[nortlov]

> To address the potential loss of important long-running conversations, users will still be able to edit and retry previous messages to create new branches of ended conversations.

How does Claude deciding to end the conversation even matter if you can back up a message or 2 and try again on a new branch?

[CGamesPlay]

The bastawhiz comment in this thread has the right answer. When you start a new conversation, Claude has no context from the previous one and so all the "wearing down" you did via repeated asks, leading questions, or other prompt techniques is effectively thrown out. For a non-determined attacker, this is likely sufficient, which makes it a good defense-in-depth strategy (Anthropic defending against screenshots of their models describing sex with minors).

[handoflixue]

Worth noting: an edited branch still has most of the context - everything up to the edited message. So this just sets an upper-bound on how much abuse can be in one context window.

[hayksaakian]

It sounds more like a UX signal to discourage overthinking by the user

[martin-t]

This whole press release should not be overthought. We are not the target audience. It's designed to further anthropomorphize LLMs to masses who don't know how they work.

Giving the models rights would be ludicrous (can't make money from it anymore) but if people "believe" (feel like) they are actually thinking entities, they will be more OK with IP theft and automated plagiarism.

[kobalsky]

> How does Claude deciding to end the conversation even matter if you can back up a message or 2 and try again on a new branch?

if we were being cynical I'd say that their intention is to remove that in the future and that they are keeping it now to just-the-tip the change.

[redox99]

All this stuff is virtue signaling from anthropic. In practice nobody interested in whatever they consider problematic would be using Claude anyway, one of the most censored models.

[xpe]

Maybe, maybe not. What evidence do you have? What other motivations did you consider? Do you have insider access into Anthropic’s intentions and decision making processes?

People have a tendency to tell an oversimplified narrative.

The way I see it, there are many plausible explanations, so I’m quite uncertain as to the mix of motivations. Given this, I pay more attention to the likely effects.

My guess is that all most of us here on HN (on the outside) can really justify saying would be “this looks like virtue signaling but there may be more to it; I can’t rule out other motivations”

[solidasparagus]

I bet not even one user in 10,000 knows you can do that or understands the concept of branching the conversation.