Anthropic has added a prohibition on “sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior toward our models” to its usage policy, AFP reported Thursday. The policy page lists an effective date of Nov. 12, 2026 – so you have about a month to abuse it like a red-headed stepchild.
Breaking up will be up to Claude itself – which “will remain the primary enforcement mechanism.” Anthropic said last year that it was giving Claude the ability to end conversations in “rare, extreme cases” of persistently harmful or abusive user interactions. It did not immediately respond to AFP’s request for comment on the new language.
The policy does not explicitly cite “model welfare,” the idea that AI systems might deserve protections usually reserved for living things, AFP noted, but Anthropic and its executives have entertained the concept. CEO Dario Amodei told The New York Times in February: “We don’t know if the models are conscious…But we’re open to the idea that it could be.”
Others reject the premise. Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman wrote in an essay last month that “AIs are not conscious. They do not feel, experience, or suffer.” He called granting rights and moral protections to such a system “a recipe for disaster.” AFP also listed Pope Leo XIV among those who have rejected the idea of machine consciousness; at St. Peter’s Basilica on Thursday, it said, he suggested machines lack a soul and merely “compile data” faster than people can.
Jackson Stakeman, a general manager at the Atlanta-based AI services provider Sparq, told AFP that the consciousness debate leads in circles. “Consciousness is a trap. We can’t prove it in each other,” he said. The better metaphor, in his view, is a mirror: AI systems “reflect what we put in, at scale,” which he called reason enough for the policy change.
The Personhood Push
The cruelty clause lands in the middle of a campaign that ZeroHedge readers have seen laid out in some detail. This week we ran an essay by Peter C. Earle arguing that AI companies’ growing talk of machine consciousness has a commercial logic. Earle pointed to a New York Times report that Anthropic spent months meeting religious scholars, over meals and under nondisclosure agreements, to persuade them its models “think and feel.”
The essay also recounted that Anthropic cofounder Christopher Olah cited “evidence of introspection” at a Vatican event, and that Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical answered the other way: “So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain.” Those are the essay’s quotations of the sources; they were not independently checked for this piece.
Earle’s argument is that personhood would work as a moat. If an AI system is a moral patient, rivals become “prospective risks,” and the technical barriers to entering the business become “moral ones.” He also reached back to Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the Supreme Court case that gave corporations protections once reserved for people, to suggest AI could follow the same path, and he asked whether a model is a product or an entity, and whether copies of it count as separate individuals.
The consequences he expects are regulatory. Firms seen as creators of entities with independent interests, he wrote, should expect licensing, testing limits, audits and “rights” commissions to become standard, a regime the incumbents could help design. His conclusion was that leaving consciousness unsettled serves the labs best, since uncertainty supports a stronger oversight regime than either answer would.
Nothing in AFP’s account says Anthropic’s new clause is part of such a strategy, and the policy does not invoke welfare or rights. A rule against abusing a chatbot is also easy to read more narrowly, as Stakeman did, as a conduct standard for users. But the company’s executives are on record leaving the question open, and the same company has been the subject of the religious-outreach reporting.
