This blog post feels really fishy to me.

It's quite light on specifics. It should have been straightforward for the author to excerpt some of the prompts he was submitting, to show how innocent they are.

For all I know, the author was asking Claude for instructions on extremely sketchy activity. We only have his word that he was being honest and innocent.

▲

swiftcoder 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It should have been straightforward for the author to excerpt some of the prompts he was submitting

If you read to the end of the article, he links the committed file that generates the CLAUDE.md in question.

▲

hotpotat 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I understand where you’re coming from, but anecdotally the same thing happened to me except I have less clarity on why and no refund. I got an email back saying my appeal was rejected with no recourse. I was paying for max and using it for multiple projects, no other thing stands out to me as a cause for getting blocked. Guess you’ll have to take my word for it to, it’s hard to prove the non-existence of definitely-problematic prompts.

▲

jeffwask 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's fishy? That it's impossible to talk to an actual human being to get support from most of Big Tech or that support is no longer a normal expectation or that you can get locked out of your email, payment systems, phone and have zero recourse.

Because if you don't believe that boy, do I have some stories for you.

▲

foxglacier 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It doesn't even matter. The point is you can't just use SAAS product freely like you can use local software because they all have complex vague T&C and will ban you for whatever reason they feel like. You're force to stifle your usage and thinking to fit the most banal acceptable-seeming behavior just in case.

Maybe the problem was using automation without the API? You can do that freely with local software using software to click buttons and it's completely fine, but with a SAAS, they let you then ban you.

▲

ta988 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There will always be the "ones" that come with their victim blaming...

▲

mikkupikku 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not "victim blaming" to point out that we lack sufficient information to really know who the victim even is, or if there's one at all. Believing complainants uncritically isn't some sort of virtue you can reasonably expect people to adhere to.

(My bet is that Anthropic's automated systems erred, but the author's flamboyant manner of writing (particularly the way he keeps making a big deal out of an error message calling him an organization, turning it into a recurring bit where he calls himself that) did raise my eyebrow. It reminded me of the faux outrage some people sometimes use to distract people from something else.)

▲

ffsm8 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Skip to the end of the article.

He says himself that this is a guess and provides the "missing" information if you are actually interested in it.

▲

mikkupikku 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I read it, and it's not enough to make a judgement either way. For all we know none of this had anything to do with his ban and he was banned for something he did the day before. There's no way for third parties to be sure of anything in this kind of situation, where one party shares only the information they wish and the other side stays silent as a matter of default corporate policy.

I am not saying that the author was in the wrong and deserved to be banned. I'm saying that neither I nor you can know for sure.

▲

exe34 6 hours ago | parent [-]

we don't know your true motivations for making this series of posts and doubling down - and yet we give you the benefit of the doubt.

	▲	mikkupikku 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Asserting that somebody is "victim blaming" isn't giving somebody the benifit of the doubt, and in the context of a scenario were few if any relevant facts are known reveals a very credulous mindset.