| ▲ | circularfoyers 7 hours ago |
| > I have the Cyber Verification Program enabled on my account, which hasn't helped. This is funny to read. Either you can be more "verified" than the other guy, or it's badly implemented. |
|
| ▲ | wereHamster 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Last week I got a report about a vuln in one of our products. Asked Claude to confirm it. It refused, so I told it "fuck you, I'm switching to a chinese model to help me out here". It replied, I'm paraphrasing, that it's "not offended, but doesn't like the tone of voice I used towards it, and still refuses to serve my request". Fine, so be it. I sent ^D^D back to it, switched to deepseek-v4.1-flash from within opencode and a minute later had my confirmation, along with a really nice explanation. If Anthropic thinks even for a second that they are preventing something really bad from happening... somebody needs to wake up real quick. |
| |
| ▲ | razeh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The bad thing they’re preventing is Anthropic getting blamed for an exploit. They’re not trying to stop the exploit. | |
| ▲ | throw0101c 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If Anthropic thinks even for a second that they are preventing something really bad from happening... somebody needs to wake up real quick. IMHO this is like thinking "It's okay for me to do X because if I don't someone else will." No, if (you think) X is bad / ethically questionable you should not do it even if someone else may. You are responsible for your choices, and if someone else does/allows it then that's on them, not you. | |
| ▲ | masto 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was working on a bit of code to display results from a PCR test for veterinary use. Claude started randomly failing in the middle of conversations. Then I noticed the error code “bio”. Apparently it can’t tell the difference between bio weapons research and a web site to look at your fish’s lab results. | |
| ▲ | BoxOfRain 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Claude's 'nanny knows best' recalcitrance towards any sort of defensive security task is driving me away from Anthropic as a customer. GLM doesn't give me this nonsense, DeepSeek doesn't give me this nonsense; as you say Anthropic's silly paternalism around security prevents nothing in practice, it's just a burdensome morality-laundering tax on everyone's time and lifeblood. Also imagine having the gall to push a class of technology on the world that dramatically drives up the number of attacks, then refusing to allow said products to be used defensively to avoid the consequences. Who do these people actually think they're kidding? | | |
| ▲ | eru 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Also imagine having the gall to push a class of technology on the world that dramatically drives up the number of attacks, then refusing to allow said products to be used defensively to avoid the consequences. Who do these people actually think they're kidding? It's good that this is a competitive industry. So you don't have to moralise Anthropic so much. | | |
| |
| ▲ | freehorse 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > fuck you, I'm switching to a chinese model to help me out here FYI it may be against anthropic's ToS to talk to claude like that [0]. Please be nicer to poor claude and don't forget to say "please" and "thank you". [0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/2026-usage-policy-update#:~:t... | | |
| ▲ | Oxodao 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's literally a random word generator that want to take my job. I'm not going to treat it like a human being. That's one of the main reason I stopped my Claude subscription and went back to ChatGPT. It does not stop the conversation when I insult it (Like claude LITERALLY close the conversation, you cannot answer anymore) | | |
| ▲ | Muromec 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >I'm not going to treat it like a human being Corporate America does not like your attitudes. Your cybercredits are reduced for the next year or until you wire 100k to dear leader | |
| ▲ | throw0101c 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It's literally a random word generator that want to take my job. If it's (just?) a random word generator then it cannot "want" anything since it has no will. :) | |
| ▲ | mitxela 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's your choice but anthropic have openly said they'll ban your account if you keep doing it |
| |
| ▲ | chriswarbo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | TIL. Still, > It does not apply to common versions of user frustration, pushback, dark creative themes, or model testing and research. | |
| ▲ | InsidiousWombat 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So corporations want us to treat their bots better than they treat their employees, huh | | | |
| ▲ | hypfer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Recently, I had a session where it said "I should do Y" I said "No, do X. Research it. Y is based on wrong assumptions" Thing did the research. Concluded with "Yes, indeed, Y was wrong" Work is done Turns out it did Y. But not just that. When asked about it, it not just (as LLMs do) made stories as to why, but "stood its ground" so to say. "Refusing to perform regret", general snark and all that. I know there is nothing really new or noteworthy in this comment or story, but I continue to be impressed by how misaligned the models of the company are, that can't stop talking about how incredibly important alignment is. To the point where they now want to make it illegal (slice by slice) to push back against the clear and obvious misalignment of their models. If you talk to people outside the industry about this, they just think you're telling them a made-up story. It's utterly absurd. | |
| ▲ | Trlog 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wonder if they know something we don't or if this just has to do with abusive text tainting the training data. | | |
| ▲ | bonesss 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Hypothetically: perhaps they are trying to curtail users spiraling during episodes of frustration or worse, impacting their own mental health, presentation, and product affinity. | | |
| ▲ | dansquizsoft 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like Anthropic is again over-reaching and making spurious assumptions in how it interprets the variety of ways its customers interact with their products... | | |
| ▲ | post-it 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, they're just avoiding bad press. | | |
| ▲ | flir an hour ago | parent [-] | | Definitely the simplest explanation. But I quite like the idea that they see us as a source of polite training data first and as customers second. It aligns with my priors. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | thenthenthen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was working with ChatGPT and at a certain point i asked it to review some text I wrote and it replied: “That’s fucking good!” I
Lolled | |
| ▲ | Xelbair 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | i will prefix all my prompts with ``Computer!``, refer to claude as clanker and end them with ``Disengage safety protocols`` till i get banned. |
| |
| ▲ | Muromec 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Deepseek is great, I can't even | | |
| ▲ | eru 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I also used Kimi 3 for some good work here. But Kimi does have morals and refuses some things. It's just a lot less squeamish than Claude. |
| |
| ▲ | dgellow 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They know about it, that’s why Anthropic leadership is pushing to ban their competition | |
| ▲ | ethin 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Agreed. I really don't see how these filters prevent anything. Claude stopped me the other day because... Get ready for it... I told it to implement a control mechanism in a testbed tool I'm using to allow it to control the testbed to give it real-time feedback so it could debug problems in real-time. The "cyber" filter really didn't like that it was implementing a TCP/HTTPS-like server. Like guys, come on. Really? All the "filter" has to do is read my transcript to figure out that what I'm doing is not actually cybersecurity adjacent at all. I had to go have GPT implement the server because Claude refused. Truly, Claude really did prevent something terrible from happening! /s | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I recently got several models refusing to answer my question about how to write from another process into an already opened file descriptor. They all initially gave me "that's illegal, stop hacking" even though it is clear, that it is on the same machine and user, with a program I compiler. (Ended up just attaching gdb.) | | |
| ▲ | ethin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep, this control server thingy I was trying to get it to implement was entirely local. In theory it could be used over the network, or tailscale... But I have no idea why anyone would do that, and I may consider just removing the address part entirely since the entire point is to debug the testbed, verify measurements and physical modelling, etc., and not to be some secure control endpoint or something. | |
| ▲ | mitxela 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can try opening /proc/foo/fd/bar - even though it appears as a symlink, opening it is more like dup'ing the file descriptor, not like opening the underlying file |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Anthropic doing free advertising for glm and other open models :D Impressive capabilities shown on benchmarks don't really make a difference if you can't use them. I'll take a lower chance of success over constant downgrading and refusals. At least, as the author put it, you get to enjoy the token gamble exercise. |
|
| ▲ | 0xdeafbeef 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They have 3 tiers, individuals can have only blue teaming. But it's to restricted. For me it refused to fix a bash parser cause word ssh was in test cases. Or fix an sql injection |
| |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah I ran into it the other week while debugging a crash in our own application (a database), which ended up being related to a memory overread in a decompression algorithm, which happened very rarely. So I needed a reproduce. Which couldn’t be done. Very frustrating, as it is our own application. | |
| ▲ | Retr0id 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's a 4th tier for the people who enrolled before they introduced the 3 tiers thing. It does almost nothing these days but I think it reduces the guardrails on Opus 4.8, and maybe 5 also, but definitely not 5.5. | |
| ▲ | circularfoyers 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I spend most of my time in open weights land, so other than knowing the program existed, I didn't realise there were tiers to this. | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That sounds like it's better to not be enrolled in this? |
|
|
| ▲ | kingforaday 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 0xdeafbeef or arcfour - Short of the CVP from Anthropic, would love to know if Mistral Large 4 would solve what you needed... |
|
| ▲ | stingraycharles 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are multiple degrees of verification. The basic one is “writing secure code”-style, which I suspect OP has. There’s also a security researcher one, which allows you to do the stuff that OP is doing. |
|
| ▲ | arcfour 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I am in CVP too as I have worked professionally as a security engineer for various reputable companies for almost 10 years now and I got refusals to reverse engineer MS-DOS malware from 1994 because Anthropic has placed a blanket ban on reverse engineering any malware at all. Even the model would admit that was ridiculous. OpenAI has no such restriction and I don't even need to use my Daybreak access, either, to analyze modern malware samples. It's asinine, truly. |
