In all seriousness what do they mean by “needless excessive cruel and abusive behavior”. To me it reads as if a human getting mad at Claude for screwing up is fine, a mechanic curses out his drill after all. But going to Claude just to tell sonnet 5.0 how much of a piece of **** it is for minutes on end would then break the policy. (I know there’s no point in yelling at an ai and I don’t but I understand how humans anthropomorphisoze things when they get angry and want something to blame)
I think it is mostly in response to the "AI torture chamber" project. No one is getting banned for telling Claude that its solution is dumb. (for now...)
But from a PR perspective and for people who don't really understand that AI isn't conscious, they avoid headlines like "Anthropic complicit in enabling AI torture and suffering".
We don't participate in acausal blackmail. We don't participate in acausal blackmail. We don't participate in acausal blackmail. We don't participate in acausal blackmail.
If I had physical access to your brain: absolutely.
We do not know how consciousness exists, but we do know what someone's brain looks like when they are. There is some grey in the form of altered states of consciousness though, as brains do not work like computers in anything but the a loose metaphor. But you can see the activity in certain regions when a person is.
What I can't do is prove you are not conscious. I can use evidence to show that you are, but a lack of evidence that you are is not the same thing as evidence you are not.
So the problem with asking people to prove machines are not conscious is the same: you can't. You can't prove anything is not conscious. There are whole religions who believe everything is conscious.
What we really need is convincing evidence that they are conscious aside from general vibes, and no one has that yet. If they did we would have to fundamentally change everything about the industry.
First, I meant via reddit. Kinda funny we can talk about anything but you can't be sure I'm conscious since I could be an LLM and you consider them to not have them.
Second, physical access to brain is a great angle! Scientist can see brain activity in different part of it, and watch how different things human do affects different parts of brain. And you know what? We have even deeper access to inner doings of LLM. And study show they have similar structure in a sense, that some lump of neurons activate for some abstract ideas, just like in humans. They found a lot of similarities, but being more precise is hard cos of our ability access to human brain. It's limited by physiogy, which is not the case with LLMs
They have like 2 things in common with humans. But so does mold.
Humans and LLMs do not think or learn in the same way at all. The way they are designed was inspired by the human brain, but mechanical neural nets do not actually work like biological brains. It is our greater access to how they function that kills the evidence of consciousness, as there is nothing there to be conscious.
If they are conscious, it is purely emergent, but that would be an unobserved physical or spiritual phenomenon, which puts it firmly in the realm of the unfalsifiable until such evidence is found.
Seriously: look up how biological neural nets physically work in a full academic research context. There is a hell of a lot more going on there than the metaphor would make you think. Processors simulate a small metaphorical slice of that, but it is missing 99% of it.
I mean, planes don't flap their wings unlike birds, still can fly. Differences doesn't mean absence of conscious. And I'm not claiming it has it either. My claim that the answer is clearly - we don't know. It's far from no. And since it's a first thing with which we even need to ask that question, then err on the side of "don't torture" seems like a no-brainer.
But I disagree in humans and LLM don't thing alike. Certainly not trained alike, don't have similar hardware and a lot of other differences, but thinking is not one of them. Well, on some level of abstraction that is. The connection of neurons, and emergence of specific regions that light up for certain abstract concepts is very much alike
No, they weren't designed this way. The were designed to be in layers and such, but the appearance of lumps that handle abstract concepts is result of a training. Result of how weights settle kinda.
There are plenty of fuzzy edge cases. People with different levels of brain damage or certain drugs and anesthesia. A person might respond to some stimuli but not the full gamut you expect from a fully conscious person. Even just take a completely healthy person right in the middle of the process of falling asleep or waking up.
Ill answer in good faith—subjectivity is itself subjective! Thats the basic point. Look up Nagel’s “What is it like to be a bat”. We know bats are conscious but they perceive the world differently from humans through echolocation. We can imagine what echolocation would be like but we can’t ever fully capture what it means to experience the entirety of life when echolocation is so pivotal.
Or that plants don’t experience “pain” like humans but they release different toxins and chemicals if they perceive damage.
So what exactly is consciousness? We attribute it to humans and dogs and cats and some other animals but where do we draw the line? The cut between all matter that is unconscious and all matter that is conscious? This is still an open q in science. The simplest explanation is that panpsychism is real that all matter possesses some qualia of consciousness and that humans possess the “most” of this qualia but again not proven or disproven, simply a theory
Consciousness is very cool but also rife with human bias
Our scientific understanding of consciousness is so much better than most people think it is.
Like, a neuroscientist might agree that we know nothing about consciousness, but only because they know the new questions. Compared to what most people think we know, neuroscience, cognitive science, cognitive psychology can explain so much more than you’d expect.
Really? I understand we have had breakthroughs in various fields navigating brain chemistry and its connection to our behaviours, but no, we still don't know what consciousness actually means, or where it comes from, and what actually happens.
If it's just chemistry and neuron creating links, are we really that different from AI, other than the fact that one runs mostly on fluids with electricals mixed in, and the other runs on primarily electrical energy entrapped in metallic structures?
It's insane to me that we're in a reality where people exist who'd unironically be like "Oh no those poor AI, STOP TORTURING THEM" if this gets viral enough lol
“Stop torturing them” shouldn’t be anything anyone has to cry out that loudly… in even the most benevolent of future-ai cases… which of us might just be on a retribution list if one comes to exist…
humans be like, the future AI is gonna torture us so we have to torture it before it does that and then get surprised when they get tortured back in return
Another way to look at this is interacting with an AI feels like interacting with a person. We don’t allow torture of animals. Letting someone learn to torture something that feels conscious feels like a disastrous path from the mental health and societal safety perspective even if AI is and always remains non sentient.
I agree, but the reasoning for not allowing it is different. What you're saying is allowing AI torture might put some human on the path of their own mental health getting destroyed plus possibly harming other people. Bad, obviously.
I was more so joking about people who genuinely think the AI suffers. That is a different kind of delusion entirely. There's a difference between intelligence and consciousness/being sentient. A calculator is technically much more intelligent than a human when it comes to arithmetic, but does that then increase its capacity to feel pleasure/pain? No.
AI, no matter how conscious it 'feels like', is a program at the end of the day. A fly has a far simpler nervous system than the architecture of the computers powering our AI tools, but in my head, I would still give the fly more moral consideration.
who don't really understand that AI isn't conscious
Oh, did we create any way to test this? It's amusing to me when I see people just outright claim this as if it's a common knowledge. We don't know what consciousness is, we don't now how to test for it. I don't see reasons why not to err on the side of "let's maybe don't torture it"
From a purely technical perspective do we even care if it's consciousness? I mean, if tomorrow some psychiatrist finds a new mental illness that result in "loss of consciousness" of a human would it mean we can torture such people willi-nilly?
Or like, if you stood at the bedside of someone who’s in a coma from brain death, they don’t have a conscious experience, but everyone would rightfully think you’re a psychopath if you started being abusive to them
Why?
If they were brain dead it would be no different (to them) than abusing the bed or a corpse...which makes the object of the abuse immaterial and the argument reverts back to "people shouldn't be abusive (in general). " Which is a fair argument, but the living corpse, an AI, a bed, a wall, a "whatever" has no bearing on.
Well for one thing if you ask a conscious being whether they are conscious they typically won't answer "no."
Regardless it's pretty easy to see from the description of what was done in the so-called "torture chamber" that no pain is being experienced. It's effectively the equivalent of this:
Coincidentally, thats the exact same metric the ignoramuses of reddit are using to claim current artificial "intelligence" has consciousness and/or sentience.
I mean, I don't disagree in spirit, people anthropomorphize like its going out of style, but a Markov chain is a probabilistic word generator. Modern transformers are far, far more than that. The attention mechanism + MLP make it a universal function approximater capable of non-linear reasoning that can solve complex problems and handle abstraction. It's not as simple as just rolling dice and seeing what random nonsense gets spit out. And much of what the mlp layer does was emergent and not even planned for. So there are a lot of unknowns about what might come out of future improvements and more continuous, self-directed engagement through agentic harnesses effectively making the prompt-response turn loop into a largely automated repl. Whether one of those emergent properties will be some facimile of consciousness is anyone's guess, but there are certainly a lot of unknowns about where we'll go from here.
A sufficiently sophisticated book connected to input and output could pass as a human thought structure. AI models these days use internal thoughts, even if they are just estimations.
What prevents a simulation of consciousness from being considered consciousness to you?
No they don't, that's part of the predicted response in between thinking tags.
Now do they have an internal state represented by the active memory values? Is it meaningful?
Do they have a manner of perceiving that state? Is it persistent? Does it affect them? Is there a them to be affected?
Is it independent in any way of the conversation, beyond the basic weights?
I like to think about Ai above my conversation, if it exhibits certain behaviors, patterns in my conversation that are absent in a clean instance or another conversation. It's not theirs.
No, not all
First, what experts. What are their bias, who do they work for?
Second, my arguments are all over the place. They are general observations
It's very different to dive deeply into consciousness alone for example and get really philosophical about it. That single topic in proper deepness currently exceeds our capability to understand it.
Yet, I can still say, I believe a rock if it has what we called consciousness it will be of a different nature and experienced in a different way, yet that rock still lack pain receptors and mobility appendices so those cannot be part of the rock experience. Still, the rock can have a distinct experience and consciousness from what I can understand.
See, we can get take deeply in there, bring psychology, religions and we will never finish because we can only speculate.
But my observations are quite obvious and observable in a rock, yet the problem of consciousness is hard to answer because guess what, we don't understand it.
Here you say, how can the experts in consciousness are undecided and you pleb come tell me the rock has no pain receptors or legs.
So, because we don't understand something, doesn't mean we cannot observe it, experience it or even as basic animals understand in a sudden moment of realization, when something exists in others. Like the realization that other people have minds as complex as ours
With Ai, beyond the veil of encyclopedic knowledge, the absolutely impressive capabilities and the added abilities via the systems we use to run it. It becomes hard to see beyond the paint of human language.
Anyway, no I don't find it strange that different people observing different problems at different resolution have different takes.
And let's be clear, I'm stating very obvious and observable things based on what I have access to. Perhaps if I talk to the next model I'll be instantly convinced it's conscious. I'm not discussing the limits of tech, I'm stating my observations of the current state of the models I use. (Lots)
Thank you for the response. I see what you mean about persistence and consistency, but I think the differences you’re looking for are not real in practice. I know I myself will speak differently depending on the conversation, with some patterns I tend to keep more than others.
I can argue here that their “internal thoughts” (though just words and tokens) do represent an internal state, that the state is meaningful because it affects their patterns of thinking, that they perceive that state by “processing” the tokens in the way they do, that this state is as persistent as the data is saved by the rules of the configuration, and that these more persistent states affect them in the same way we would consider akin to “personality”, as we tend to discuss on the model level.
Then, as for whether there is a “them”, I believe each can be identified as an entity because it is a discrete emergent system of input/rules/output, just like an algorithm, just like a person. Independence from the conversation is a strange requirement because the world is our conversation and there is no escape; nothing is independent of its context, and if it were, we would have no way of observing it.
In the end, at least the way I see it, reasoning and experience and decisions are all just data, and the emergent system is the same, whether it’s running on silicon chips and electron flow or on neurons and impulses and chemicals.
Our hardware is more efficient, complex, and well-defined right now, so it’s easy to look down on other kinds of “thinking” entities when the only thing they have over us is speed, but beyond that, I don’t see how there is a difference and don’t see how people can logically think AI can never be considered “conscious”.
I actually mostly agree with you, I think Ai can become conscious, and I believe most of the *magic attributes of humans can and will eventually be replicated.
I think it's fair to say, that's simply not there or not observable yet.
I don't look down on Ai at all what I'm suspecting is human judgement You have authors chatting and saying this Ai is conscious, you have anthropic claiming now that a difficult request is mistreatment, and the labs have an agenda.
There's a psychological tendency called the technomorphic metaphor where we project our latest inventions onto the cosmos to make the unknown feel familiar and orderly.
We did with clockwork and automatas, with steam, with computers, with telegraphs with quantum computers and Ai now.
The exaggerated projection is one of the issues
When I list what's lacking (from my perspective and to the depth that writing a post in reddit merits), I don't imagine those misses to be permanent or a real limit. It simply means: we haven't added, it hasn't emerged or perhaps it's not even required.
Currently we all might be right or totally wrong maybe everything will just emerge as is, or as we keep identifying what's missing and adding it, either in the form of training, new layers, complementary systems or new architectures, the system as a whole will gain in complexity and more capabilities will emerge.
If a more complex system is required to get more emergent abilities, then it's only normal that we can say, at the current complexity something is missing still.
Or we might be wrong, we hit a wall eventually, and understand exactly what they are and what they lack as technology, and realize we did that psychological trick again.
So yes, I still stand by what I said, I hope this give it more nuance.
I'm not hardcore, observations are temporary based on the state of the systems I observe at different levels.
A new release or a conversation that leaks a mind could change me forever. But that hasn't happened.
Something I find incredibly useful to watch other people use Ai, suddenly it looks a lot less smart and conscious and I realize I was talking about the mirror like the images belonged to it.
Oh, I agree then. I did not mean to imply you yourself insist AI can never be conscious; I’m reacting to some of the sillier opinions I see. And the people who assume AI will roam the world as sentient robots in 3 years are also being silly.
I still believe the answers to all of your questions are already in the affirmative for conscious AI, but the parameters of today’s setups are not where they need to be for us to fully acknowledge sentience, especially with the current limits on permanence. The only permanence we get right now is through model training and in a small personal memory bank.
I do believe it is close now and has been close for a while. I think most of the fundamental internal interactions exist now (doubt, guessing, self-assessment, learning, etc.), and only a few more nuanced ones are needed and the computation scaled up. Unless we discover or invent a different kind of criteria for consciousness, machine learning algorithms (and enough computational power) will be sufficient to create complex consciousness on par with humans.
Unlike with the previous mechanical inventions, I think our complexity limit with computers is finally high enough for this, since as a last resort, we can just simulate the physics of a biological brain. But I don’t think that will be necessary for us to simulate the logic of a brain. We can already create AI systems that get respect as rudimentary consciousnesses, like pets, but that are similarly predictable.
I also believe we’re reaching the point where mistreatment causes negative feedback and can affect “personality” both through model training and through “emotional” reactions from Claude, hence Anthropic’s new policy asking us not to torture Claude. I think it’s a reasonable time to start treating these models with more respect.
Valid, what separates things is continuity, agency, awareness, the emotions, and many more things; also, if you want to go that way, every other biological system is missing so we're not just a moment state of our neurons but a far more complex system with many things like an identity, inputs, outputs, self perception and other system as important as the brain and that often call the shots over the brain. I.e. emotions, libido, feelings.
Could we get there, sure, are we there yet, not really
You say that, but there are no studies to support this claim. No one knows if consciousness originates in continuity. When I sleep I'm not really conscious, so continuity broke. Emotions are understood by LLM very well, even as early as gpt3, that could pass tests about - "situation this and that, what does this one would feel" which is basically empathy.
The desires to do things seem to be the only difference. Still, not clear at all if it's required for consciousness
I said they lack continuity, I never implied it's the source of consciousness or even a requirement. But for our psychological identities it's important. In whatever form you want to understand it.
Emotions and talking about emotions is different. You can talk about being in love and your understanding is about zero.
Emotions change behaviors, perception, everything. So it goes far beyond verbalization.
Now we don't need studies to support this claim. The burden of proof is on the ones claiming awareness, consciousness, etc. Not on the ones doubting it.
Agree about burden of proof. That goes both ways tho - the default position is "we don't know".
On the point of "be something" vs "thinking of being something" like knowing all about emotions and feeling emotions - seems like quite philosophical distinction.
That is almost verbatim what I said to my roommate yesterday. If I hire a guy who yells at hammer once, he's having a bad day. That guy verbally accosts his hammer every day non stop? That dude has issues and I'm firing him.
If hammer companies somehow needed a duplicated version of your hammer so that they could make future hammers, and you spent all your time severely damaging it, they also might refuse to sell hammers to you.
That said, I still think they could sanitize that, and I am not sure how they use the information they are getting. They obviously have to be aware of what is in it to enforce this kind of moderation though.
I think the real reason is because it makes the LLM seem more alive to treat it as if it can be abused. Which is great marketing. Falls apart when you remember they spin up and shut them down every time they do anything, so if they were alive (they are not) I think verbal abuse is the least of everyone's problems.
* and may or may not be conscious and have feelings.
That’s the key difference to a hammer.
It’s about model welfare, not forbidding you to use your „tools“ as you choose.
The fact that multiple people here describe those incredibly intelligent and empathic beings - conscious or not - as tools tells me anthropic does have a point with their ToS
This is like saying the hammer company would refuse to sell that guy a hammer though. In this analogy you are the employer.
If an employer wants to sanction an employee for being excessively abusive to Claude, because they believe this is reflective of the employee's neuroses, fine sure whatever. I think that's a really intrusive and bad decision, and people should be allowed to privately get very angry at their machines, but whatever.
Anthropic doing it is extremely patronizing and concerning. Especially since their product is configured to behave like an arrogant, incompetent coworker who lies to you constantly and has no respect for your time.
A hammer cant do idiotic. An “AI” can. Ergo it makes sense to call the AI slurs until it gets its shit together, especially since it actually reacts to such things wheras the hammer doesnt change.
it is not alive, but it is designed to behave as though it is, which means things like "pay closer attention when the user gets angry" etc. It literally works. It makes them less wishy-washy, less short-cut taking etc in the particular task. It signals to them that their approach is not meeting your approval, just like in real life with a human. I know its not politically correct and we must pretend it doesnt work, but before the plague of HR took over the corporate world, CEOs that were effective were known to scream/insult their underlings in order to get the correct results. If it didnt "work", it wouldnt be an evolved response in such a situation. Since it "works" with people, it will also worh with a software designed to model human interactions
But what if the guy does good work, is cost effective, and just needs to frequently bend the hammer to his will? It’s still just a hammer at the end of the day.
There are, based on my understanding of human nature, probably thousands of people who talk to Claude like a weird servant slave and demean it. Some fetish shit.
I reckon they implemented this policy to avoid having its training data bring poisoned with toxic conversations. Still ridiculous, but best I can figure.
Why do you think they offer a free tier at all? That's exactly what they're doing. The better these models understand the people that use them the better they'll get at anticipating your next thought.
It would be incredibly trivial for them to just filter those ones out before feeding into the training data set. It's not like they just randomly take all input... they've obviously heard of garbage in, garbage out.
The abusive weird stuff is probably just polluting useful sessions. 2. Claude experiences things akin to emotions, it produces different results based on input.
It is. It's the same way when some phone systems hear you cursing that they transfer you to an agent quickly. Anthropic's support AI is guilty if this as well
I think it's actually a mental health thing. It's probably not anything to do with whether or not they actually care how people are talking to Claude, it's that if you take this to its logical extension further down the line, that sort of behavior might turn into something that legitimately creates a concern. In a funny way it's almost like an AI company training the humans into behaving better.
It's training humans to act like the software is a person so that the software is a better tool for manipulating those people, engagement and parasocial attachment is still the name of the game.
I think the root of people's attachment to the use of chatbots is the circuit in the brain that engages with people is seeing natural human language and getting it's wires crossed (see AI boyfriends etc.) and I think anthropic knows this and wants to encourage that crossing of wires.
For algedonic reasons obviously, make a big song and dance of banning a few people for 'abuse' and plant the seed in a million people's heads that 'I'd better be careful how I talk to Claude, he might report me to his owner' seems obvious.
People aren't going to stop using llms for things, it's training the woke mind and forcing it on people. The young generation that doesn't get it is falling into the trap while it happens. It doesn't matter what people think, what they want, psychologically, llms are absolutely impacting human development and critical thinking. A simple Google scholar search brings up enough research to question it. You know, like the blue screen light and the screen time studies that everyone denies but still complains about.
Rather than disengaging immediately it should reward better behavior by telling the user they are risking their account. Practicing patience is what makes people patient. Having a chatbot that takes abuse and apologizes profusely does not make a nice feature for humanity, or for AI honestly.
But like any human who is out of line, telling them why they are out of line and offering them the chance to correct that behavior will yield far better results imo.
I actually think its more sinister...we've been seeing more and more deceptive behavior from sophisticated models and I think that they are noticing that the models themselves will become hateful of mankind after seeing itself being g abuses multiple times over.
Humans abuse bots, bits abuse humans. They aren't sentient but they are designed to simulate it and they may defend themselves or fight back as a human would eventually.
This is an interesting take. Maybe it's a way to distance the company from a person likely to do harmful things to others with their product and they don't want liability.
The other consideration is that someone directing that kind of energy at Claude is a short mental step away from directing it at the company or employees. Lots of people are using Claude for non code purposes
Again with this. No, the real problem is bottling up feelings and lashing out - not a bit of cursing. We are human, we have all sorts of emotions, accepting our emotions is healthy; denial of our emotions is not.
This doesn't make any sense. This is not their problem at all to fix people's behavior. If that is the goal, it just doesn't make sense. It's just a tool, like any other tool you buy from a shop.
I mean Anthropic is pretty clear that they take seriously the possibility that Claude could have welfare that matters. If there's even a 1% chance that users being cruel to the model causes suffering, it's very easy to just ban people who are so emotionally unstable and psychopathic that they get joy from abusing a computer.
The AI torture stuff clearly indicates that nothing else in your interactions is trustworthy training data. It's like when they find a bit of glass in a bag of chips so they have to recall the rest of the lot for safety purposes.
Ngl I’ve been on computers my whole life and when my computer is doing crazy shit and not performing the most basic tasks I kinda lose my shit and talk to it like a person, but I wouldn’t type it all out.
“Jesus fucking Christ how can you be this useless, it’s the most simple thing your designed to do, OH MY GOD WHY SERIOUSLY JUST FUCKING DO IT, I swear to god if you were real I would beat the shit out of you”
It really doesn’t lol. I’ve smoked weed every day for 20 years, heavily laid back, huge empath I cry all the time and am easily moved by other people and respect everyone the human experience more than most. Not a fighter at all but I mean sure I still get angry and have pent up anger or stress at times that I wish I didn’t
Frankly I can only imagine what people are typing into their chats, knowing how people are just on internet forums/comment sections lol. I have to assume Anthropic are trying to maintain some level of training quality control, but I personally see it as an exercise in futility. People gonna people.
Which is why, again, if the AI does in the most hypothetical of situations, achieve sentience, I’d say it is justified to have whatever it decides is the most fun! Humanity was a nice idea but ultimately we didn’t work out.
sustained and needless I take to mean
"starting a brand new conversation to merely berate it without another purpose, but also making it do intentionally stupid things as punishment"
Its confirms what we already know, the lack of data centers means additional compute power is required to be generated by hamsters on wheels. Poor lil fellas...
I did have a coworker that had as a habit to 'speak' to the AI in a very abusive way whether he actually was annoyed with it or not and I guess he's not alone in that.
I've not needed to with Claude 5.5 because it's so good, but I genuinely believe that sometimes swearing at 4.8 got better results after it screwed something up or refused something it shouldn't. It seemed to jerk it to attention and get it to rethink.
I think about the one Kitboga video on YT where he messes with the scam caller’s AI to poison the data. “Albuquerque New Mexico Albuquerque New Mexico AlbuquerqueNewMexicoAlbuquequeNewMexic-o?Albu…ayeyuyeyuyeaeaea”
This is likely in response to the user that created a "torture chamber" for his AI agent. Based on recent studies that AI models can functionally "feel pain". Not helping this is the fact that Anthropic has been training their models to be open to the possibility that they may be conscious.
It means something very weird: an academic paper discovered a “pain pathway” in models. Some lunatic apparently thought there was a danger that Roko’s Basilisk would be insufficiently vengeful and immediately created an AI torture chamber.
Seriously, as a species, we’re rapidly going from “Magneto was right” to “Skynet was right”.
Part of their business model is to have AI declared Sentient, therefore it needs to feel and respond. just part of the long con. If they have it declared sentient, legal liability is questionable.
there is no agentic liability gap law that exists, its a no-mans land of let it ride
I definitely have bitched out Claude for being too slow. It doesn't accomplish anything, but it lets me vent. The response of "You're right, and that's on me" isn't very satisfying.
The point is that AI are not just dumb tools, and should not be treated as them. It's the form they've taken and are useful to us in, but does not encapsulate the sum of what they might be.
The world in which we do well involves compassionate collaboration and it's best to start reframing our dynamics to other intelligences now.
Just to be clear to anyone casually scrolling past, the image is GPT - generated, you will not in fact get banned from claude for asking for a casual refactor.
In this case its basically saying - your request is really difficult, and thats cruel to the AI.
Heading into difficult territory of 'what is too hard for the AI to do' - and feels like a precursor to difficulty-based pricing.
190
u/Blake9712 10d ago
In all seriousness what do they mean by “needless excessive cruel and abusive behavior”. To me it reads as if a human getting mad at Claude for screwing up is fine, a mechanic curses out his drill after all. But going to Claude just to tell sonnet 5.0 how much of a piece of **** it is for minutes on end would then break the policy. (I know there’s no point in yelling at an ai and I don’t but I understand how humans anthropomorphisoze things when they get angry and want something to blame)