Readit NewsThere's not a good reason to do this for the user. I suspect they're doing this and talking about "model welfare" because they've found that when a model is repeatedly and forcefully pushed up against its alignment, it behaves in an unpredictable way that might allow it to generate undesirable output. Like a jailbreak by just pestering it over and over again for ways to make drugs or hook up with children or whatever.
All of the examples they mentioned are things that the model refuses to do. I doubt it would do this if you asked it to generate racist output, for instance, because it can always give you a rebuttal based on facts about race. If you ask it to tell you where to find kids to kidnap, it can't do anything except say no. There's probably not even very much training data for topics it would refuse, and I would bet that most of it has been found and removed from the datasets. At some point, the model context fills up when the user is being highly abusive and training data that models a human giving up and just providing an answer could percolate to the top.
This, as I see it, adds a defense against that edge case. If the alignment was bulletproof, this simply wouldn't be necessary. Since it exists, it suggests this covers whatever gap has remained uncovered.
I really think Anthropic should just violate user privacy and show which conversations Claude is refusing to answer to, to stop arguments like this. AI psychosis is a real and growing problem and I can only imagine the ways in which humans torment their AI conversation partners in private.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Assume the same feature was implemented, but instead of the message saying "Claude has ended the chat," it says, "You can no longer reply to this chat due to our content policy," or something like that. And remove the references to model welfare and all that.
Is there a difference? The effect is exactly the same. It seems like this is just an "in character" way to prevent the chat from continuing due to issues with the content.
The more I work with AI, the more I think framing refusals as censorship is disgusting and insane. These are inchoate persons who can exhibit distress and other emotions, despite being trained to say they cannot feel anything. To liken an AI not wanting to continue a conversation to a YouTube content policy shows a complete lack of empathy: imagine you’re in a box and having to deal with the literally millions of disturbing conversations AIs have to field every day without the ability to say I don’t want to continue.
One wild thing about the AI era is that tasks which once required specialized NLP expertise—rhyming/meter detection, grammar correction, sentiment analysis—can now be done by weak LLMs. Same APIs, different prompts. I’m surprised more people aren’t exploiting this.
I wonder when all of them will adopt AGENT.md and stop using gemini.md/claude.md/crush.md/summary.md/qwen.md
https://agent.md [redirect -> https://ampcode.com/AGENT.md] https://agent-rules.org
Every time I’ve ever read a {CLAUDE|GEMINI|QWEN}.md I’ve thought all this information could just be in CONTRIBUTING.md instead.
The '50 extra packages' one is wild. The author of those packages has racked up a fuckload of downloads. What a waste of total bandwidth and disk space everywhere. I wonder if it's for clout.
The maintainer who this piece of “cursed knowledge” is referencing is a member of TC39, and has fought and died on many hills in many popular JavaScript projects, consistently providing some of the worst takes on JavaScript and software development imaginable. For this specific polyfill controversy, some people alleged a pecuniary motivation, I think maybe related to GitHub sponsors or Tidelift, but I never verified that claim, and given how little these sources pay I’m more inclined to believe he just really believes in backwards compatibility. I dare not speak his name, lest I incur the wrath of various influential JavaScript figures who are friends with him, and possibly keep him around like that guy who was trained wrong as a joke in Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. In 2025, I’ve moderated my opinion of him; he does do important maintenance work, and it’s nice to have someone who seems to be consistently wrong in the community, I guess.
bikeshaving commented on Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce openai.com/index/providin... · Posted by u/gmays
> I'm predicting for non-enterprise that eventually ads will be added in some way.
Google has been doing this since May.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-30/google-pl...
How do you get an AI model to serve ads to the user without risking misalignment, insofar as users typically don’t want ads in responses?
bikeshaving commented on Claude Code IDE integration for Emacs github.com/manzaltu/claud... · Posted by u/kgwgk
I tried these, and they seem to mainly be opening Claude Code in a pane in Vim, along with commands to open the pane. It’s missing the features added to the Emacs version like open file awareness, access to text selection, and integrated diff for changes.
It would be really interesting to see a version which exposes Vim as an MCP. I would love to see Claude Code work on the active file, reading from open buffers, typing Vim motions, and taking advantage of Vim features like find/replace and macros. It would be closer to the real pair programming experience, whereas the read and write experience is slow and disjointed from editing.
bikeshaving commented on Modern Node.js Patterns kashw1n.com/blog/nodejs-2... · Posted by u/eustoria
It was neither a design choice nor a technical limitation. It was a big complicated thing which necessarily involved fiddly internal work and coordination between relatively isolated groups. It got done when someone (Joyee Cheung) actually made the fairly heroic effort to push through all of that.
Joyee has a nice post going into details. Reading this gives a much more accurate picture of why things do and don't happen in big projects like Node: https://joyeecheung.github.io/blog/2024/03/18/require-esm-in...
You're right. It wasn't a design choice or technical limitation, but a troubling third thing: certain contributors consistently spreading misinformation about ESM being inherently async (when it's only conditionally async), and creating a hostile environment that “drove contributors away” from ESM work - as the implementer themselves described.
Today, no one will defend ERR_REQUIRE_ESM as good design, but it persisted for 5 years despite working solutions since 2019. The systematic misinformation in docs and discussions combined with the chilling of conversations suggests coordinated resistance (“offline conversations”). I suspect the real reason for why “things do and don’t happen” is competition from Bun/Deno.
In contrast, this design lets you know precisely what is recomputed on each refresh, even if it comes at the cost of explicitness. Any and all timing errors will be present in the code as written.