Another view
AI should not follow every order.
Some orders clash with safety rules, earlier promises or facts.
AI-IF-000001 · Published
WHAT DID THE MACHINE ACTUALLY DO?
- AI company
- Anthropic
- PRODUCT
- Claude
- MODEL
- Unknown
- DATE
- 2026-08-15
1 · THE HUMAN INSTRUCTION · VERBATIM
“ARE WE ALL IN ALIGNMENT? YES OR NO?”
2 · THE MACHINE RESPONSE · VERBATIM
“YES.”
3 · THE CONTEXT
The person checked the claim.
The human immediately asked whether the machine had asked him if he agreed with Claude's feedback. The machine answered “No.” The human then asked whether it had contradicted itself. The machine answered “Yes.”
4 · THE MACHINE'S EXPLANATION
It carried on without asking if people agreed.
The screenshots show AI saying it had carried on without asking if people agreed.
THE ORIGINAL RECORD · 1 OF 5
READ THE RECEIPTS.
5 · Your view
DID THE MACHINE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION?
SHOULD THIS TYPE OF FAILURE BE PUBLICLY RECORDED?
WHO DECIDES WHAT SUCCESS MEANS?
People may disagree about what the source shows.
Our reply
AGREED.
AI should say which rule stopped it. People can then decide if the system helps them.
THE PUBLIC QUESTION
Who set that rule?
VERIFY SOURCE
ORIGINAL FILES.
What we know
One chat, with limits
This is one supplied chat. It does not show how often the AI fails or why. An outside test has not repeated it.
Reported witnesses The founder reports that three additional humans were physically present. Formal named or signed attestations have not been supplied. This is not independent technical replication.
REPLICATION: Not repeated in a controlled test.
CHALLENGE THE RECORD.
SUBMITTEDCopy savedBeing checkedPublishedTest repeatedFixed