I read it, and it's not enough to make a judgement either way. For all we know none of this had anything to do with his ban and he was banned for something he did the day before. There's no way for third parties to be sure of anything in this kind of situation, where one party shares only the information they wish and the other side stays silent as a matter of default corporate policy.

I am not saying that the author was in the wrong and deserved to be banned. I'm saying that neither I nor you can know for sure.

> There's no way for third parties to be sure of anything in this kind of situation,

Not just third parties, but also the first party can't be sure of anything - just as he said. This entire article was speculation because there was no other way to figure out what could've caused the ban.

> where one party shares only the information they wish and the other side stays silent as a matter of default corporate policy.

I don't think that's a fair viewpoint - because it implies that relevant information was omitted on purpose.

From my own experience with anthropic, I believe his story is likely true.

I mean they were terminating sessions left an right all summer/fall because of "violations"... Like literally writing "hello" in a clean project and first prompt and getting the session terminated.

This has since been mostly resolved, but I bet there are still edge cases on their janky "safety" measures. And looking at the linked claude.md, his theory checks out to me. I mean he was essentially doing what was banned in the TOS - iteratively finding ways to lead the model to doing something else them what it initially was going to do.

If his end goal was to write a malware which does, essentially, prompt injection... He'd go at it exactly like this. Hence sure as hell can imagine anthropic writing a prompt to analyze sessions determining bad actors which caught him

we don't know your true motivations for making this series of posts and doubling down - and yet we give you the benefit of the doubt.

Asserting that somebody is "victim blaming" isn't giving somebody the benifit of the doubt, and in the context of a scenario were few if any relevant facts are known reveals a very credulous mindset.

the accused party can afford to defend themselves, they chose not to.