Re:Local Qwen isn't a worse Opus, it's a different tool
by mcbits on Thursday June 18, 2026 @10:43AM
(#48586184)
I haven't really experimented with being "nice" or "mean", but I would worry that a prompt like "No, dumbass, ..." would kick it into the patterns of someone who frequently got called a dumbass (perhaps for good reason) in the training set. On the other hand, maybe it could trigger more defensive responses with argumentation to explain its conclusions.
Re:Local Qwen isn't a worse Opus, it's a different tool
by Wowfunhappy on Thursday June 18, 2026 @11:16AM
(#48586699)
I only use it for behaviors I really want the model to clamp down on, and I don't think I've ever told the model it was stupid. But I might say something like:
No, don't f***ing do that! What part of "[previous instruction]" don't you f***ing understand? I am extremely angry and disappointed by your inability to [whatever]. Do better please.
Quite the opposite, it makes the model extremely conciliatory—which in this situation is what I want. If you're hoping to make the model less sycophantic, this is the wrong tool.
Re:Local Qwen isn't a worse Opus, it's a different tool
by milch on Friday June 19, 2026 @11:07AM
(#48599477)
I'm never mean but sometimes when Claude does something especially boneheaded I just hit it with a single "bruh". That usually triggers an automatic "You're absolutely right -- I shouldn't have X and followed your directions more closely, let me revert and do Y instead"
> With GPT, you have to be precise and reduce ambiguity. GPT will often try to resolve ambiguity in a min-max style "I'm going to do X, but make sure it is not quite Y". It will tend to be more paranoid and overengineer to catch all edge cases if you don't tell it precisely what the scope is.
I agree with all of this, except one thing—I swear to god, being mean to Claude at the right time can be enormously effective. The F-bomb in particular seems to really help it snap out of ruts sometimes.