I may be biased since I’ve primarily used ChatGPT over the years. But for the last six months I’ve been working with a mix of models, including Claude, and its way of communicating with the human in the loop sometimes feels a bit... pretentious.
Especially when it’s “thinking” and I see wording along the lines of:
“user gave a vague response.”
I’m right here, man.
And sure, maybe I was vague. Sometimes “go ahead” is the response because we already spent twenty minutes deciding what to do. I thought we had a plan. If something’s still unresolved, tell me which part.
Instead, I’m reading what feels like a note left in my file.
I want pushback. If my assumptions don’t hold up, say so. But watching it describe my participation to an imaginary observer is weird. We’re working together, and suddenly I feel like I’m being discussed at a meeting I wasn’t invited to.
It also makes me curious about the people shaping these tools. I wouldn’t pretend one sentence reveals their private thoughts, and I doubt anyone specifically wrote that line. Still, people make decisions about training, instructions, and what gets shown on screen. The resulting voice deserves some scrutiny. What kind of relationship are they trying to create here?
Maybe you read that phrase and see a completely normal assessment. Fair. For me, it adds this supervisory feeling to a tool I’m using to build things.
ChatGPT has its own nonsense. I’ve had years to get used to it, so take my preference for what it is. Someone who primarily uses Claude probably has a complaint about ChatGPT that I barely notice anymore.
Maybe my response was vague. You could’ve just asked, Claude.
Top comments (0)