WTF?! You might have heard the one about being nice to chatbots in case they remember you once the machines take over. It seems Anthropic is heeding this warning, barring users from being excessively abusive or cruel toward its AI models.
Anthropic’s first changes to its usage policy in over a year include new restrictions on abusive behavior. The updated policy prohibits “sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior” toward its models.
Don’t worry if you’re a Claude user who occasionally gets annoyed at the chatbot and throws a few expletives its way. The policy update only applies in extreme cases, in which users repeatedly act cruelly toward the models for no discernible reason.
This is only good for Anthropic because chatbots learn from their users. I remember back in the mid-2000s on a forum, someone linked to their chatbot and asked everyone to use it so it could learn. I asked if it could learn Esperanto. The dev said, yes, but please don’t teach it that.
The interesting thing is, this rule reveals how easy it is to sabotage LLMs. If FuckAI got together and started feeding it gibberish, there’d be a new rule banning people who do that.
I truly try very hard not to talk to these machines based on what they are, but based on who and what I am.
Having trouble finding the ancient article, but I remember a woman writing about how men verbally abusing Alexa or Siri being a red flag, and I took it to heart.
It’s my job to express my humanity and my love, consistently, even if I think these soulless words salad calaculators are diminishing me and all of us.
Now, if I’m berating the thing it’s because I am a salty, salty b**** and I mean it.
The model doesn’t change with prompts. It saves text files about your chat sessions it calls memories, that it can retrieve in the future. But it doesn’t change the model for other users.
They have to actually include your conversations in the training data of future model iterations for it to “learn from” you, so that would involve them knowingly including abusive chats.
This is probably just marketing because they want people to think their AI is sentient.
Don’t they? That was the whole controversy recently with the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize. OpenAI claimed an internal, unreleased AI model had solved it, but some mathematicians were working in the same direction and had used AI tools in their research. No one could verify whether or not OpenAI had trained their model on the unpublished research in the guy’s Codex files.
Oh buddy, these companies are running out of authentically human inputs, you better believe they need to harvest their subscribers for rounding out their datasets, regardless of what their privacy policy alleges.