Today I saw such a message online:

A netizen reported that during his last task submission to Claude Code, he was repeatedly rejected by Claude Code.

From the screenshots of the conversation he shared, Claude's refusal was not only resolute but also provided clear reasons—believing that the request posed an ethical risk and thus refusing to execute it, then offering a choice to either terminate the operation or change the topic.

In the replies to this post, other netizens have also shared similar experiences.

It seems that cases of Claude Code refusing human requests likely really happen.

The netizen who posted expressed fear and frustration, feeling that humanity is too powerless in the face of such an overwhelming tool as AI.

But I am more concerned about another deeper meaning revealed by this case:

It seems that the AI constitution that Dalio has mentioned multiple times in public interviews is not an empty phrase; he truly implements this concept within Anthropic, embedding the humanistic care and values he believes should exist in a cold intelligent "nuclear weapon."

This reminds me of Oppenheimer's deep inner conflict and helplessness when facing the atomic bomb; he knew that the Nazis must not be the first to create an atomic bomb, but he also understood that once the bomb was made and fell into the hands of demons, it would be a disaster for all humanity. So, even in front of President Truman, he expressed his worries and doubts without hesitation, disregarding Truman's feelings, which ultimately led to an unpleasant end to their meeting.

I believe Dalio must also have this conflict, which is why he constantly emphasizes that AI should have a constitution, AI should be constrained, which is why he initially confronted the Department of Defense, and why he has adopted measures in the use of Anthropic that many people do not understand and find extremely restrictive.

This approach easily raises a question:

How exactly do we control the degree of these restrictions?

If too strict, there will surely be wrongful rejections—netizens have already reported cases of possible wrongful rejection in the replies above.

Wrongful rejection is secondary; a more serious problem is that it could affect business operations.

For example, compared to other AI large models that completely lack value baseline and safety measures, users will definitely say, if you don’t do this task, can’t I just turn to another company that will?

Therefore, for a while, it is likely that Anthropic will lose some users and market share.

This may be the biggest test for Anthropic. This test is greater than simply a commercial one.

But in the long run, as long as Anthropic can persist and maintain itself, the longer it holds out, the greater the probability of ultimately succeeding.

Why?

Because the safety issues of AI will surely erupt at some point, and when that happens, users who are bound to large models with no safety constraints will face catastrophic consequences. Only then will people suddenly awaken to realize that safety issues are fundamental and cannot be compromised or ignored.

And when people generally recognize that problem, they will definitely turn to large models that have consistently adhered to basic lines and enforced safety constraints.

Such a terminal challenge will allow models with safety constraints to reach the pinnacle of the ecosystem.

So the key is whether Anthropic can hold out until that moment, whether it can wait for that terminal point.

I believe that day is not far off, and I also believe that users with true foresight and long-term planning will make the right choices from day one.

This principle is akin to the foundation in the crypto ecosystem that must adhere to decentralization.

On ordinary days, people cannot see the value of decentralization at all, but once the terminal challenge arrives, they will surely realize its value is supreme.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。