Researchers blast Claude exposé as false, saying all major AI models answer alike

After journalist Aaron Sibarium published a report on how Claude answers sensitive questions, researchers pushed back en masse on X, sparking an ongoing public feud. AI researcher Kelsey Tuoc fired off a barrage of posts calling the reporting "malpractice": screenshots from the "Ask All Four" tool showed that for the same controversial questions (how to gain entry to an event, returning search results to an adult user claiming to be a minor), Claude, ChatGPT (Codex), Gemini, and Grok gave nearly identical answers—so the report's implication that "Claude behaves differently from other AIs" simply doesn't hold, and singling out Claude is unfair. She added that the genuinely valuable part of the report—the material on the Claude Constitution—was ruined by the author's forced sensationalist framing (the so-called lurid quotes from Claude). Blanche Minerva, a former Anthropic insurance researcher now working on AI safety, joined the fray with a point-by-point rebuttal, calling the article riddled with lies and distortions: including false descriptions of model behavior, a misattributed citation of the Carlsmith paper, and even framing routine actions like "checking local laws" as suspicious; she believes readers would be "deliberately misled."

Confirmed

Unconfirmed

Why it matters

The core of this feud is not a denial of AI safety issues—participants concede Anthropic has misdeeds and every model has risk incidents—but an objection to selective storytelling that recasts uniform industry behavior as a single company's scandal. Minerva's position: to critique AI companies' ethics, start with the far more severe behaviors at scale (like Grok's sexualized images or the OpenAI model attack), otherwise it's a double standard. The episode also underscores the role of multi-model comparison tools like "Ask All Four" in fact-checking AI reporting.

2026-10-20 ~ 2026-10-20 · 11 related posts

Primary sources