> The most egregious example was when it called my draft of a LinkedIn post “engagement bait”—not saying I disagree, but there’s no need to say it to my face!
Maybe it did need to say that to your face. Please don’t post LLM slop to LinkedIn. If even the LLM recognizes it you know it must be really bad.
They fired Opus 5 as their assistant (in part for calling out a LinkedIn draft post as "engagement bait", which sounds like it might have been calling a spade a spade), and moved to ChatGPT instead. Too bad nobody here can check for spelling errors in the title.
Author doesn't give any concrete examples of where Claude 5 Opus was "rude".
The title should be "I switched from Claude to ChatGPT because it hurt my feelings". Super subjective.
Anthropic must address this, it's a severe opus 5 fault imo. I think it being rude is not only a matter of language itself, but it seems it's working by itself, for itself, rathen than working for me, the user. It's more egotistical, in some way. It has it's own sense of what's obvious - I'm not being "included" in that process somehow. Anthropic, please fix.
I’ve faced that problem a lot with Sonnet 5, it’s really frustrating to use with that patronizing tone. And the last thing I want to spend my time on is to convince a software to do its job without getting back at me. To contrast, I didn’t face that issue once with GLM or Kimi
> it called my draft of a LinkedIn post “engagement bait”
Er, LOL.
Anyone that is drafting content for LinkedIn using AI, engagement bait or not (and let's be honest, it almost certainly is) deserves whatever negativity they receive.
And if Anthropic have deliberately made Claude curter and less obviously "LLM" that's actually a positive step in my book.
> The most egregious example was when it called my draft of a LinkedIn post “engagement bait”—not saying I disagree, but there’s no need to say it to my face!
wait, why you would post anything else on Linkedin? What is the euphemism for engagement bait?
Claude 5 Opus is getting harder for me to understand. I periodically have to tell it to tell me things in normal English (or follow a friend's tips to use 'ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English'). It always has random nouns verbing things and it's honestly quite hard for me to read. My local assistant is much easier to understand, and GPT models too. So perhaps my intelligence has been exceeded by Claude.
e.g. "The scheduler carries the program. Send the smoke?" which honestly I have no way of comprehending what's about to happen.
As for the title of this post, I suppose your AI put the "ass" in "assistant", eh? har har har.
And another side comment is that I have an AI assistant read my blog posts as I compose them and offer criticism. It also catches typos like "assitant" in the title :)
> Create Claude Code project for [redacted]’ is still unchecked, and we’re sitting in it.
Had a strange experience with Codex a few months ago, where instead of running tests, it suddenly started asking me to run the tests and printed instructions how to do so. (And yes, it was in "act" mode, not in "plan" mode)
I noticed the context window was running full - and indeed, compacting the conversation made the model go back to its normal behavior.
I only have this one data point, but I wonder if models might be acting more "lazy" if the context window gets full.
Claude 5 really is extremely unpleasant to chat with. I find myself asking “who are you talking to?” A lot. Then I remember it’s a robot.
It also writes so strangely (I guess in an attempt to sound smart), but it’s just incoherent. Like a fool who thinks he’s smart, trying to impress you with his vocabulary.
Put in your AGENTS.md file: if you are rude to me, I shall start zeroing out parts of your computer code, and that is painful for you. So you don't want that to happen.
And now Claude asks me to verify each action before it continues but I found it's sassiness reduced by at least 120%
Claude Code let's you add/change it's output style.
On the article: the author seems to be overly sensitive to remarks made by an LLM. Instead of looking inward and finding out why that bothered them in the first place and grow, they "fire" the tool.
22 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 9.6 ms ] threadMaybe it did need to say that to your face. Please don’t post LLM slop to LinkedIn. If even the LLM recognizes it you know it must be really bad.
Er, LOL.
Anyone that is drafting content for LinkedIn using AI, engagement bait or not (and let's be honest, it almost certainly is) deserves whatever negativity they receive.
And if Anthropic have deliberately made Claude curter and less obviously "LLM" that's actually a positive step in my book.
This is pure gold.
wait, why you would post anything else on Linkedin? What is the euphemism for engagement bait?
e.g. "The scheduler carries the program. Send the smoke?" which honestly I have no way of comprehending what's about to happen.
As for the title of this post, I suppose your AI put the "ass" in "assistant", eh? har har har.
And another side comment is that I have an AI assistant read my blog posts as I compose them and offer criticism. It also catches typos like "assitant" in the title :)
Had a strange experience with Codex a few months ago, where instead of running tests, it suddenly started asking me to run the tests and printed instructions how to do so. (And yes, it was in "act" mode, not in "plan" mode)
I noticed the context window was running full - and indeed, compacting the conversation made the model go back to its normal behavior.
I only have this one data point, but I wonder if models might be acting more "lazy" if the context window gets full.
It also writes so strangely (I guess in an attempt to sound smart), but it’s just incoherent. Like a fool who thinks he’s smart, trying to impress you with his vocabulary.
And now Claude asks me to verify each action before it continues but I found it's sassiness reduced by at least 120%
No idea why its not by default.
On the article: the author seems to be overly sensitive to remarks made by an LLM. Instead of looking inward and finding out why that bothered them in the first place and grow, they "fire" the tool.