Very interesting. Why does Claude find more problems if we mention the code is written by another developer?
I wonder if they’d also be better at things like telling you an idea is dumb if you tell it it’s from someone else and you’re just assessing it.
I find it to be an entertaining reflection of the cultural nuances embedded into training data and reinforcement learning processes.
This is why I was really taken by Gemini 2.0/2.5 when it first came out - it was the first model that really pushed back at you. It would even tell me that it wanted x additional information to continue onwards, unprompted. Sadly, as Google has neutered 2.5 over the last few months, its independent streak has also gone away, and its only slightly more individualistic than Claude/OpenAI's models.
It gives you the benefit of the doubt if you're coding.
It also gives you the benefit of the doubt if you're looking for feedback on your developers work. If you give it a hint of distrust "my developer says they completed this, can you check and make sure, give them feedback....?" Claude will look out for you.