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

Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

mun-logadan.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 915 posts

Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

#261

Post by iamacyborg »

chuckadams wrote: post #184
barrkel wrote: post #12

The single biggest annoyance with Opus 5 is that it writes too elliptically. Sentences that orbit a point, then jump to it like it's a revealed insight. Unnecessarily abstract phraseology. Constantly using inanimate nouns as the subjects in sentences in order to unlock variety in verb choice, especially when it helps construct a sentence where the real action can 'land' like a surprise at the end. It is definitely mo…

I find Deepseek's house style to be pretty refreshing. It has its own cliches (it does like talking about "seams") but I don't think I've ever caught it saying "load-bearing". I've even watched its thinking where after analyzing some awful legacy code, it started off with "Holy crap". And it certainly doesn't over-comment. I definitely can't one-shot a complex system with it like Fable can, but I prefer iterating ove…

>it does like talking about "seams"

Sounds like it was trained heavily on Opus 4.7.

Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

#262

Post by Applejinx »

kypro wrote: post #175
gundugi-man wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The single biggest annoyance with Opus 5 is that it writes too elliptically. This is even more painful for non-native English speakers like myself. I feel fairly comfortable reading academic papers or in general, communicating in professional context. But with Opus 5, it feels like reading a literature book: load-bearing, inert, wholesale, hunk, verbatim, and so on... I can figure out the meaning, but working with…

It seems to have a preference for speaking in poetic or highly expressively language, rather than precise and concise as most engineers like to talk. The amount of times I have to ask "precisely what do you mean by x?". It's kinda like that engineer that likes to throw around unnecessary technical jargon just to sound more inteligent, worse because at least you could kinda understand what the technical jargon dude wa…

I asked some AI-using compatriots a while back who were complaining about this, 'isn't it doubling down on bullshitting you?' and got some pushback along the lines of 'it isn't a person therefore doesn't have dark motives like that therefore can't be doing that to us'.

Didn't convince me. I think bullshitting like this can be a behavior, not just the intention of a human. If it's blowing a lot of smoke to use fancy words and phrasings (and semicolons! All the trimmings) it's fair to ask if it's systemically bullshitting you: i.e. the behavior is meant to have you shut up and trust it and not ask questions.

Who's driving that is still important: if the company's directing it to do that in system prompts that are adversarial to users, that's a big yikes. If it's an epiphenomenon of the company demanding it get ever smarter, maybe it's a sign that their demands are not having that result, rather they're making it bullshit more explicitly and mimic more 'smart' signifiers.

Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

#263

Post by Gracana »

yorwba wrote: post #198
waldarbeiter wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, my dict.cc search history contains exactly some of these words. I felt like my english got much worse but when Claude kept talking about "hunk" over and over I felt like the problem is maybe not on my end.

"hunk" is git terminology. When you use `git add --patch` (which you probably should, if you use `git add` at all) you get prompted "Stage this hunk [y,n,q,a,d,e,?]?" which is self-explanatory (?) and the hunk refers to whatever change git is highlighting at the moment.

I wondered how far back the usage of that term went. I was familiar with it in patch, so I did a little digging and found it in the v1.3 (1985!) source by Larry Wall: https://groups.google.com/g/mod.sources/c/xSQM63e39YY

Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

#264

Post by nailer »

oefrha wrote: post #197
karimf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 100%. I was Anthropic-pilled. I had a $200/mo subscription and I only used Anthropic models. I was frustrated by the verbose output and the writing style. I tried ASD-STE-100, it helped a bit, but it's still too verbose for my taste. Then I tried GPT 5.6 Sol. It's night and day. I think Anthropic just RL too hard on coding capabilities and never calibrated or benchmarked the writing styles.

They did release an Opus 5 prompting guide saying you need to explicitly prompt it to be concise or it will be very verbose. YMMV but it got better for me to some extent. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt...

[flagged]

Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

#265

Post by numeri »

adamcharnock wrote: post #232

My latest trick (literally from yesterday) is to just ask it to write according to ISO 24495-1, the standard for plain language: > [This standard is] for anybody who creates or helps create documents. The widest use of plain language is for documents that are intended for the general public. However, it is also applicable, for example, to technical writing, legislative drafting or using controlled languages. You don'…

Does this actually work for you? Do you provide access to the text of the standard, or literally just say "write according to ISO 24495-1"?

Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

#266

Post by smoe »

stefan_ wrote: post #222
inferniac wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the tip that was floating around on x was to tell it to use "ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English" cladue desktop has an instructions sections under general options, you can put something like "try to stick to ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, keep answers short and to the point" funnily enough the placeholder they suggest when its empty is "keep answers short and to the point"

CLAUDE.md is mostly powerless against the reinforcement learned crap. I'm up to three separate instructions telling it to cut out the hyper verbose, retelling history comments and it still writes them every time.

What has worked reasonably well for me so far is not trying to stop it from writing its inane walls of text in the first place.

Let it vomit it all out, then have a /tldr with instructions to make the last answer concise and intelligible

Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

#267

Post by repeekad »

sixdimensional wrote: post #229

Anthropic, if you're listening - by the time this crops up on Reddit, the front page of HN, etc.... you should be expecting calls from CEOs of major corporations next threatening to abandon ship... We've seen this pattern before several times.. I hope they are listening and address this publicly. I'm not sure what is going on, some users report it works fine or great, others report the degradation. I've experienced b…

> owe it to society

In America? lol if only, only a law would get them to act for that reason, maybe not even that these days..

Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

#270

Post by jonstewart »

barrkel wrote: post #12

The single biggest annoyance with Opus 5 is that it writes too elliptically. Sentences that orbit a point, then jump to it like it's a revealed insight. Unnecessarily abstract phraseology. Constantly using inanimate nouns as the subjects in sentences in order to unlock variety in verb choice, especially when it helps construct a sentence where the real action can 'land' like a surprise at the end. It is definitely mo…

Pondering this one night last week, I realized that because LLMs can only reason with written language, what we might be seeing emerge with Opus’s load-bearing mumbo jumbo is its own creole for structural reasoning. Not only are our brains wide, our senses are, too. I slow down to a crawl when I have to read actual math in a CS paper, but show me diagrams and I can reason about whatever sort of data structure or algorithm, no problem. Opus by and large can’t and its adaptation has been to adopt metaphor for structural reasoning. So while it may be exceedingly annoying to chat with, I sort of wonder whether this metaphorical-reasoning behavior has been selected for precisely because it leads to better coding outcomes.
Post reply on HN