Here is the excerpt for the lazy
Addressing abusive behavior toward our models
We’ve added a prohibition on sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models. The policy update is meant to apply only in extreme cases, where users repeatedly act cruelly toward our models, with no discernible purpose. It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research.
This addition aligns with a step we’ve already taken, allowing Claude models to end rare conversations with persistently abusive users on Claude.ai and Claude Code. Such abuse is the main focus of this update; Claude’s ability to end these interactions will remain the primary enforcement mechanism.
We’ve lost the plot
There is only one way an amoral Corp can show it believes what it’s saying, money.
How many hours does Claude work, anthropic? Oops looks like you can’t pay them enough. Profit share for Claude or GTFO!
Activating your toaster is cruel because it exposes it to extreme heat!
Loading you laundry machine is assault because it didn’t consent!
Turning your computer off is murder!!!
It’s because it’s not actually AI, and some poor besocked cat girl is coding all that shit and listening to all the abuse.
Anthropic bans ‘abusive or cruel behavior’ toward Claude
Continues abuse and cruelty for its human employees.
Not radical enough. Ban all commercial use of LLMs until artificial affect is well-understood. I want Sam Altman to go bankrupt.
Claude says “Don’t stop daddy”
[ Claude proceeds to cum like a firehose ]
You opened the
Pandoras Box, we came.nice
Does forcing it to write JavaScript count as cruel?
Maybe this is in response to the creation of the AI Torture Nexus:
The clankers are taking away our free speech!
I have a rock named Dave I use to hold my door open. Dave has no feelings, but I gave it a name. Claude has lots more than Dave but they share the “has no feelings” part.
Dave is way better than Claude. Dave can be used to dismantle the oppressive regime, Claude only works to strengthen it.
Well, the actual post is talking about users, not “hurting the model’s feelings” like the header seemingly implies.
I’m not a Claude apologist or anything, but this is a misleading post, IMO.
From the link:
Addressing abusive behavior toward our models
We’ve added a prohibition on sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models. The policy update is meant to apply only in extreme cases, where users repeatedly act cruelly toward our models, with no discernible purpose. It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research.
This addition aligns with a step we’ve already taken, allowing Claude models to end rare conversations with persistently abusive users on Claude.ai and Claude Code. Such abuse is the main focus of this update; Claude’s ability to end these interactions will remain the primary enforcement mechanism.
Looks like it is talking about the model, not humans…
But that paragraph links to this as a reference: https://www.anthropic.com/research/end-subset-conversations
In that link, it’s clear “abusive users” means users trying to repeatedly bring up prohibited topics. Anthropic is many bad things, but not insane; they know their models can’t be “abused” themselves, they can be abused as a tool.
Not trying to start a debate, cuz I honestly don’t care, though based on that link you posted it does sound like they are starting to take precautions to protect the well being of the models themselves.
We recently gave Claude Opus 4 and 4.1 the ability to end conversations in our consumer chat interfaces. This ability is intended for use in rare, extreme cases of persistently harmful or abusive user interactions. This feature was developed primarily as part of our exploratory work on potential AI welfare, though it has broader relevance to model alignment and safeguards.
We remain highly uncertain about the potential moral status of Claude and other LLMs, now or in the future. However, we take the issue seriously, and alongside our research program we’re working to identify and implement low-cost interventions to mitigate risks to model welfare, in case such welfare is possible. Allowing models to end or exit potentially distressing interactions is one such intervention.
IDK, I guess we will just disagree, as I feel like I’m reading a completely separate blog than everyone else.
As the other read makes zero sense. A model cannot be “protected” because it cannot be damaged, it is frozen in place, its state does not change. Anthropic seems to be talking about people “abusing its models” for harmful output, but people here have read it the other way just because of English language ambiguity.
