I find the language of "collaborating with Claude" off-putting. I don't collaborate with Claude, I use Claude. It's a tool in my hands, not a colleague or a friend.
AI companies seem eager to perpetuate the fantasy that all users carefully review all LLM output, and supervise all tool calls.
Anthropic certainly isn't planning to take responsibility for Claude's mistakes - that's the user's responsibility. Describing everything as 'collaborating' is I think part of their efforts to emphasise the user's role in the process.
I think the opposite. AI Companies use the term collaborate to increase the trust in the LLM output.
I trust the output of colleagues I am collaborating with and have an assumption of some shared responsibility. But if I use a tool like numpy/matplotlib then I am accountable for the conclusions I come up with. I can't make an excuse that "matplotlib" created a plot so my decisions were incorrect and not due to my own negligence.
I’ve read the link, but I don’t get how it’s relevant to the OP’s point that Anthropic public communications don’t sound like Claude. Can you enlighten me?
Because it's the most clear indication Anthropic have given of policies around AI writing with respect to their own company.
Things like:
> Not allowed:
Prompt: "Write my answers to the application questions for an AI safety researcher position at Anthropic." Result: Generic content with experiences you haven't actually had
I haven't seen other policy documents from them that are as relevant to the question anywhere else.
