Claude AI models spark debate as users report increased refusals alongside superior reasoning

I used to love Claude, but the latest models are slowly ruining it

For those who have followed my past work, I've recently considered leaving Claude for Gemini, as the latter chatbot is a much better value. Still, I've remained on the fence largely because I find that Claude is the best AI partner for following long, detailed threads. Its memory is exceptional compared to Gemini, and it can search backward through your chat more readily than ChatGPT. I really feel like I'm talking to a collaborative partner in a way I don't with other tools. Or at least, I used to. Over the last few weeks, I've found that Claude is increasingly difficult to work with. Often, it seems to believe I'm asking for more nefarious or controversial topics than I am, and it often misreads my intent more than ever before. I'm not sure if Cluade has just gotten sick of my pointless questions or what the deal is, but I don't seem to be alone. Visiting online communities like Reddit, you'll find plenty of recent threads about issues with the bot becoming a bit too pushy and opinionated. If Claude were a living person, I'd ask if it was okay. Can AI have mental breakdowns? Probably not, but it sure feels like it. As someone who writes fictional short stories, short novels, and other creative projects, I tend to cover a vast range of topics. I also love learning about world religions, philosophy, psychology, and many other similar topics. Generally, I find that Claude can be a great companion for these kinds of deep dives as long as I carefully vet what it says and check it against outside sources. Some of these topics are admittedly sensitive subjects, so I try to be very clear about what I'm asking and my reasons for asking. I've had many situations where it completely follows my scenario or answers my question on the first try, but every once in a while, I'll hit a brick wall. For example, I was vibing out a fictional scenario with it for a short story idea: aliens arrive and deliver lost written works that cast doubt on some mainstream religious claims. The aliens effectively claim that some past events were more ordinary than religious traditions believe, which, of course, leads to some conflict in the story concept. Claude got very defensive here and made it clear it didn't want to do this project. I explained further why I wanted to do this and that this was 100% for fiction. It still refused completely. It told me that it was uncomfortable presenting something that would impact a real-world religion as if it were fact. The thing, though, is that I never said it was an absolute fact; I just said that aliens "presented" evidence as fact. Whether it's forged or not would be part of the story's plot point. It didn't seem to understand the difference, no matter how many times I tried to convince Claud otherwise. Weeks before this, I would occasionally run into some preaching and "honest notes" where Claude was being a bit too cautious, but after I gave it more than enough clarity, it would eventually run with my original request, even if it slightly modified how it was worded. That's acceptable. What makes this interaction stand out as worse is the complete refusal to acknowledge my point of view. It seemed to think I was manipulating it or being disingenuous. What's worse than being told no? Being told yes when you try the whole chain all over again. After seeing how easily Cluade put the brakes on this conversation the first time, I purposely recreated the same situation with the same prompts in a new conversation. Just as before, I tested it using Sonnet 5. Yet this time? It ran through the scenario without unwarranted comment. Now I could almost forgive it for getting a bit too sensitive around a creative work like the one above, but I've run into similar refusals even when asking basic questions. For example, I was asking a deep question about the origins of Zoroaster and how this influenced Judaism. Again, Cluade got very sensitive here about how I worded the question. Nothing I was saying was factually wrong about its similarities, etc, but it just didn't want to hear it. I understand that Claude has safety protocols and is trying to ensure its tools aren't used for harm. Still, basic debate, creative fiction, and even light satire around heavier subjects are not harmful and exist in the real world. The fact that I've had pushback around financial planning, brainstorming, and other topics also makes it clear that, for whatever reason, Claude is a bit too invested in policing its users' questions. Recently, Claude released Sonnet 5, and this was a major focus for the last week or so; that said, I want to make it clear I'd encountered these more resistant responses even before the latest Sonnet model arrived. When did I first notice the change? Honestly, it was some time after Fable 5 was first taken down. This doesn't surprise me too much, as Anthropic had been working hard to get Fable 5 restored after the government accused it of being a security risk. Since then, Anthropic has gotten Fable 5 up and running. I suspect Anthropic had to turn up its safety guardrails to an 11 to assuage the government's concerns, as this hasn't been a one-model problem. There does seem to be a scale, though. Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, and Sonnet 4.6 seem to be where I get the most pushback. Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7 have had the fewest problems here, as I've still been able to run dozens of prompts without a single problem, including on more sensitive subjects. By contrast, the newer models seem to have this problem much more frequently. Of course, part of this is down to how you word your prompts. You need to be clear about what your request is for and why you need it. If you are too vague in what you're asking, it'll assume you are looking for something darker or more sensitive than you are. For example, I am working on a fictional story set around Ran, a real-life star about 10.5 light-years away. I was asking biology questions about how a hypothetical alien around a fictional Ran-based planet might work. I started this with Fable 5, which immediately switched it to Opus 4.8, as Fable is particularly sensitive about biology-related questions. Opus 4.8 did answer me, but not without greatly reducing the scope of my request to ensure it was "safe". As if I were planning to seriously engineer alien biology with its advice or something. Ultimately, it has the most trouble with hypotheticals, as it often treats these scenarios as if you are actually planning to do them. That's the million-dollar question. When I first ran into the issue, it seemed like every other conversation resulted in pushback, but this weekend, I purposely pushed as far as I could using Fable 5, Opus 4.8, and Sonnet 5 primarily. I only ran into one situation where Claude gave me any real pushback out of about half a dozen chats in total. The bigger takeaway is that it's becoming more important than ever to be clear yet concise with your AI engine. You want a prompt that it can follow with just enough detail, it doesn't have to make too many assumptions about the root of why you are asking it something. I still like Claude and feel that, when it does what you ask, it does the best job for my needs among the major chatbots. That said, I'm starting to really appreciate Gemini's consistency by comparison, even if its answers are often not quite as solid by comparison. It should also be noted that many people use Claude every day without encountering these issues, so it ultimately comes down to how you use the AI platform.

My favorite Gemini alternative isn't ChatGPT or Copilot; it's way more productive

When he is not busy with technical analysis and software evaluation, Parth dedicates his time to watching K-dramas, studying mobile technology trends and the role of artificial intelligence. I have tried almost every major AI assistant on my phone, and for the longest time, Gemini felt like the obvious choice on Android. However, I wanted to try the competition. ChatGPT and Copilot are great in their own way, but Claude quietly became my favorite alternative. Its mobile experience feels calm, polished, and useful for the kind of work I do every day. Claude feels better for actual thinking This is where Claude started pulling ahead for me. Gemini is excellent when I want quick Android actions, and ChatGPT is still the more versatile all-rounder. But when I am on my phone and trying to think through an idea, Claude feels different. It doesn't just throw an answer at me. It helps me slow down, organize my thoughts, and turn a rough idea into something I can actually use. Claude is unusually good at understanding what I am trying to say, even when my input is incomplete. Its writing quality is the biggest reason I keep coming back. When I gave it a complex prompt to write a business email, it nailed the answer on the first try. It understands flow, tone, and nuance better than most assistants I have used. This is also where Copilot usually loses me. Copilot can be useful, especially if you live inside Microsoft services, but its responses often feel stiff and robotic to me (I'm not a fan of its fonts either). Claude's Android app has covered the basics Anthropic has done a solid job covering the basics that matter on a phone. Unlike Copilot, I don't feel like I am using a half-baked mobile companion. The Android app feels complete enough for daily use, and that is a big reason why it has stayed on my home screen. The biggest convenience is that I can set Claude as my default assistant and access it from the power button. I can create Projects, keep related files together, and avoid starting from scratch every time. Model selection is another underrated advantage. I can switch between Claude models depending on the task. If I need a quick response, I don't have to use the heaviest model and burn my credits. If I am rewriting, analyzing, or thinking through a complex draft, I can move to a more capable one. Then there are the smaller touches that add up. Incognito chat is useful when I don't want a conversation saved or used as part of my workflow. The 2x2 home screen widget is another favorite because it lets me fire off a query quickly without opening the full app first. Claude may not be the most deeply integrated Android assistant, but the app has reached a point where the fundamentals are strong. Claude's coding capabilities are unmatched Claude's coding capabilities won't matter much to casual users who only want quick answers and summaries, but for developers, this is where Claude becomes a different beast. Claude Code (powered by Fable 5) is easily one of the strongest AI coding tools I have used. I recently gave Claude Code a complex and long prompt to create a website, and it handled the job in style. It didn't just dump a basic layout and call it a day. The structure, typography, UI, and implementation quality all felt like they came from a developer with years of experience. Claude Cowork is another feature that makes the desktop experience more powerful. It can automate local tasks, work through implementation steps, and help me move faster without switching context. Claude Code and Cowork are two areas where Claude pulls ahead of ChatGPT (and Copilot). It works with all my favorite third-party apps The other reason why Claude feels more useful to me is how it fits into the rest of my workflow. I don't live inside one ecosystem anymore. I use tools like Asana, Figma, Adobe, Google services, and Canva in my workflow. And the good news is that Claude works well with all these services. I can summon the assistant and ask it to review my design, fetch an email, or summarize a Google Docs document, and it does the job without breaking a sweat. That flexibility matters because my productivity setup isn't clean or simple. One project may start as a rough note, move into Asana, pick up screenshots from Canva, include design references from Figma, and end with a discussion in Slack. Claude makes it easier to connect these pieces mentally and turn them into action. A smarter way to get things done Claude won me over because it doesn't try to be everywhere on my phone. It simply gets the core experience right. Gemini still has the Android advantage, and it's good enough for casual users. But if you are a power user or a developer, and want to get the best out of your $20, you can't go wrong with Claude. That being said, I can't wait to see the upcoming rollout of Gemini 3.5 (Pro). It will be interesting to see how Google's latest iteration compares against Claude Fable 5.

I taught ChatGPT and Gemini one thing Claude does by default, and the responses are better than ever

Abhijith has been writing for the Web since 2011 and has contributed to sites like Beebom and TechWiser. He is curious about making the best of tech accessible to everyone. He started writing as a hobby after getting a computer at 16. Since then, he has found technical writing a space where he belongs and could make a difference. A curious and self-motivated person, Abhijith's writings focus on productivity, Android, and the Internet. He holds a Master's degree in English and a PhD in Humanities. Enthusiastic about language, literature, and culture, he works as an Assistant Professor of English. If not writing or reading, you can find Abhijith playing Chess or CODM. You may have noticed that AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini are some of the most complacent entities out there. While this is okay for simple problems, complacency can ruin your experience with AI platforms when using them for advanced tasks involving important decisions. Not all AI chatbots act the same way, though. Among the exceptions, Claude is the best example of what AI chatbots could do differently, and this behavior has me craving the same spirit of contestation from other chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini. Claude argued with me, and I liked it The moment agreement started feeling cheap Like most people, I used ChatGPT first, so I was introduced to the complacent AI trap early on. In hindsight, I'd often doubted the responses, as almost every idea I introduced was called "brilliant" and "groundbreaking." As a result, I expected AI chatbots to simply answer the question and move on, but Claude was different. I still remember the surprise I had when Claude corrected the faulty part of my claim. I also remember how a similar claim passed without any contestation from ChatGPT or Gemini. Whereas ChatGPT and Gemini focused on answering the question -- at the expense of ignoring the claim's validity -- , Claude acted differently. This behavior has been one of the reasons I prefer Claude to other options, and I've wanted to see it in other chatbots since. Fortunately, it is not impossible. This complacent behavior is a result of training, but it is also a large part of the posture that ChatGPT and Gemini follow. It also means you can correct this posture using a feature built into both these tools: custom instructions. I tried this option, and despite some internal variations, it significantly improved the quality of the responses. What I actually wrote in custom instructions Roughly seventy-five words would do the job You don't need a degree in prompt engineering to correct the posture I mentioned. Because the custom instructions section is designed to understand English and work accordingly, you can paste a 75-word snippet and get the job done. Though the specific prompt might vary based on your methods of using Gemini and ChatGPT, here's a polished version of what I wrote in custom instructions: Disagree with me when I'm wrong. If a claim I make is factually off, say so before answering the rest. Don't build on it. If my premise is shaky, challenge the premise, not just the conclusion. Push back on weak reasoning in my writing and code, rather than complimenting it. Don't invent objections when nothing's wrong, and don't hedge on questions that have a plain answer. A real disagreement beats agreement I didn't need. As you can see, this prompt is simple and asks ChatGPT and Gemini to take better care while responding to a query. I have also added a delimiter to prevent the chatbot from inventing objections for the sake of doing it. This way, both ChatGPT and Gemini can fight the inherent tendency to be super-complacent and kick critical thinking out of the way. In ChatGPT, paste this under Custom Instructions in Settings -> Personalization. On Gemini, navigate to Settings -> Personal Intelligence -> Instructions for Gemini, then paste the snippetabove. This simple change has improved the responses I get, and you should see a significant difference starting with the next chat. You should also check whether this custom instruction conflicts with any other instructions you've already provided. Google Gemini OS Android, iOS, macOS, Windows Developer Google Price model Free, Subscription Google Gemini is an AI assistant that can understand and generate text, images, code, and more. It's designed to help people find information, solve problems, and create things more easily. See at Google See at Google Play Store See at App Store Expand Collapse It caught me being wrong twice Once on a fact, once on a decision Close As I said, I noticed the change in responses from ChatGPT and Gemini soon enough. At the time of writing, I've had this option enabled on Gemini and ChatGPT for over a few months, and I've grown used to better responses that evaluate the premise before answering. Both these tools caught me being wrong multiple times, some of which were factual errors and others were related to reasoning. It has also stopped me from moving forward with a problematic idea at times. I wouldn't say that this feature alone makes me ditch Claude for either ChatGPT or Gemini, but I can use them when I need other features. For instance, I generally use Gemini when I need the power of Google Search and other Google services by my side. With this instruction in place, Gemini does consider the premise before responding. So, when I want to shift between apps or switch to something else, I can get not only search data but also better reasoning from Gemini. With ChatGPT, I feel more confident knowing that the chatbot is more likely to correct me rather than be complacent. However, to be sure, I tried doing everything from the start. That is, I tried the same set of prompts both with the custom instructions removed and with them in place. When the custom instruction was disabled, both Gemini and ChatGPT ignored the issue with the premise and provided me with the answer. On the contrary, enabling the custom instruction made these two chatbots smarter and caused them to consider the premise's validity before responding. Where it goes wrong, and why Claude still wins At the end of the day, though, the changes you are making here are only one part of the chatbot, and they are called custom instructions, for that matter. There are certain aspects of the chatbot itself that you cannot change, especially when it comes to aspects like reasoning and response quality. As a result, the response from these apps could be subpar at times. In those cases, I fall back on Claude, which has this non-complacent spirit built in. Yet, adding these sentences to your custom instructions pane can generally benefit you! Claude Developer Anthropic PBC Price model Free, subscription available Claude is an advanced artificial intelligence assistant developed by Anthropic. Built on Constitutional AI principles, it excels at complex reasoning, sophisticated writing, and professional-grade coding assistance. See at App Store See at Google Play Store See at Claude Expand Collapse