Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

jola.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 650 posts

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#51

Post by Retr0id »

Myrmornis wrote: post #35

I like to think that the reason it's so noticable is that Claude has recognized some important semantics that we ourselves lack a good word for or at least under-appreciate. What term is used in English (or other languages) with the same meaning as claude's "load-bearing"? operative? key? critical? decisive? The honest conclusion is that none of those are as good as "load-bearing". And yet the concept being referred…

> The honest conclusion

I think you've been reading too much claude output! "Load bearing" is cromulent verbiage and can be used in many scenarios - so claude does. But variety is important too, and there are more specific alternatives that can be used in most situations. Any word becomes a bad choice if you've used it 10 times in the last chapter.

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#52

Post by bunderbunder »

Retr0id wrote: post #26
pocketarc wrote: post #11

In the olden days, I enjoyed Opus 3 because it was easy to have it sound way more human than GPT. Nowadays, with the focus on agentic use and coding, it seems models have all been RLHF’d to death, it’s so incredibly hard to have them write in a different voice than their default. I put together a skill to review its writing and have it edit its own output (e.g. code comments), which does make a difference, but isn’t…

> What, if anything, do people do for writing? I use a keyboard, personally.

Amen.

At work our documentation isn’t just getting littered with annoying jargon. It isn’t just all the hallucinations, either. (Since when has documentation ever been 100% trustworthy?) It’s that it’s so poorly written and structured that it’s becoming borderline incomprehensible.

My company is currently considering making, “Why should I bother to read something you didn’t bother to write?” an official policy because even the executives are starting to burn out on all the time they have to spend wading through slop.

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#53

Post by dfc »

graemep wrote: post #45
foo-bar-baz529 wrote: post #7

Is this a belt-and-suspenders solution?

Claude does at least use the British English version of the phrase to me - not sure whether its picking up a language setting or reacting to my spelling etc. The American version does sound odd over hear.

What's the difference between the two usages?

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#54

Post by Myrmornis »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #42
Myrmornis wrote: post #35

I like to think that the reason it's so noticable is that Claude has recognized some important semantics that we ourselves lack a good word for or at least under-appreciate. What term is used in English (or other languages) with the same meaning as claude's "load-bearing"? operative? key? critical? decisive? The honest conclusion is that none of those are as good as "load-bearing". And yet the concept being referred…

but you don't see "load bearing" nearly as often in prose written by people, so it's not some irreplaceable phrase. It's just a token with a weirdly high likelihood in a lot of cases (given how Claude works, this kind of thing is bound to happen)

You don't think it's possible that an LLM's internal machinery could decide that an underused-by-humans word should be used more frequently in output than it sees in input because it maps cleanly onto a frequently needed semantic? I think that's possible

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#55

Post by jonathaneunice »

Even great words, phrases, and styles, seen too often, grate.

I personally love a lot of the Claude (or LLM) lingo. Load-bearing, gate, canonical, blast radius, and friends do a lot of tight, effective heavy-lifting in my world. I even love the em-dashes (—) and the *bold the main points* memo style, both of which I have used successfully for decades.

It's seeing them in every analysis and post—the constant repetition becoming over-repetition—that makes them the Claude voice shouting "AI wrote this!" that seems to be causing LLM allergic reactions.

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#56

Post by Foskya »

bunderbunder wrote: post #18

I recently started using caveman, and it’s been great. It doesn’t just cut down on overuse of specific terms; it cuts down on time spent digesting slop in general. https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman

I love it. It also saves you tokens and it has been linked with more accuracy.

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#57

Post by alistairSH »

Myrmornis wrote: post #35

I like to think that the reason it's so noticable is that Claude has recognized some important semantics that we ourselves lack a good word for or at least under-appreciate. What term is used in English (or other languages) with the same meaning as claude's "load-bearing"? operative? key? critical? decisive? The honest conclusion is that none of those are as good as "load-bearing". And yet the concept being referred…

You're serious?

Operative, key, and critical are all more correct to me in this context.

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#58

Post by bunderbunder »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #42
Myrmornis wrote: post #35

I like to think that the reason it's so noticable is that Claude has recognized some important semantics that we ourselves lack a good word for or at least under-appreciate. What term is used in English (or other languages) with the same meaning as claude's "load-bearing"? operative? key? critical? decisive? The honest conclusion is that none of those are as good as "load-bearing". And yet the concept being referred…

but you don't see "load bearing" nearly as often in prose written by people, so it's not some irreplaceable phrase. It's just a token with a weirdly high likelihood in a lot of cases (given how Claude works, this kind of thing is bound to happen)

And like any good corporate buzzword, it’s merely a simulacrum of precise technical jargon. The way Claude uses it is clearly wildly polysemous if not outright ambiguous.

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#59

Post by pegasus »

Retr0id wrote: post #26
pocketarc wrote: post #11

In the olden days, I enjoyed Opus 3 because it was easy to have it sound way more human than GPT. Nowadays, with the focus on agentic use and coding, it seems models have all been RLHF’d to death, it’s so incredibly hard to have them write in a different voice than their default. I put together a skill to review its writing and have it edit its own output (e.g. code comments), which does make a difference, but isn’t…

> What, if anything, do people do for writing? I use a keyboard, personally.

This, a thousand times. As the ratio of code to human writing necessarily [1] goes up, they become not just smarter, but more precise and technical, which requires them to use more jargon. You could say they become more nerdy. Hence, text generated by these models will become more easily recognizable, at least by default, when not asking them to twist themselves into something else via prompting — which degrades intelligence. This is a good thing, in my book, given all the slop we already have to contend with.

Of course there will be models trained on much less code and technical writing, and they will create more natural sounding prose, but they will lack the deep intelligence of frontier models. Seems like a fair tradeoff.

[1] watch the first couple of minutes on this bycloud video on scaling training data mixtures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD93kfArOik

Re: How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

#60

Post by hresvelgr »

Myrmornis wrote: post #35

I like to think that the reason it's so noticable is that Claude has recognized some important semantics that we ourselves lack a good word for or at least under-appreciate. What term is used in English (or other languages) with the same meaning as claude's "load-bearing"? operative? key? critical? decisive? The honest conclusion is that none of those are as good as "load-bearing". And yet the concept being referred…

In the figurative sense it's highly versatile across contexts, but still replaceable. For example:

"Her optimism was load-bearing,"

versus:

"Her optimism was enduring."

Exactly the same meaning and connotation. It stands to reason that the terms with the most semantic flexibility will have preference across all contexts. So in response to:

> maybe we should be learning from Claude rather than complaining.

I'd say let's not steer ourselves into regular language and keep some vivacity in our expressions.

Post reply on HN