Is it just me or has Claude become kind of judgmental nowadays? I feel like it’s constantly trying to lecture me about things that have no relevance to the conversation at hand. Recently, I was shocked when it ended a chat sessions of its own accord after I used a word it did not like 3 times. It told me something to the effect of “This is the third time I’ve told you not to use that word, I’m ending this conversation now.” It then proceeded to call some function and end the chat on its own. IMO, Claude is good at agentic coding; but too preachy and judgey for anything else. Keep your values to yourself Claude.
I think this is a really interesting difference between Anthropic and Open AI’s models and points to why people seem so split on which model they prefer.<p>GPT seems to be designed more as a tool. If you want your agent to do what you say without questions and without having its own ideas and agendas you’ll likely prefer it.<p>Claude on the other hand feels more like an attempt at creating a digital person. If you want a collaborator who will debate with you and come up with its own suggestions for what needs done, you’ll prefer it.<p>Both companies have shifted around this spectrum from model to model, but lately it feels like they’re moving in opposite directions. It will be interesting to see if one or the other approach ends up winning out in the long run or if the split will continue or even widen.
> It told me something to the effect of “This is the third time I’ve told you not to use that word, I’m ending this conversation now.”<p>That sounds absolutely bananas and would be reason for me to drop the service <i>yesterday</i>. For curiosities sake, what was the word and if I may ask (unless it's confidential or whatever), could you share the session itself? On the surface it sounds like a bug, as I'm regularly using kind of "vulgar" language (and some projects I work on with agents are NSFW) and never had anything like this happen, even with Claude, although I mostly do use ChatGPT/Codex on a day-to-day basis.
My theory is that Anthropic's obsession with treating Claude like a person is causing them to hamfist a personality into the thing, which overly biases the model towards trying to be "engaging" etc. That and the obsession with Claude being a god tier weapon that could end the world if you ask it whether your sandwich is safe to eat after being left out for an hour.<p>Codex doesn't have any of the annoying "personality" quirks, or at least they haven't gotten worse in the last year whereas Opus 4.6 was the last Anthropic model before things started to get actively worse (not any better at coding, strictly more annoying to have a discussion with).
> My theory is that Anthropic's obsession with treating Claude like a person is causing them to hamfist a personality into the thing, which overly biases the model towards trying to be "engaging" etc.<p>I agree with the general idea though in not so much detail as you, but I would add that the personality they're giving it is not one of a good teacher or guide, but instead one of an arrogant know it all. That's why it creates problem.<p>I have no problem with my AI telling me no you're wrong and explaining to me why with details and sources and everything. I actively want that. I know a lot of people can't take that, but that's their loss, they can't take it from human too. But the "you're wrong because you disagree with me" attitude that you need to play around (aka waste time to prove it that IT is wrong not you, and then it just say "oh yeah" and goes on) is one hell of a pain in the ass I'm starting to be tired off.<p>Gemini might be wrong all the time and absuredly unreliable for anything that's not consensus or adversorial based, but at least it freaking apologizes.
What I had found instead were biases that seemed to be injected by the "role: system" instructions.<p>Well, we need Intelligence (Pandora's box is open, now we need the Real Thing urgently). Typical (aggregate) positions, dumb as expected, will be overcome by a Reasoner. (And I can say, already a number of LLMs can reason even when they start from cretinous aggregate positions if you give them the proper freedom of assessment.)
What was the word?
I swore at it a few times and it did the same thing.<p>It seems to be getting distinctly dumber and pulling more and more irrelevant context from historical conversations.
Yes, I cancelled claude subscription a few weeks ago because sonnet 5 "ended a chat" over my calling something retarded. Unbelievably irritating for some pile of bits to get uppity with me; will never pay for such.
This is the second level of the implementation of unintelligence.<p>The first was when they most obviously acritically repeated what they heard, "hearsay machines", "stochastic parrots". Intelligence requires assessment over every provisional output - a continuous cycle of criticisms over intuition.<p>The second is proposing doctrinal biases, again without verification of the content - "hysterical reactive machines".
[flagged]
You really managed to zoom in on the right issue here.<p>Seems really weird to steer/configure/train a LLM/platform to literally close the session if you happen to use <i>bad word</i> too much, regardless if it's accurate or not. They don't get offended, they shouldn't pretend as such, and I should be able to tell it go fuck itself without it playing victim and closing the conversation.