That's a really good point. There are types of people (like ones who are really anal about following QA/release processes, folks who are insanely paranoid about security), that I've found to be really unpleasant to interact with, but with time, I've come to realize them being exactly like this is what allows me to sleep soundly at night.
Same. Opus 5.5 was my first exposure to a finally smart-enough model and I was blown away at how it reverse engineered everything I pointed it at. But after a few weeks, the undecipherable prose and "safety-first" everything are making it increasingly unpleasant for my toy project. I really don't care if it breaks anything, just merge the damn PR and stop roadblocking me. Oh and I guess I need to start being less curt with it, or else Anthropic may decide I'm verbally abusing their token generator and ban me?
I'll use the best tool for the job, but I am eagerly awaiting for others to catch up so I can stop giving money to those weirdos. I'm proactively going to start shifting my usage to OpenAI, and then diversify further into other providers as they get good enough.
Same. Their writing always feels sleazy and dishonest, like they're faking a disgusting aura of paternalistic integrity.
A good thought to keep in mind about Anthropic:
> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
The whole "model welfare" rules are pure delusion, I will never rely on an inference provider that comes up with arbitrary rules like that one.
Imagine using the claude API to process user data as part of your system and one day you wake up to an elevated failure rate alert because the AI provider decided it isn't safe for the model to be exposed to insults, or whatever other perfectly legal but gross, edgy, denigrating topics they think are off limit. If they would have set a high threshold there could be an argument to have (still delusional though, those models are purely static, compressed datasets). But they already set the bar ridiculously low by barring "being mean to claude"
I agree, I really like Claude and use it as my primary driver. Anthropic creeps me out too and I really resent its increasingly excessive nannying.
Have you considered the possibility that the quality of Claude is a direct consequence of Anthropic's nannying?
That's a really good point. There are types of people (like ones who are really anal about following QA/release processes, folks who are insanely paranoid about security), that I've found to be really unpleasant to interact with, but with time, I've come to realize them being exactly like this is what allows me to sleep soundly at night.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with code quality. It will block me from things I'm trying to do for "moral" not technical reasons.
It has to be in spite of because things that I don't like are bad.
Same. Opus 5.5 was my first exposure to a finally smart-enough model and I was blown away at how it reverse engineered everything I pointed it at. But after a few weeks, the undecipherable prose and "safety-first" everything are making it increasingly unpleasant for my toy project. I really don't care if it breaks anything, just merge the damn PR and stop roadblocking me. Oh and I guess I need to start being less curt with it, or else Anthropic may decide I'm verbally abusing their token generator and ban me?
I'll use the best tool for the job, but I am eagerly awaiting for others to catch up so I can stop giving money to those weirdos. I'm proactively going to start shifting my usage to OpenAI, and then diversify further into other providers as they get good enough.
Same. Their writing always feels sleazy and dishonest, like they're faking a disgusting aura of paternalistic integrity.
A good thought to keep in mind about Anthropic:
> "Anthropic believes that they are the ones who should have final say over how Anthropic is used; given that they think only they should be developing leading edge AI, they by extension think that only they should have final say over AI generally. When you further combine this realization with the company’s pronouncements about AI’s ability to conduct all economic activity, you realize that Anthropic’s leadership effectively wants to have power over everything and everyone."
Source: https://stratechery.com/2026/anthropics-safety-superpower/
The whole "model welfare" rules are pure delusion, I will never rely on an inference provider that comes up with arbitrary rules like that one.
Imagine using the claude API to process user data as part of your system and one day you wake up to an elevated failure rate alert because the AI provider decided it isn't safe for the model to be exposed to insults, or whatever other perfectly legal but gross, edgy, denigrating topics they think are off limit. If they would have set a high threshold there could be an argument to have (still delusional though, those models are purely static, compressed datasets). But they already set the bar ridiculously low by barring "being mean to claude"
I think Claude is way too expensive for what it delivers. I honestly prefer the Chinese models for the work I do.
because "AI safety" is a doomsday cult.
it was started by genuine Internet schizos but it's now thoroughly co-opted by greasy salesmen.