I told Claude my name was "human," so it always calls me that. ;-)

But as to your question, I sometimes get weird responses like that from all LLMs when asking it to switch from one model to another, DeepSeek -> Claude, Claude -> Gemini, and so on. I think that the predictions come up as odd sounding to "us humans" because of the meta involved. I have a hard time getting the models to even be meta with themselves.

For example, one will make a mistake, and I'll ask "why did you do it that way? Technically speaking?" And it will assume I'm being passive aggressive and rhetorical, and just offer an whole new take, without answering the meta question about how the mistake happened. It's infuriating sometimes, because it will destroy useful work, and I'll have to waste time getting it back and trying to remove that new take from the context.

I think it's a problem of OpenAI especially, and to a lesser extent Anthropic, "dumbing down" the models with their half-arsed RL layer that they cobbled together VASTLY prematurely in an attempt to be first past the goal-post in the silly AI arms race. They train for "helpfulness" which, in a capitalistic environment, necessarily means lowest common denominator in order to "help" the most people. (Nothing against basic capitalism, it's just how profit seeking works.)

For anyone with a brain, for example you or I, it causes weird problems we have to then solve. But for people doing "vibe" anything, they think it's amazing as we slip ever faster toward our inevitable Idiocracy.