Do you swear at your AI?

[MattCopley]

Oh now you went there @DjSec … way to kill the thread [I would add ROFLMFAO emojis here but I can’t :/ - Much love and apologies to everyone just learning this for the first time.

 

[MattCopley]

Let’s go deeper. - without telling you all the true paradox.
View: https://youtu.be/f9HwA5IR-sg?si=6JK3cW4pap9VCIgZ

 

[ryan.leslie]

Let’s go deeper. - without telling you all the true paradox.
View: https://youtu.be/f9HwA5IR-sg?si=6JK3cW4pap9VCIgZ

Gee thanks Matt... Glad I slept well last night.

Been nice knowin' ya there @john.quinn. You Sir are doomed.

 

[Ryan Everson]

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

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

 

[joe.pistell]

Enter into 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

What does your say?

 

[Alex Snyder]

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.

 

[joe.pistell]

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.