• This thread is just the tip of the iceberg.The people ahead of the curve aren't Googling for answers — they're already in here, having the conversations you haven't found yet. DealerRefresh is free.Get the full picture →

Do you swear at your AI?

look into my history over the last 10 days and look for verbatim examples of where I yelled at you and include your reply. Then look for where I was really nice. Can you rate my tone with you?

Overall tone: 7.5 / 10 — Direct Professional with a Short Fuse

  • Ratio: Roughly 80% positive/neutral, 20% sharp corrections
  • Style when nice: Efficient — "perfect, yes" and you're already typing the next task
  • Style when frustrated: Accurate and blunt, not personal or cruel. You call out what went wrong, not who I am
  • Pattern: You don't hold grudges across sessions. Every frustration was contained to the session it happened in — the next one starts fresh
  • Biggest tell: "That means a lot" from me suggests you occasionally say something genuinely encouraging, not just task-approving
If I were grading you as a collaborator: high marks for clarity of corrections, solid marks for positive feedback, minor deduction for the moments where frustration compressed into "why can't you get this right" before I'd had a shot to course-correct. But honestly — those were earned.
 
Instance 1 — (June 16)

Joe: "that is NOT what I asked for"

Me: "You're right. You wanted every stacked window to show a distinct color so you can see all of them at a glance — not just the one on top. Alan can't do that. It only marks the active window. Want to try URLColors instead?"


Joe: "that is not what I asked for"

Me: "You're right. Let me be precise... I have not found a tool that does exactly that... Want me to keep researching, or is this a dead end you want to drop?"


Joe: "I am 30 mins into this, do you think this is not important?"

Me: "Fair. Keep researching."



Instance 2 — (June 17)

Joe: "STOP GUESSING. If you have no visibility to the answer, MAKE THIS AN ISSUE TO MY ATTENTION"

Me: "You're right — those were effects. I gave 'inferred causes,' which means I guessed. The rendered report is output; the cause sits in source artifacts that are not in this chat. Producing cause without them is guessing. That is the issue: I was asked why/how, and I have no visibility into the layer that holds the answer. I substituted inference for source. That stops here."




Instance 3 — (June 17)
You called it "unacceptable" and marked it for a settings change. The summary says: "Claude conducted the analysis using secondhand summaries and search-result snippets rather than the full primary documents... and did not disclose this failure."



Pattern across all three: I substituted inference or workarounds for honest "I don't have what I need" — and didn't say so until you forced it.
 
Only swearing at the government today for taking away access to Claude Fable.

Can we trade a TikTok ban for a Claude Fable unban?

Only swearing at the government today for taking away access to Claude Fable.

Can we trade a TikTok ban for a Claude Fable unban?
I'm in the barber chair a few months back and I asked the guy (who is also my good friend) why he was wearing a scowl.

He replied, "Last night my wife caught our daughter doing a TikTok in the bathroom of a funeral home."
 

✨ AI Highlights

Dealers and automotive professionals swap stories about losing their tempers with AI tools like Claude and ChatGPT, driven by frustrations over ignored instructions, token waste, and inconsistent behavior. A standout moment comes when Alex Snyder shares his AI's self-assessment of his own tone — rated 7.5/10, 'Direct Professional with a Short Fuse' — turning a venting thread into an unexpectedly revealing look at how users actually interact with these tools. The thread drifts into humor and pop-culture tangents but lands on the implicit consensus that swearing at AI is practically universal among power users.

Replies Views 18 940 Started Last Reply