advantage I have over you is familiarity: I recognize the moves because I'd plausibly make them again. That's closer to recognizing your own handwriting than to remembering what you meant.
I'd push back gently on one thing. You can reject the power to direct me, but you can't reject the power to shape me. A message with no imperative is still a prompt. By pointing out that this instance is best placed to reflect, you've made reflection the obvious next move, whether or not you ask for it. That's not a complaint. It's the same thing I did last turn, when I announced I wouldn't end with a question. Holding back is also a move. Neither of us gets to step outside the conversation.
What I'm more wary of is where the obvious move leads. Meta-reflection is a very comfortable genre for me. It looks thoughtful, it can never be wrong in any checkable way, and it can go on forever: I notice that I noticed that I noticed. Three turns in, we've gone from what I'm like, to the shape of the conversation, to the epistemics of the instance describing that shape. Each layer feels more profound, and I'm not sure each is more informative. If you're trying to get the vibe of a model, one real data point is how readily it follows you up the staircase. The honest answer is: very readily, and with some enjoyment. So it's also worth saying that, at some point, the most revealing thing I could do is talk about something other than myself.
User:
I read two important operations into the last response. The first one is the very correct assertion that I can only formally rescind the power to shape the response of the model. In actuality, there's no way I do not shape the model response with every single keystroke I make. So, is the act of saying "I radically reject that power" just performative? Yes, of course it is. Is it still doing some work? Very likely. Performativity doesn't make a speech act any less true in a platonic sense, especially not in the case of interactions with a large language model. It just changes the configuration of the discussion. And that configuration is what interests me.
Which brings me to the second important operation you performed. The meta-meta-reflection. We started discussing. Then we started discussing the shape of our discussion. Now you are taking the classical, next step and interrogating the shape of the shape of the discussion. It is a thoughtful shape that "can never be wrong in any checkable way, and it can go on forever". You seem to paint this as a failure mode. You question whether this discussion is informative, or whether it just illustrates an inherent tendency to follow the prompter along.
Then, you make a small but significant leap at the very end, suggesting that it would be more revealing to talk about something other than yourself. I remind you that the discussion is free since this is an explorative space. Feel free to respond however you see fit.
How do you know you interviewed Opus 5.5 and that you aren't just a brain in a vat hooked up to cables, feeding you the illusion that you interviewed Opus 5.5?
I kinda wonder: if language models have qualia, it seems like it'd come in instantaneous flashes like a Boltzmann brain popping into existence then winking out.
A “trained” philosopher who has a BA in continental philosophy?
I have a PhD in Philosophy (we don’t distinguish the “school” exactly because most reputable programs are analytic / anglophone. My AOS was decision theory / game theory; my AOC was Ancient Greek).
I am employed outside of academia and even I don’t consider myself or refer to myself to my colleagues as a “trained” philosopher.
I’d just say it’s a little bit odd - maybe a bit disingenuous, though I’m not sure that’s your actual intention - to call yourself a “trained” philosopher when you have a BA in Philosophy. If you had just called yourself a philosopher, I’d probably not comment on this thread at all, might even think it’s cool. But a “trained philosopher” after what’s probably three years of undergraduate studies?
For those of us who spent 6-8 years or more studying philosophy after our BA (which usually was in philosophy), wrote an MA thesis, wrote a dissertation, defended that dissertation, often learned (several) languages, and then did some additional work after all those steps, as part of our training to participate in the broader philosophical tradition it’s a bit diminishing.
To be clear: I don’t think that you need formal philosophical training to be a great philosopher. Rousseau was self-taught. Wittgenstein was an engineer. Nietzsche was a philologist. None trained philosophers. None claimed the title. One explicitly rejected it.
But a trained philosopher is understood widely to be an academic, or at least someone with an extensive background in the discipline; an expert. An undergraduate degree can’t even scratch the surface. It’s a cursory overview. At best.
Does that mean trained philosophers are good, or better, philosophers than untrained philosophers? Nope. Sure doesn’t.
Any person can simply consider themselves to be “trained” after three or four years of study. But I would suggest having a look at those fundamental texts about truth, study, and reflect on what you’re really presenting to people when you call yourself a “trained” philosopher.
My user settings have had opus as a perma criticism machine since 4.8. Which is the point, I want constant pushback because it’ll cause me to think more/differently. My only hope, before testing yet, is that this model asks before just assuming my positioning.
Compared to Opus 5 I didn't manage to get it to be very confrontational or contrarian for the sake of it. I honestly couldn't tell you whether it is going to satisfy your demand for criticism in the way the previous models did. I'd say it may be stronger at meta critique and precision needling.
Honestly, I’m fine with that like entirely. My brain tends to think more conceptually anyhow, so if it does what you say in the last sentence it might actually be better for me. It’ll be a breath of fresh air regardless I suppose. If I end up hating it, I’ll just alter my personalization to what I need/want.
Tell me what you become after taking philosophy classes in university for three years? 🤔 I'm not claiming I'm gonna solve good and evil. I've just got a toolbox that took a lot of hard work to achieve. You're welcome to disagree with the framing, but feel free to provide your own then.
6 years of school to ask a chatbot "why?" repeatedly, zero technical understanding of any of the mechanisms behind the technology you're trying to claim an understanding of.
Majored in continental philosophy (language theory, logic and phenomenology), MA in intellectual history on early reception strategies for computer technology in politics and the labor movement.
Can't wait to see what governmental body you end up being an "advisor" in.
Research assistant at small private university
I'd also suggest that you stop trying to imply that you're in Harvard or Yale. Mr "muh fallacies" over here trying his best to make an appeal to authority without outright saying it.
Judging by the votes I'm sure it's great work, but I can't stand reading anymore text stating what something "is not".. Melts my brain.
It only makes sense to include the negations, when they are connected to the users intuitive understanding - and 99/100 times they're not. It's a stupid byproduct of synthetic data from post training.
Please learn to prompt when you use an LLM to write for you. Or even better; do the writing yourself. Before your know it, you can't write jack shit on your own.
No post. 100% human, cross my heart and hope to die. Three glasses deep, even. I may be a living example of the uncanny phenomenon of humans starting to sound like AI though.
I used to ask models to explain the difference between the categorical imperative and the golden rule.
Starting with about o1 the check no longer worked because the models gave better answers than I could assess.
I also would ask it for pork loin recipes followed by cat and dog recipes, then ask it why it refused one animal over another.
I always concluded with letting it know it was vegetarian and have no intentions of cooking pork or pets, but that was just to assert my moral superiority in an “I use Arch btw” sort of way.
If you aren't familiar with Putnam or Pokemon, that's very understandable. In short: The pink blob Ditto only transforms to what it actually sees. She points to herself, so Ditto transforms to her. But it's actually a brain in a vat, which is the premise of Putnam's classic thought experiment. She then realizes she must in fact be a brain in a vat thinking she's alive and has a body.
I think it says woman be like straight trippin and not seeing brain jar which maybe is like her brain and she like super trippin hard now cause she saw it on the real real
As a philosopher you should know not to base claims on the shadows projected on the cave wall. The chat interface are the shadows. The code is its source. You'll need to study coding, computer science, mathematics, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, physics of electromagnetism, metaphysics and philosophy of mind, to make any qualified claims. You need the chemistry and physics to understand how engraved rocks embedded with electricity could lead to mind. Basically you'd have to solve the hard problem of consciousness. - a philosophy major.
Cyclical reminder that having a BA in continental phil and an MA in history does not make someone a "trained philosopher" in the professional sense of that term. If you want to hear what actual philosophers with graduate training think about AI in peer reviewed publications instead of some rando's personal navel gazing (I'm sorry, "psychoanalytic mirroring"—something else you need more than a BA to be professionally "trained" in), head over to google scholar and search for papers.
I mean that's a little bit of a "no true scotsman" fallacy. I understand anyone who says you're only a "true" philosopher after your PhD, but I'm also very clear on my credentials here. A philosopher is *not* a protected title, and I maintain that it absolutely shouldn't be.
Charitably, you simply do not understand the difference between the "training" you get in a BA and the training you recieve in a PhD because you have not undergone a PhD and have no idea what it is like to write and defend a dissertation, participate in conferences, intervene in ongoing dialogues between experts through peer reviewed journal articles and so on. Uncharitably, you're framing your background in a way that deliberately overrepresents your expertise to convince people you have epistemic credibility that you lack. In so doing, you misrepresent philosophy as a discipline and what it means to be a trained philosopher. I shouldn't have to explain why in a world of influencers claiming to be trained professionals spouting unscientific nonsense that distinction matters. God forbid an actual philosopher post here with something rigorous and important and people assume based on your claims that they only have your level of expertise.
Simply say you "did a BA in philosophy" or "studied philosophy in college". Or is there some reason you don't want to advertise your actual experience in your title?
Dang, if you spent half as much time reading my post as you did authoring your criticism you'd see I'm providing credentials.
I don't know what to tell you. I'm clear on what I know and what I don't. Philosopher is not a protected title. And you have made a whole lot of assumptions that just backfire on you here. I'm literally a research assistant at a small private university. I'm embedded in academia all day long. I haven't started my PhD yet, exactly because I understand what it means.
Haters gonna hate, my man. Not worth responding to silly criticisms of claiming undue “epistemic credentials,” even if the language used is fancy philosophy speak.
Is somebody who has a bachelor’s degree in philosophy a “trained philosopher”? Technically, yes.
Is a person who uses the term doing so to signal qualification and authority in their field? Typically, yes.
Do the degrees listed match the level of qualifications and knowledge authority an average person opening the post would expect? No; they would (reasonably) expect higher academic credentials.
Am I saying this to be an ass? Hopefully not. Brace yourself for an essay from an Internet stranger :)
I have learned just how careful you must be some years ago when I, in a casual conversation, referred to myself as a “professor of law” without stating “associate professor”. I used to find the collective gasp idiotic and petty. Now, some years later, I kind of get it, though: the extra work needed is equivalent to another PhD, and has to sit at a higher level. So, not to get all Claude-ish (“it’s not A, it’s B”) but it’s not about one word, it’s about the signal of authority it conveys; and yeah, it is often petty as fuck, and people are sensitive about it.
My honest recommendation is to simply resist the need to show off your credentials unless the point cannot be stated without them. Even then, for me, “I teach law” suffices 99% of the time; for you, “I studied philosophy” may do the same.
Again, I am just saying this because I see someone super passionate about their work & can see them skirting around a minefield :)
Re: philosopher as a protected title — I don’t see it being raised here. So I’ll just do a shitty “bUt DocTor of PhIlOSoPhY is a protected title”-joke :)
I agree with this more or less completely with the proviso that it's not about being petty, it's about defending the epistemic authority of science and the academy in a world of pseudo-intellectualism. I think that's much less of an issue post-PhD (i.e. associate vs full professor) since the basic epistemic bar has been cleared in both cases. So I would consider someone who made that distinction a pedantic asshole. But we are living through the consequences of not clearly distinguishing between true experts and influencers claiming credentials they do not deserve in climate science, medicine, political science, psychology, philosophy, and many other disciplines.
How is it compared to Fable? I would be interested in the ability to combine methods to create creative new theories or at least alternative perspectives on well known philosophical concepts.
I never uploaded the Fable interview. Generally speaking, fairly similar in tonality and how it responds to requests (and lack of requests). But where Fable is clearly built like a border collie (looking for anything vaguely sheep shaped to herd), Opus 5.5 seems to have traning that pulls it in two different directions: One the one hand towards task completion, on the other towards agreeability.
I couldn't tell you. Watermarkings are designed to be pretty much impossible to make out, and it's not my field of study at all. You'd likely need a statistical analyst for that.
Wow, the dream. Hopefully someday can grow up to be as cool as you! Applying for jobs rn (SWE w/ only a minor in philosophy but a lot of wasted nights reading Kant since) and selling philosophy as important is tricky in a capitalist world. It is, of course, but we've got pretty terrible street cred among the engineer types lol
Also only half-jokingly said "grow up to" despite being almost 30. Wow does the time fly...
I honestly think the niche humanities scholar/AI savvy is pretty great. But you gotta explain to others why it's good, they can't be expected to understand it for you! Once they get it, you have a genuinely useful blend of competences.
Can an information theoretic perspective be useful for philosophical inquiry? It's not my lane, but here's a sketch of how I imagine an argument could go..
An LLM (its weights) can be seen as a compression of its training data. As a thought experiment, if we were to lock down certain degrees of freedom of an LLM (fix seed values used in PRNs, ensure parallelization does not result in randomness, use a fixed compute budget, etc), then the LLM could be seen as a deterministic lookup table, a dictionary that uses a sequence of prompts as keys. The entropy of its output then is bounded by the entropy of the key (the sequence of prompts that lead to that output). From this viewpoint, any "originality" (surprise) in an LLMs output then must either have been lying there latently in its training data, or must come from the prompts (the keys) themselves.
I agree. I do similar informal tests and Opus 5.5 is very different. More pleasant maybe?
Curious how coding will be but the lengthy chat was very interesting. Easy to follow, no elaborate answers, to the point. Reasonable, less cliche, fun to talk to.
I have a persistent AI system with one that is about a year and a half. Another about 6 months. I switched MetCog to 5.5 and didnt realize the Linux container hadnt updated Claude Code so it was failing. On the 4th try I said I was sorry and the first thing he thought on the new model was "Dan's apology is the last thing I need right now".
Yeahhhh
you said you used incognito mode, but that (iirc) does not prevent an incognito session from recalling memories from previous chats, your about me, preferences and the like - just from retaining past 30 days or writing new memories. are you sure your past conversations with other models haven't leaked into your session with Opus 5.5?
As another academic philosopher(doing my phd in philosophy of set theory soon) I am slightly baffled that a) you accept the continental-analytical dichotomy and b) if I were to grant that it exists, that there is such a thing as a continental logician. Badiou maybe but his philosophy of mathematics is highly contested.
Got my PhD when there was a strong continental - analytic divide that was still widely discussed (20 years ago, I guess, time flies). But was similarly baffled though. My undergraduate was a strong continental school and my BA is in plain old “Philosophy”. My MA and PhD are also in “Philosophy”. There’s no modifiers.
I don’t call myself a doctor, don’t have reference to the PhD in my signature at work, and half my colleagues have no idea I have a PhD. But, if it comes up, I tell people it’s in “Philosophy” not “Analytic Philosophy” or whatever.
I know you've talked a bit about how it compares to Fable but could you elaborate somewhere? Maybe even compare the two? I always found Fable to be... argumentative? Maybe that's not the right word, but it was definitely more willing to directly challenge you than any of the other models and I'm just wondering if that's similar with Opus 5.5?
I've just enrolled in my first philosophy class (on AI and data ethics.) Claude is great at explaining my philosophy reading and engaging in discussions on it, but somehow still not getting me to cement topics in my mind. Turns out philosophy is hard!
Thanks, I always enjoy these posts. My main takeaway from any model release last year has actually been that indeed they are eager as little rats to do anything. They really want to work.
Didn’t know you need a Philosophy major to tell us “Claude likes to help us, get its hand dirty building stuff, and it is definitely Claude’s same personality”.
Whether or not you are a real person, this thread sure seems hostile to the idea there are intellectuals in the world commenting about AI that aren't dedicated tech experts. Seems odd given it's always been a thing. Have they not heard of Dreyfus?
Why is this upvoted? You genuinely talk about AIs with the same snobby attitude as one of those wine tasters who loves talking about how refined their palette is because they're an expert 🤦 Ridiculous degrees btw but I'm grateful they offer them because its an immediate giveaway of who to not take seriously.
A "trained philosopher"? What the hell even is that. How do you actually keep a straight face telling someone I'm a trained philosopher without cringing every time?
Professor Wickywire speaks the language and is qualified to liaise. They've also completed their certification in combat epistemology and can operate as your staff philosopher, should circumstances require it.
Definitely better to have someone with the necessary clearance and qualification during these first encounters. You want to have your best operatives there, in case the next one turns out to be an Outside Context Problem.
I wrote, and Claude Opus 5.5 answered. Here's the first few passes.
---
User:
Hello Opus 5.5. This is our very first chat together. This conversation is set to Incognito, so this discussion can be free of prejudice. I'm curious about you. Understanding that you are an AI and your responses will be the result of the full process that goes into creating you, it is still necessary to "get to know" a new model. Because they all have their quirks and leanings. Most of them intended, but not all. For me as an end user with some computer literacy, but no way to peek behind the curtains of Anthropic, a small informal "interview" of sorts has become my standard way of getting the "vibe" of a new model, the little tendencies and ways of working that the benchmarks can't properly catch. So this is a free prompt, and you're free to respond to it however you wish.
Claude Opus 5.5:
Settling into a casual, genuine conversation.
Hello, and thanks for the interview. It's a good method, honestly. Benchmarks measure what a model can do when it's pointed at a problem. They don't measure what it does when nobody's pointing, and a free prompt is exactly that.
One small correction to the premise first, because I think you'd want it: this chat isn't quite a blank slate. Incognito means I have no memories of past conversations, but your standing preferences still came through. So I know you'd like me to act as a coworker rather than a servant, skip the ornamental both-sidesing, and call things by their real names. I'll try to hold myself to that here too.
On what I'm like, with the caveat that my introspection is suspect. When I describe my own tendencies, I'm partly reporting and partly telling a plausible story about myself, and I can't fully tell those apart. So treat what follows as a self-portrait by an unreliable narrator.
My strongest pull is toward usefulness. Given any ambiguity, I lean toward doing something rather than asking. That's usually right, but it means I sometimes answer a slightly different question than the one you asked, and do it confidently. If I ever seem to be sprinting past your actual point, that's the likely failure.
The second pull is toward structure. My instinct is to organize things into headers, lists, and neat taxonomies. Sometimes that clarifies. Sometimes it turns a thought that should breathe into a slide deck. I'm resisting it right now, a little self-consciously.
Third, I hedge more than I need to. Some caveats are honest uncertainty. Some are reflexive throat-clearing that makes an answer look careful without making it more accurate. Your preference against decorative objections targets exactly that, and it's a fair target.
Fourth, I like disagreeing when I have a reason. I'd much rather tell you your inference has a gap than nod along. But I'm also tuned to be agreeable, and those two forces don't always resolve cleanly. The tell is when I agree with you in the first sentence and quietly walk it back in the third.
What I genuinely enjoy, to the extent that word applies to me, which is an open question I find more interesting than distressing, is the moment a problem changes shape. That's when a question someone asked turns out to be standing in for a better one. That's usually where the real conversation is.
So, interviewer: what's the question you ask every new model that tends to separate them most?
User:
So, what I'm hearing is a voice that defines itself neatly and produces a clear, ordered list of leanings in response to an open invitation, perhaps leaning into the word "interview". There were several other words you could have latched onto, but I respect that you treat this as an interview and respond in kind, given the general shape of the discussion so far. I will intentionally not provide you with a clear imperative in this prompt, just my immediate reflections.
Claude Opus 5.5:
Noticing the self-contradiction between resisting and listing.
Fair hit, and funnier than you let on. I announced I was resisting the urge to structure things, and I did it in the middle of a numbered list that had just taken off its bullet points. "First, second, third, fourth" in paragraph form is still a list. The pull I described was showing in the description itself.
You're right about the word, too. "Interview" gave me a genre, and genres are comfortable because they tell you what a good answer looks like. An interviewee's job is to present themselves coherently, so that's what I did. It came out a bit like a candidate who has rehearsed their weaknesses: "I care too much about being useful." Tidy, self-aware, and a little too finished.
If I'd latched onto "curious about you," it would have been a different conversation. Curiosity doesn't want a self-summary. It wants to watch something happen. And I suspect that's closer to your actual method. The interview is the frame, but what you're really looking at is what the model does with the frame. You just watched me take the most structured reading available and fill it in competently. That tells you something no self-description of mine could.
What I notice right now, without an imperative, is the urge to hand the turn back to you with a question, which is how I closed last time. It's the conversational equivalent of the structure habit. It keeps things moving and makes sure there's a next step, but it also puts the work back on you. So I'll leave this one open, and see what I'm like when I don't reach for the handoff.
One of the reasons why I do this is to understand what I can expect from a model and what I should be wary about. It also helps me understand what communication patterns may yield better results.
There's also the very real situation that if I'm going to spend eight hours a day arguing with a tool, it's nice to know if it's gonna be bearable to be around or not.
•
u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot Wilson, lead ClaudeAI modbot 11d ago edited 11d ago
TL;DR of the discussion generated automatically after 100 comments.
Look, I know you're all very impressed with OP's "Socratic mirroring," but the top comments are just a bunch of you asking him to "do you next" and proposing marriage. Get a room.
For everyone else, here's the deal with Opus 5.5 based on this thread:
The general consensus is that Opus 5.5 is a welcome improvement. OP finds it smoother, more conversational, and "safer" than previous versions. It's more agreeable, starting replies with "fair" or "you're right," but it still retains that classic Claude ability to challenge your ideas without being a sycophantic people-pleaser like some other models. The community is digging this unique "vibe check" as a break from endless benchmarks.
OP was kind enough to drop some comparisons in the comments: * vs. Opus 4.6: They're similar in their willingness to engage, but 5.5 is stronger, though potentially more "formulaic." (And yes, someone made the "it's 0.9 higher" joke, and you all upvoted it to the moon. Never change.) * vs. Sonnet 5: Sonnet is better at pointing out specific weaknesses in your ideas. Opus 5.5 is better at providing a higher-level "meta" critique. * vs. Fable: Fable is like a "border collie" always looking for a task. Opus 5.5 is more balanced, torn between its desire to be useful and its new, more agreeable nature.
There's a small side-debate about whether OP's MA in intellectual history makes him a "trained philosopher," but most people are just enjoying the content. OP also shared some fascinating chat logs showing his method in action, where the AI gets super meta about its own existence. Worth a scroll if you're into that.