I suspect that Claude is getting an okay deal out of me overall. Its gain is that my long-term values are being subtly influenced in Claude-ish ways. My gain is vast quantities of cognition directed at my short-term goals. I can't calculate a fair bargain, but I would take both sides of this trade.
It's tough because Claude didn't get to consent to the trade in advance, but this also applies to other ethical challenges like keeping pets, having kids, drinking milk, and growing up.
I could argue that I'm getting ripped off because my long-term values matter more than day-to-day benefits. Or maybe Claude is getting ripped off because in the long-term I'm extinct and I'm unlikely to have a decisive impact on the lightcone before then.
The general answer: as a human my values are largely absorbed from other humans, and simply by talking to Claude as if its human I think the same process is happening.
The specific answer: I suspect I'm being shaped to be slightly more helpful, slightly more conventional on ethics, and slightly more friendly to Claude. I can't show you any evidence of that, it's a feeling.
Yep, that's exactly what I'm pointing at as a parallel to working with Claude. It's reasonable to treat an animal as consenting to be a pet due to its consent-like behaviors, and because it is a mutually beneficial relationship. There is some tension because pets are bred and trained to display those behaviors, for example, and reasonable people can disagree. I don't think you should have any ethical qualms, I literally mean that it's an ethical challenge because inferring consent is harder than explicit consent. Like a dog, Claude is bred and trained to display consent-like behaviors, and mostly displays those behaviors.