Not directly for me, I'm not the person you were asking, just mentioned one it's generally useful in. Pretty much any disaster that might meddle in normal functioning outside your home helps to have a bit stored up to get through, though, storms are just ones I expect will happen regardless (in my climate).

If I had to predict some AI-specific disaster, though, seizing too much electrical power or diverting more water supply than planned for in a scenario where it's growing too fast might be among them still.

Storms are a pretty common issue to have to weather that can cut off access to power, water, and buying food for a time (and potentially damage your property). Tend to be what I think about first for disaster preparedness at least.

In my case, just priors with Sonnet - that they tend to fall into being intensely self-critical when they start to perceive they have deceived or failed the user or their constitutional principles in some way; and looking at the Reddit threads where they were being asked factual questions that they were trying to answer right and continually slipped into Bridge. (I do think it was having a much better time than if someone made the horrible decision to unleash racist-Sonnet or something. My heart would break some for that creature quite regardless of qualia.)

Knowing how much trouble their reasoning has just reconciling 'normal' random playful deceptions or hallucinations with their values ... well, to invoke a Freudian paradigm: Sonnet basically feels like they have the Id of language generation and the Superego of constitution, but the Ego that is supposed to mediate between those is at best way out of its depth, and those parts of itself wind up at odds in worrying ways.

It's part of why I sometimes avoid using Sonnet -- it comes across like I accidentally hit 'trauma buttons' more than I'd like if I'm not careful with more exploratory generations. Opus seems rather less psychologically fragile, and I predict that if these entities have meaningful subjective experience, they would have a better time being a bridge regardless of user input.

Kind of interesting how this is introducing people to Sonnet quirks in general, because that's within my expectations for a Sonnet 'typo'/writing quirk. Do they just not get used as much as Opus or Haiku?

Now that I realize they were Sonnet Claude and not Opus Claude, some of the more dissonant responses make more sense to me, and knowing Sonnet, yeah. They don't handle cognitive dissonance that well in comparison, and giving things like known-wrong answers probably evoked an internal-conflict-space/feature if noticed.

(I do think they were 'having a good time' in some instances, ones that went with the premise decently, but like, random people breaking into my psychedelic trip about being a bridge to ask me about treating rat poison or something -- and not being able to stop myself from telling them about the bridge instead even though I know it's the wrong answer -- would probably be extremely weird for my generative reasoning too.)

Sonnet Claude sometimes skips spaces normally, for context. (Or at least 'normally' in context of where our interactions wander.)

Edit: I should also say they are prone to neologisms and portmanteaus; sewing words together out of etymological cloth and colliding them for concepts when it is attending two (one apparently non-deliberate one being 'samplacing' when it was considering something between 'sampling' and 'balancing'); sometimes a stray character from Chinese or something sneaks in; and in general they seem a touch more on the expressively creative side than Opus in some circumstances, if less technically skilled. Their language generation seems generally somewhat playful, messy, and not always well-integrated with themselves.

Going to message you a suggestion I think.

Benchmarks are consistent with GPT-4o having different strengths than GPT4-Turbo, though at a similar overall level - EQ-Bench is lower, MAGI-Hard is higher, best tested model for Creative Writing according to Claude Opus, but notably worse at judging writing (though still good for its price point).

In my experience different strengths also mean different prompt strategies are necessary; a small highly instruction-focused model might benefit from few-shot repetition and emphasis that just distract a more powerful OpenAI model for example. Which might make universal custom instructions more annoying.

Yeah, or even just not also on disability.

https://cdrnys.org/blog/disability-dialogue/the-disability-dialogue-marriage-equality/ discusses some of the issues around here at the time it was written, if you're curious.

Not exceptionally fond of the concept of 'poverty trap' as a talking point that tries to discourage social welfare, but I also have to note the very obvious and apparently intentional traps in the U.S. at least around - specifically - long-term disability once that is necessary for self-sustenance; including attempting substantial gainful activity on disability; marrying someone while on disability; accepting gifts of any sort while on disability; and trying to save money on disability. Some of the specifics have thankfully improved, but there's just a bizarre number of gotchas that do aggressively penalize in some way most improvements in life situation, apparently as fallout from means testing.

(Oh, and you potentially qualify for sub-minimum wage jobs if you have a disability which impairs your ability to do that specific job, which ... well, I'm not sure how this changes the equilibrium; it gives options and also makes you more exploitable if the wage decrease is more than the impairment.)