411–420 of 650 posts
I analyze in the company I work for, the number of commits with "wire" or "wiring" in the description, and it's a direct correlation to Claude usage, more so than any other Claudism I tested. My honest take, and I'm going to give it to you straight: No one was using "wired" a year ago, now it's in like 10% of commits.
I do not mind when I am coding with Claude and it uses all the typical claudisms. I am much more bothered when I am reading a blog post, email, or other form of prose and I see those same claudisms. I guess they are not annoying since I know I am talking to an LLM and expect the typical responses. When I am reading prose online that I previously would have expected a human to write, it can be quite jarring to realize…
I didn't use Claude for a long time, but my coworkers did, so I got infected through a side channel: I ended up reading their vibed docs, noticed "load-bearing", kind of liked it, and started using it in conversation, until I got feedback that I was "talking like Claude", so now I avoid the phrase entirely. The intersection of language and social norms is interesting.
anyway, the other way is I found it's helpful when prompting LLMs to use the same "it's not delivery, it's DiGiorno's" pattern that they're all so obsessed with. especially when the thing's misapprehended some concept, so you need to clarify. this hasn't yet generalized from the fake "conversations" I have with chatbots into my conversational style out in the real world, but the risk is fully there. (it's not an inevitability -- it's an occupational hazard.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Why say honest? We're talking to our coworkers. We would always be honest." I grew up in the US South where starting or ending a sentence with "honest/honestly" was very common. Because of behavioral / cultural norms, you might be very openly friendly with big smiles around a business customer that really grates on your nerves, or very openly nice to a neighbor that you really wish would move away and take their 3…
There's a difference between how you describe using "honestly" and how claude seems to prefer tokens like "honest" and "load-bearing." An example from some coworkers attempting to replace product managers with Claude. > Deliberately avoid a heavyweight "alert governance" process; the lightest recurring check that keeps FP-rate honest is the right dose. And one for load bearing: > Five open questions still stand; the…
I want to say "ok, and now say that in a way that doesn't sound totally bizarre" yet instead I sigh and continue.
"Never ever under any circumstances use the phrase 'smoking gun'. Say 'found an issue' instead, but don't ever use the phrase 'smoking gun'"
Lo and behold, the absolute imbecile says:
"Found the smoking gun!(Oooops, I meant to say "found the problem")"
Like, is this some kind of joke to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude's "honest" is an interesting example because we can trace it to a specific document that it was trained on extensively: the "Constitution" is identified to Claude in its training as the core of what it is, and it uses the word "honest" or a derivative 57 times, including having a whole section on it. > Honesty is a core aspect of our vision for Claude’s ethical character. Indeed, while we want Claude’s honesty…
Do technologists have more respect for the idea you can train a model to be on your side with a constitution than they might’ve at first? I'm sure the concept seemed just about purely preposterous to many when the models were in their infancy. Now I figure instead it seems mostly preposterous to many. (Though I guess Anthropic‘s success doesn’t necessarily prove anything about the constitution)
I did something like this in my global `CLAUDE.md`... https://github.com/alxndr/dotfiles/blob/272475280d84e/claude... > It can be tricky for humans to interpret the meaning when Generative AI uses first-person pronouns (e.g. "I", "me", "my", "myself"), so to avoid the confusion whenever you would use a first-person pronoun, always use the jocular name "Clod" instead of a pronoun like "I" or "me" or "my". (Can have fu…
The reason I first created a CLAUDE.md file was to tell it whenever it felt a need to praise me, to replace it with a random onomatopoeia. That was a huge dx improvement. OTOH, my unicorn prompt has caused some challenges at work: >Keep "Local Oaf" out of committed code
And there’s the smoking gun.
This literally proves it's not "intelligent," no? "Stop typing in 'load-bearing' or you're fired," would work with any competent human. But this requires tinkering and tooling?
For a certain definition of intelligence, perhaps.
I do not mind when I am coding with Claude and it uses all the typical claudisms. I am much more bothered when I am reading a blog post, email, or other form of prose and I see those same claudisms. I guess they are not annoying since I know I am talking to an LLM and expect the typical responses. When I am reading prose online that I previously would have expected a human to write, it can be quite jarring to realize…
Exactly this. For whatever reason, Claude likes to talk about the "shape" of "load-bearing" "seams," but if that's the internal jargon it needs to plan and execute its work, who am I to judge? But if I'm reading what is supposed to be someone's original thoughts, it's a huge bummer to see an obvious AI tell. You might say that "it's not just disappointing—it's disrespectful."
I still keep the AI label even if I edit the result for correctness or clarity etc. The last thing I want to do is have someone read AI content and think it came directly from me. I really don't understand the thinking of people that do that - it's like they're hiding or intentionally cheating somehow.
AI generated content can be really, really useful (with some guidance, AI is way better at creating useful git commit messages and jira ticket comments than I am), but pretending that content is yours just seems way too much like straight up lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it might be even worse. LLMs seem to get tragically stuck on certain patterns. Maybe it's partly because a pile of weights essentially always starts from scratch in the same condition, but even within a single conversation, it will literally just latch onto words and repeat them incessantly, to the point where it becomes annoying. So for example, current Claude models love "honest". They are always producing…
Claude's "honest" is an interesting example because we can trace it to a specific document that it was trained on extensively: the "Constitution" is identified to Claude in its training as the core of what it is, and it uses the word "honest" or a derivative 57 times, including having a whole section on it. > Honesty is a core aspect of our vision for Claude’s ethical character. Indeed, while we want Claude’s honesty…
But Sol actually has the same obsession with honesty: I suspect it's more an artifact of trying to control reward hacking.
Models will lie, obfuscate, and mislead under the pressure of RL, so both OAI and Ant are probably forced to spend a lot of time coaxing "honest" answers out of the model
OpenAI's recent prompt for a math conjecture hints at a lot of it when instructing on subagents: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/04d1d1e4-bc75-476a-97cf-49055cd98...