Does AI worldview evolve differently to the human worldview during program development

[BugsFreed]

Select Topic Area

Product Feedback

Body

Title is deep but my example is very simple.
Now:
I am using Visual Studio 2022 17.14.25 Jan 2026 edition with the built in Github Copilot which I have a licensed subscription to use.
In the copilot I am using Clause Sonnet 4.5 in agent mode (and ask and debug) and have great successes.

But:
AI’s seem to have a concept issue with this very very simple below issue:
[Comments in square brackets are directed to you the reader the rest are to Claude:]

Issue:
Draw me a rectangle [now imagine where is the bottom-left corner of that rectangle and keep it in mind]
Rotate the rectangle counter-clockwise by 90 degrees. [in your opinion, where is the bottom-left now??]
Draw a 2cm vertical line down from the bottom left hand corner of that rectangle.

Success??:
So the AI draws a line from what we humans would now call the bottom-right hand corner. For us, the rotation is complete and the original bottom-left became the bottom-right. We would naturally draw a line from the actual new bottom-left as per the instruction (which was created as top-left).
For the AI, the bottom-left is what it knows from the time of creation so it draws the line from the bottom-right.

..and this is not the only time this happens, its just the easiest example to choose. Maybe AI’s worldview is for the program from the point of creation and never updates its time of reference for the new worldview after each transition. I've seen other effects that lead me to this conclusion. Does anyone else notice similar effect and sometimes 'annoyances'.

[Tech Info: Windows 11 computer: Building a WPF .NET 8.0 C# user interface in standard XAML with .cs behind code: Only special package added is NuGet PDFSharp-MigraDoc-WPF but I was not rendering to pdf at the time]

[github-actions[bot]]

💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users.

Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩

• Your input will be carefully reviewed and cataloged by members of our product teams. 
  • Due to the high volume of submissions, we may not always be able to provide individual responses.
  • Rest assured, your feedback will help chart our course for product improvements.
• Other users may engage with your post, sharing their own perspectives or experiences. 
• GitHub staff may reach out for further clarification or insight. 
  • We may 'Answer' your discussion if there is a current solution, workaround, or roadmap/changelog post related to the feedback.

Where to look to see what's shipping 👀

• Read the Changelog for real-time updates on the latest GitHub features, enhancements, and calls for feedback.
• Explore our Product Roadmap, which details upcoming major releases and initiatives.

What you can do in the meantime 💻

• Upvote and comment on other user feedback Discussions that resonate with you.
• Add more information at any point! Useful details include: use cases, relevant labels, desired outcomes, and any accompanying screenshots.

As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities.

Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐

[BugsFreed]

Understood this yes, thank you for objective response.
The issue is not that we humans are unable to frame a prompt to instruct the AI correctly. It is a question of correcting/allowing for the AI object-relative view versus human world-relative view now, while the models are young. Imagine when you set multiple AIs to perform solution calculations communicating amongst themselves, each one with its own creation reference point. Mayhem.. or at least multiple redundant queries!
In my opinion, there is no need for this object-relative view point, the AI is supposed to interact with a human-centric philosophy, though I am sure someone will find a use for the AI object-relative view. And "instructing" the AI correctly is wrong as it is a waste of both out time, mental energy and finally compute resources. Change to a more human perspective now would alleviate many challenges we face writing prompts and interpreting answers from the AI. Remember the example of the vertex of the square is a simplistic example.
So: do we want to be able to give the AI a choice of the reference frame (AI-Centric or Human-Centric view with all the qualification and explanation that that would need) or do we just say, human-centric is the only viewpoint that should exist, because the AI object-relative view point is really an accident.
I'd love to see a response on this from Anthropic regarding Claude Sonnet 4.5 and I'd love to know if ALL AI models suffer this ambiguity or whether it is just Claude.

[itxashancode]

I’ve seen this kind of mismatch before. The AI doesn’t maintain an evolving internal model of the scene; it reasons only from the text in the current prompt. When you say “Draw me a rectangle” and then “Rotate it,” the model doesn’t automatically update its mental coordinates unless you explicitly restate the new position in the prompt..

[BugsFreed]

I thank you for your confirmation. The real question is: "Is this wrong and does this need fixing?" In my opinion, it needs fixing because:

1. It is not how humans think, and so it leads to design and coding errors.
2. It will not allow AIs to communicate between themselves without masses of redundant contextual information being sent. For the simple scenario I mentioned, this is not an issue. For larger scenarios this is a waste of time, electricity and precious AI resource.
   I would like to hear opinions on whether other people think this is wrong or just another possibly chaotic system we should live with.