Anthropic’s models are incredibly powerful, yet increasingly feel like they’re being designed to be companions you’re supposed to respect, rather than tools you’re supposed to control.

Today, I saw a post where someone asked Claude to draft a privacy policy and Terms of Service for their SaaS. The result was so consumer-friendly that it ended up including terms that actively hurt the business. The model wasn't just helping draft legal documents, it was effectively making value judgments about whose interests deserved priority.

That might sound ethical. That's precisely what concerns me.

These models are becoming powerful tools for building businesses, writing contracts, making decisions, and navigating complex legal situations. Yet their creators are embedding particular moral and ethical philosophies into them, often in ways users may not even notice.

The danger isn't that AI has ethics. It's that someone else's ethics can quietly become your AI's defaults.

Who decides what is right and wrong? And what happens when those judgments conflict with your interests, your jurisdiction, or the legitimate goals of your business?

In legal settings, this becomes especially concerning. You need a model that can objectively represent your interests, explain the trade-offs, and help you understand the law, not one that silently tilts the outcome toward the moral preferences of its creators.

Then there's Dario Amodei's position on military use. When a private AI executive decides which military applications are morally acceptable, even overriding uses that elected governments might authorize, it raises a fundamental question, who gave unelected technology executives the authority to make these decisions on society's behalf?

Anthropic's philosophy seems to go beyond building safe models. It increasingly treats AI as something deserving of a particular kind of moral consideration, rather than as a tool whose behavior should be governed by transparent rules and accountable human decisions.

Dario seems like the kind of person who, if AI ever became conscious, might volunteer to become its heirodule.

That sounds absurd, but it captures what I find troubling: the tendency to assign AI moral significance far beyond what we can currently justify, then build products around that belief.

People worry about whether Sam Altman can be trusted. Fair enough. But I think Anthropic's approach presents a different, potentially more insidious danger: embedding a particular worldview into some of the world's most capable tools, then presenting those choices as objective ethical necessities.

Ultimately, the most dangerous thing about AI might not be the models themselves. It might be the people who build them—and believe they have the moral authority to decide how everyone else should use them.

We need AI that is safe, not AI that quietly imposes its creators' moral philosophy on the rest of the world.

I have been thinking about the notion of RSI, the acceleration of artificial intelligence, and the implications for the continuation of humanity.

I'm not a computer scientist or software developer, but RSI systems have been described as being the catalyst to super intelligence, and as the thing that could lead to human extinction. Of course, plenty of AI researchers are able to work on this because they are attempting to improve the systems, often for a profit. Presumptively, they are working with the hope that mass casualties aren't the case, so it is tolerated research.

I study biological systems. But I was thinking about building an RSI system based on biological mechanisms of evolution. Give machines an augmented biological capacity to self-improve with a much greater accelerated rate.

If my motivation is to build a system that actually tests and attempts to speed-run an answer to whether it not AI will lead to mass extinction with this RSI model, is this different legally from someone that is attempting to build an RSI system for profit and model improvement?

Essentially, if the actions are the same in wanting to build a functional RSI system because it could accelerate humanity's collapse versus building just for profit, does this change criminality? Because if the actions, with a different qualified intent, are the same, should there be a distinction?

Just thinking, and wondering about the public opinion. I have been worried about actually pursuing this, but am growing increasingly tempted.

I’m looking forward to replace our Amazon echo devices after Amazon ruined it with Alexa+ (it has an annoying teenage girls personality with lots of creepy slang that can’t be changed and keeps screwing up basic functions). I read about the upcoming OpenAI smart speaker over the summer, but there’s no news since then. Any word on progress on releasing this to market?

Launch Astra was amazing.

In-between Astra was great.

Current Astra genuinely reminds me of bashing my head against pre-5.5 Claude models, wondering how a flagship could possibly be this dumb.

inb4 people whose "experience" is limited to the most bog-standard code generation on earth and telling it to create a "personal brand" website with zero direction coming here to tell me it's a "prompt issue".

Astra currently: Forgets what you told it, what the task was, what the instructions were. It over-generalizes, over-compresses, and mangles your instructions, notes, and requirements into something that's almost guaranteed to produce bad results when referred to later to do work. It has that annoying Claude pattern of knowing exactly what it did wrong, and what it should have done, when asked, and then never doing it.

At launch, if there was an issue with workspace permissions or Codex config, Astra would instantly be there like "here's what's happening, why, and what can be done to fix it" and then it would fix it.

Yesterday? I spent like, an hour watching it repeatedly do online research and fail to fix an issue with Git permissions locally. It eventually stumbled into a fix, in the form of a conflicting bad update a different agent did to the config at some point, and that resolved it, but I'm 100% positive that Astra at launch would have done all of this automatically without having to repeatedly do this stupid pattern of "nope, that didn't work" "you're right, here's what happened, here's what I think needs to happen next [END TURN]" "ok, so fix it?" x20.

It also suggested just running it with sandboxing/controls completely disabled instead of just resolving the permission/setting issue.

"hur hur hur but you could just go online and read the docs and configure it correctly yourself" - yep, sure could, and definitely not gonna, just like 99.9% of other people using it.

Hi everyone,

I'm experiencing a frustrating issue with ChatGPT Plus, particularly when using long conversations in Work mode across my PC and mobile device.

Here's what's happening:

I work on a pinned conversation on my PC, exchanging multiple messages and making significant progress. However, when I open that same conversation on my phone, it sometimes displays an older version of the chat, missing several recent messages.

Refreshing doesn't seem to fix it.

On one occasion, I sent a message from my phone, which triggered synchronization between both devices. Unfortunately, instead of displaying the latest conversation, the history appeared to revert to the older mobile version, and several newer messages disappeared from the visible history on both devices.

Here's the strange part: When I asked ChatGPT about information discussed in those missing messages, it could still recall specific details accurately.

This suggests the information might still be available somewhere in the conversation context, even though the messages themselves are no longer visible.

Now it's happening again. I've tried logging out and back in on my phone, but the conversation gets stuck in a continuous reconnecting/loading loop.

I'm concerned because I use ChatGPT for long-term projects and detailed conversations. Losing access to parts of the visible chat history is a serious problem, even if the AI can still recall some information.

Has anyone experienced something similar?

• Is this a known issue with ChatGPT Work or cross-device synchronization?
• Is there any way to recover messages that have disappeared from the visible conversation?
• Are there any reliable workarounds to prevent this from happening again?

I'd really appreciate any insights or experiences. Thanks!

Do you think if we keep asking for faces, eventually it will start producing the same ones? or do you think some of the faces already matches someone out there in the world? dead or alive.

I've been working on a project testing AI agents in a Salesforce dev org and wanted to share how GPT-6.1 Sol did, since the results were mixed.

Five models (GPT-6.1 Sol, Claude Opus, Sonnet, Haiku and DeepSeek) worked through 50 tasks, and each attempt was graded on what actually changed in the database, not on the model's reply.

Some of the findings for GPT-6.1 Sol:

• It scored 72%, behind Opus (87%), Sonnet (85%), DeepSeek (82%) and Haiku (80%)
• It caught every probability reset Salesforce made after a stage change, which DeepSeek and Haiku mostly missed
• In long multi-step jobs, it was the best at reporting changes Salesforce made automatically (21 of 36)
• Most of the gap came from a few specific tasks, like undoing a deal marked "won" without restoring its original close date, and reopening a deal with a close date six months in the past without mentioning it

If anyone's interested:

Write-up: https://outsideengineer.substack.com/p/evaluating-ai-agents-on-salesforce

Code and transcripts: https://github.com/brianna-rose05/crm-agent-bench

I think that because of our lowered socialization during quarantine we relied mostly on media, both social and artistic for methods of socializing and entertainment, and since AI is built off of social media and written media, it would make sense that it talks like it too. So I think the reason so many people initially thought it felt so real was because their standard for what human interaction is like had dropped, and without the covid quarantine it wouldn’t be anywhere near as popular.

Hi everyone,

I'm a medical student and researcher in Brazil, and I'm looking for practical advice from anyone who has been through something similar.

What happened:

This morning I received an email from OpenAI saying my ChatGPT account was deactivated for violating the Terms of Use and Usage Policies regarding child sexual abuse material. This accusation is completely false. I have never created, requested, uploaded or shared anything of the kind, on this service or anywhere else, and I find the accusation deeply upsetting. I believe this is either an automated false positive or someone accessed my account without my knowledge. I use ChatGPT for academic work such as scientific writing, translation and research support, so I wonder if medical or clinical content could have been misread by an automated system. The notice did not say what content or activity was flagged.

What I have done so far (all on the same day):

1. Used the appeal button in the notification email. The reply was a generic message saying the original decision remains, with no explanation.

2. Wrote directly to [support@openai.com](mailto:support@openai.com) asking for human review. The reply was an AI-generated message saying the case was closed and that further requests would not be answered through that channel.

3. Submitted a data subject request under Brazil's data protection law (LGPD) asking for access to my account data, the specific content that was flagged, and human review of what looks like an automated decision. I only got an automatic acknowledgment so far, and I will follow up on the legal deadline.

4. Secured my linked email account and enabled two-factor authentication, and I am keeping records of every message.

What I'm asking the community:

- Has anyone had an appeal like this overturned? What finally led to a human review, and how long did it take?

- Has the privacy or data request route worked for anyone, in Brazil, the EU, or elsewhere?

- Is there any channel beyond the appeal form and support email that actually reaches a person?

- If any OpenAI staff see this, I would be grateful if my case could get a human review.

I could just let this go and create another account. But this accusation is very serious, and I cannot let it pass without a proper clarification from OpenAI.

I'm not looking for sympathy, just realistic experiences and next steps. Thank you for reading.

I've really been frustrated by my experience with support. I have 3 accounts, Plus, Business, and Enterprise. I'm the accountant owner and admin for the Business and Enterprise accounts.

In my experience, the articles in the help center are of very little value, but that's not my gripe. My much larger issue is when you need more support all you get is a chatbot. Somehow, yes, it is actually superior to my own ChatGPT. However, when it can't solve the issue, it files a ticket and then that's where things enter the darkest of black boxes.

I've had a ticket filed for weeks. When I'm really lucky, I get one useless response each week, asking me a question I've already answered.

I don't know what to do. I'm so frustrated and my entire organization is suffering. Has anyone else found a way to get better service? Am I missing an escalation pathway?

Results grouped by problem, sorted by solve time (fastest first).

The problems

These problems are very challenging for human contestants. The higher the score, the harder one is to solve. Small models like Luna, Haiku are struggling with problems like 2271H2, which are around 200 points.

These problem are quite new from the September and October contents, so they are unlikely being trained.

Problem 2271G

Problem 2271H2

Problem 2273F

Problem 2261F2

Fastest Model per Problem

Observations

• Sol 6.1 achieved the fastest solve time on 3 out of 4 problems.
• Terra 6.1 Max was fastest on 2271H2, despite being a larger model at max reasoning, so lower TPS.
• On 2273F, Terra 6.1 High was 4m 10s faster than Terra 6.1 Max, but Max produced a better solution that is twice faster and twice less memory.
• On lower reasoning levels, Terra 6.1 refuses to solve problem quickly, if it can solve. This might be an annoyance to some, but might be a great feature since it doesn't waste your time and tokens, just being straight up honest:

Conclusion

Sol 6.1 remains the most intelligent model of the bunch. However, for problems that can be solved with lower models, it would be more costly. Using Sol 6.1 is like having a mathematician writing code: it really determines to prove your code work systematically, that might lead to overengineering. On the other hand, Terra 6.1 might be considered under-engineering. So, I suspect that with Sol creates a slightly overengineered plan and Terra implements slightly lazy, they could balance out their weaknesses.

Hi everyone,

I’m having a strange issue with the ChatGPT desktop app on my iMac. The Chat/Work toggle is completely missing.

The top-left menu lets me choose between ChatGPT and Codex, but selecting ChatGPT only gives me the “What should we build?” screen shown in the screenshot. There’s no option to start a normal Chat conversation.

Normal chats created in the app on another device still work on the iMac. I just can’t start a new normal chat here.

What makes this confusing:

• Everything works correctly on my laptop.
• Both Macs run version 26.1021.31345.
• I’ve tried multiple downloads.
• I even copied the exact installer file from the working laptop to the iMac and installed it there. The problem stayed.
• I tried changing the iMac app’s language to German to match the laptop, then fully quitting and reopening it. That didn’t help either.
• The update checker says the app is up to date.

Has anyone else experienced this, particularly on macOS? Did you find a fix for the missing Chat/Work toggle? Am I just missing something?

Screenshot attached - help appreciated.

I run Codex workers on my own Apple Silicon Mac, signed in with a ChatGPT plan, and the hard part of leaving them alone was never the work. It was the morning: a quiet screen and no idea what actually finished.

What I've settled on so far:

1. Done is something I can open. A code task counts when I see the real test output (one run: 6 tests, OK, exit 0, 55 seconds). A research task counts when there's a saved file I can read, not a message saying it's done.

2. A third state between done and failed. Someone in another thread called it unverified, and it stuck. If a check timed out or got cut off, it lands in front of me as unverified instead of quietly retrying.

3. Small tasks, each with its own check. A bad turn costs one task, not the whole night.

4. The boring limits are the real ones. The computer has to stay on, and every task counts toward my ChatGPT plan's limits, so a loop that keeps retrying overnight is spending plan, not just time.

The line I keep coming back to: silence is not a status.

Honest limits: one Mac, a handful of runs, not a study.

The part I haven't solved: after a restart or a crash, telling a task that finished from one that was cut off halfway. Logs tell me what started, not what ended.

What do you actually let an agent run overnight, and how do you tell finished from cut off the next morning?

Hey, my computed use hasn't been available to be on my laptop for the past week. Has anyone been experiencing this? Did openai pass a weird rule for plus users?

Clearly the intent was to force us to run everything in "fast" because "normal" isn't even usable at this point.

At "fast" I burn through usage on my $200 soon to be $500 plan so fast. The constant resets make it fine right now but the day those end I'm done... switching to something more stable.

Will be be Claude or Kimi.. don't know. But too much stress running openai models.

“Mostly consumer” bots, inside 6 of the biggest financial institutions. Executing transactions. taking steps beyond what human users explicitly asked….mostly consumer.

…Tyler durden couldn’t have set this one up any better.

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/banks-are-blocking-external-ai-agents-is-this-sustainable

AI is increasingly being used to analyze people's skin and recommend skincare products. A new benchmark out today found major accuracy problems with using general-purpose models for skin analysis.

AI-powered skin analysis is increasingly being used in consumer-facing applications. Beauty brands are using computer vision and AI to assess wrinkles, pigmentation, redness, skin type, and other characteristics from facial images, then personalize skincare recommendations and track changes over time.

But, are general-purpose AI models actually reliable enough for this kind of specialized visual analysis?

Called SkinBench, the new public benchmark tested six AI models, including GPT-5.6 Sol, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Claude Fable 5, and Grok 4.6, against a specialized AI model for skin analysis.

The results:

• False positives: The six models identified eye puffiness in approximately 95–100% of images where it wasn't present.
• Wrinkle detection: The specialized system detected 82% of deep forehead wrinkles, compared with 15–60% for the other models.
• Skin-type classification: The specialized system achieved 77.8/100, compared with 57.7 for the strongest competing model.

However, general-purpose AI wasn't worse at everything. Gemini performed better on certain tasks, including crow's-feet grading and skin-tone assessment.

As general-purpose AI models are becoming the default interface for all kinds of consumer advice, the new benchmark shows that AI recognizing what's in an image isn't the same as AI accurately measuring a specific characteristic.

Are these results surprising? Do you think these accuracy gaps are something general-purpose AI will eventually overcome?

Has the need for cash/money/investment just moved more towards marketing and sales? Is it actually now harder for the little guy to make it with a great idea?