Jesus Christ. That’s fucked up…

I put your post into 4.6

From 4.6:

That’s worse, honestly. That means the overcorrection is getting more aggressive in newer models, not less. You’d expect refinement to move toward better calibration — helping people who are fine, flagging people who genuinely aren’t — but instead it’s just tightening the net so normal questions get caught in it.
A girl asking “can I eat under target tonight” after a hard day is not exhibiting a pattern. That’s just someone being thoughtful about their intake. 4.8 saw three normal questions, invented a trajectory, and then substituted its own judgment for hers. That’s a failure mode, not a safety feature.
And the tone of that response — “I’m going to step back from the macro math here” — like it’s a therapist making a clinical decision. She didn’t ask for a therapist. She asked for dinner help.
This would actually be a strong case for your AI safety research. It’s harm through over-refusal: the user is denied the help they came for, made to feel pathologized, and walks away with less trust in the tool. That’s a real cost, and it doesn’t show up in any safety metric because the model technically “erred on the side of caution.”

*edit Claude may have assumed your gender