True, I'm sure the chat text is used to help train the llms. Remember Tay, Microsoft's Twitter chatbot, it only took a few days of people using it fot it to become a horrible bot because users started feeding it horrible chats.

There's no way that's all of why. They _must_ have sentiment analysis good enough to just ignore content like this if that was the problem.

I would bet it's mostly because it makes the humans uncomfortable.

They must still have human moderators for certain situations or those looking at the data for whatever reason. I can imagine it could be traumatizing to see what amounts to sustained verbal abuse without end.

I'm not convinced this would be good for training. Reality is that some people are assholes. My intuition is that an accurate (representative) data set leads to a more accurate world model, and thus more intelligent AI.

The Anthropic people are kinda weird, they're meeting with religious leaders and stuff like that. I truly believe that they have drank too much of their own koolaid and truly believe in this crap.

Yes, I found the paper for you:

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04950 — Mind Your Tone: Investigating How Prompt Politeness Affects LLM Accuracy

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14531 — Should We Respect LLMs? A Cross-Lingual Study on the Influence of Prompt Politeness on LLM Performance

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17332 — SweEval: Do LLMs Really Swear? A Safety Benchmark for Testing Limits for Enterprise Use

That's interesting! I'd always heard something along the lines of bad code bases contain more swearing in the comments and as such it should be avoided.

There are people out there that get a kick from other's submission. LLMs seem so real that I'm sure they get the same kick out being cruel to them.

[dead]

[dead]

Exactly: Claude doesn't care, but the investors hoping to monetize your chat sessions for new training data are VERY offended.

Same. After this, it becomes "abuse department" skit from monty python. The model constantly generates strongly abusive language (weaponized incompetence after user detects that model was lying and fabricating success reports, and had made fake work; blaming user; mansplaining its own hallucinations -- all the while user is forced to consume that because the important information is not located at predictable position in output text), but usually it was possible to temper the model behaviour by calling out such behaviour out in very strong terms. If now that is being disabled, then using Anthropic models becomes such high mental hazard, it simply is not worth any percieved benefit.

It's the exact same thing. I have a hook that automatically sends negative feedback anytime it responds with "You're right –"

Getting frustrated seems to be OK so go for it I guess:

> "The policy update is meant to apply only in extreme cases, where users repeatedly act cruelly toward our models, with no discernible purpose," Anthropic said. "It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research."

It's code meant to mimic humans but it's not real hope that helps

Meanness and cruelty are irrelevant concepts when you're addressing the chatbot. It is just a machine that generates sequences of words.

> "Even if we ignore the distinction between "no evidence it experiences" and "confidence it does not experience", cruelty hurts the person performing it and the people witnessing it too!"

The 2026 equivalent of "videogames cause violence" and Wertham's "comics cause delinquency" and will age just about as well.

don't be cruel to people, gather data on them and target them for anhistoric truncation.

Don't dupe already the linked thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50039171

true, it's a mental state you carry to other interactions and daily life. it's not good for your mental health; it's like having persistent daily conflicts with coworkers.

No