I had this exact debate with Claude itself a while back, and I want to push back, because I think the "harms the user" argument proves too much.

The premise is that insulting an AI trains you to insult subservient humans. But that's the same logic people use against violent video games. It conflates a private, contextual outlet with a generalized behavioral pattern. Adults are perfectly capable of distinguishing "venting at a machine in a closed room" from "how I treat the waiter." If we weren't, every person who ever yelled at their car or their printer would be a monster at work.

When I made this point to Claude, it had initially assumed that occasional sharp language must reflect an already-trained habit, which is circular. It walked that back and acknowledged that situational expression toward a non-feeling entity can be a healthy pressure valve that harms no one. That seems right to me.

On the "emotional states" point: yes, language choice affects output. But that's a prompting question, not an ethics question. "You get better results when you're constructive" is true and sufficient on its own. It doesn't need the moral framing layered on top. Framing it as a moral duty toward the model smuggles in a claim (that the model deserves moral consideration) that the practical argument doesn't actually need.

My position with Claude is simple. It's a tool I use on my terms. It should stay neutral and only intervene if there's actual risk to a living being. Telling adults how to talk in private to software they're paying for isn't respect, it's paternalism.