> Then: Give Claude rules
> Now: Let Claude use judgement
No, it should follow my rules exactly. I don't care what code examples it was trained on - it will either write code the way I want, or I'll use another model.
The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
261–270 of 434 posts
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing that you can predict a counterexample to an open math problem, all without thinking.
Yet they do.
My favourite quote on this subject... I forgot by who.
"They don't think, they only seem to think. And likewise, they won't replace the majority of human labor, they will only seem to do so."
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#263> Much of your context is assembled from your system prompt, Skills, CLAUDE.md files, memory, and other sources
What are "other sources"?
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#264I pointed Claude to this blog post and asked it to update the CLAUDE.md file accordingly. Worked a charm!
[deleted]
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#265I pointed Claude to this blog post and asked it to update the CLAUDE.md file accordingly. Worked a charm!
And now your CLAUDE.md is only good for Claude 5 models, not previous ones.
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#266"Then: Give Claude rules
Now: Let Claude use judgement"
How about no? I am the one who judges.
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#267> Keep your CLAUDE.md lightweight and briefly describe what your repo is for [...] Avoid stating ‘the obvious’ things Claude should know by looking at your file system or your repo.
Most people generate CLAUDE.md with /init at least at first, so it gets filled only with the superficial top level things that Claude already noticed during that first run. By this logic, shouldn't CLAUDE.md contain the exact opposite of what /init currently includes?
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
That really would be a first!
Hehe, a good joke, but to be a little boring, Clojure is successful and excellent and LLMs love it in my experience. And it's better in LLM era because there little frictions get agented away so to speak but the benefits mostly remain and are even amplified, like immutability as an example. Parens with overlong functions can be an issue but it's really not such a horror show. And Datomic-flavored Datalog in a Clojure…
Interesting how everyone's favorite language seems to be even better in LLM era, almost like passion, skill level and having LLMs matters more than the language.
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#269This all strikes me as an effort to move tailoring the harness out of the easily transferable .md file into specific Anthropic tooling to increase lock in. I've been running Opus 5 today and it's already done accidental deletions, made far more mistakes and worked around deliberate hook controls than previous Opus versions combined. Also it looks like token usage is up as it fails at the task the first time around mu…
I have a document generation task that I used to run with 4.8. This morning after it switched to 5, the documents were consistently 30%-40% longer for the same prompt... Not evaluated whether they are actually better or worse yet, but what was interesting was how consistently more verbose it was.
Review fatigue is already draining my energy levels at work to a point where I've been using agents less because it's just not possible to be productive when I have to read hundreds of lines of markdown every couple minutes.
Other people might just turn to automation blindness and click OK without verifying but I refuse to just let anthropic go rampant in my codebase.
Re: The new rules of context engineering for Claude 5 generation models
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true and it's barely even debatable. Whatever exact role language plays in our thought processes, it is most definitely nonzero. It's why I think "LLMs are only fancy autocorrect" style takes are really underselling how wild it is that we've, in a roundabout way, sort of crystallized a bit of the human thought process in a way that is genuinely useful for a lot of tasks. Linguistic Relativity — John Lucy http…
> sort of crystallized a bit of the human thought process a) LLMs don't think. They predict a most probable sequence of language tokens. Huge difference there. b) Whatever LLMs do doesn't model human behavior whatsoever. LLMs are basically very fancy logistic regressors. I.e., it's a mathematical abstraction first and foremost.
When I see these sorts of debates about LLMs thinking, its rarely a disagreement about what LLMs do. Its almost always over how 'thinking' is defined and the two sides use different definitions but don't actually communicate to each other what those definitions are because they assume the other side is using the same one.
The loosest definition of thinking is along the lines of anything that can process information in a useful way. Basic calculators can therefore think about adding two numbers. The strictest definitions tend to on the side that it is linked to the nebulous concept of consciousness and therefore cannot ever be machine generated. In that we don't even really understand how humans think, so how could we possibly know if machines can do it.