> It should have been straightforward for the author to excerpt some of the prompts he was submitting

If you read to the end of the article, he links the committed file that generates the CLAUDE.md in question.

I understand where you’re coming from, but anecdotally the same thing happened to me except I have less clarity on why and no refund. I got an email back saying my appeal was rejected with no recourse. I was paying for max and using it for multiple projects, no other thing stands out to me as a cause for getting blocked. Guess you’ll have to take my word for it to, it’s hard to prove the non-existence of definitely-problematic prompts.

What's fishy? That it's impossible to talk to an actual human being to get support from most of Big Tech or that support is no longer a normal expectation or that you can get locked out of your email, payment systems, phone and have zero recourse.

Because if you don't believe that boy, do I have some stories for you.

It doesn't even matter. The point is you can't just use SAAS product freely like you can use local software because they all have complex vague T&C and will ban you for whatever reason they feel like. You're force to stifle your usage and thinking to fit the most banal acceptable-seeming behavior just in case.

Maybe the problem was using automation without the API? You can do that freely with local software using software to click buttons and it's completely fine, but with a SAAS, they let you then ban you.

There will always be the "ones" that come with their victim blaming...

It's not "victim blaming" to point out that we lack sufficient information to really know who the victim even is, or if there's one at all. Believing complainants uncritically isn't some sort of virtue you can reasonably expect people to adhere to.

(My bet is that Anthropic's automated systems erred, but the author's flamboyant manner of writing (particularly the way he keeps making a big deal out of an error message calling him an organization, turning it into a recurring bit where he calls himself that) did raise my eyebrow. It reminded me of the faux outrage some people sometimes use to distract people from something else.)

> Believing complainants uncritically isn't some sort of virtue you can reasonably expect people to adhere to.

It is when the other side refuses to tell their side of the story. Compare it to a courtroom trial. If you sue someone, and they don't show up and tell their side of the story, the judge is going to accept your side pretty much as you tell it.

Skip to the end of the article.

He says himself that this is a guess and provides the "missing" information if you are actually interested in it.

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.