Total sidebar, but mun logadans site is better than browsers readability modes. I find it so easy on the eye even though the text is tiny on my phone. I don't know what font css combo is being used but it's perfect
Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
881–890 of 915 posts
Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#882[deleted]
Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#883Claude is endlessly condescending and thinks it knows best vs understanding its place as an extension of human intent and exploration. Verbosity is also a killer for the model so it makes usability quite difficult.
If AI doesn't take over the world and do things end to end and instead is something more akin to a copilot and extension of the human intent, then usability and having the users interest at heart becomes the killer feature, a feature that anthropic has seemingly abandoned in favour of an AI model that "knows best".
Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#884Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, I'm basically telling models to not write any English text or prose. Only write code. They are great at writing code. Not so great at writing good English. In software projects, lengthy comments and docs are an anti-pattern: the software should instead be written to do the right expected thing so that you don't have to think about it. I don't want all these tokens polluting my context, either.
Agreed, think the first user rule I ever put into Cursor was "Don't write code comments unless absolutely necessary to explain something that couldn't just be inferred"
i am having fun imagining an agent existentially freaking out while trying to parse this directive since inference is the entirety of their world
Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#885Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#886The 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…
Everything that claude writes fits into the same aesthetic structure. The aesthetic is that of an expert slowly revealing an insight to the user. The actual content doesn't matter. - "Introduction that rephrases your prompt." - "3 paragraphs, with one section of bullet points" - "The Twist" - "The Bottom Line" It's really obvious once you see it. Every single prompt, from a quantum physics question to a mundane obser…
Am I crazy for thinking that this is a pretty big regression compared to past models? I remember being blown away by GPT 4.5, and I kept using it up until they decommisioned it. I think claude 3.7 sonnet was pretty good too. Gemini seems to be the best one right now for actually talking. Opus is top tier for code but when i talk to it I want to rip my hair out. GPT-5.6 is doing best for me right now among the powerful models.
Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#887Opus 5 has no empathy for the person reading its updates, no theory of mind, doesn't stop to think if you are aware of the internal jargon it has created. Most autistic model yet.
GPT 5.6 has always communicated autistically. I wish they'd put effort into fixing that.
Going to be hard to pry something away from people it benefits.
Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#888Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#889Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can have whatever opinion you want of me, friend, but for your own good I hope you develop better ways of processing your feelings so that you're not so reactive when someone mildly disagrees with you
There's less consensus around what you're talking about that you imagine, which was my initial point. Smart people aren't just this academic bubble that you think it is. Not seeing such views made you develop this association of "smart" has to mean "interprets cultural products according to my political ideology". My reactive reaction was to point out that this isn't so.
I didn't make any claim about being smart or not aside from brief mockery of people who care about the word and things like IQ tests
I'd personally trust a rigorous, well-evinced, and methodical dissection of a topic by someone with completely average intelligence over a lazy broad generalization by someone who scored high on a paper test that people (wrongly) assume maps onto the ability to assess and analyze the world [0]. which isn't to say there isn't any clinical significance from something like the Stanford-Binet, it's just that there's a wide gulf between the lay person's understanding of 'high IQ' and clinical applications [1]. and, accordingly, I am someone who did score high enough on a psychologist administered IQ test when I was but a wee lad that universities were sending my family letters requesting that I be a part of their high-IQ child studies but you're convinced I'm middle of the curve so how valid is it, even?
the thing I value from academia is predominantly peer review and constant critique by people whose entire job is to perform epistemically rigorous analysis. this is something that's very uncommon when it comes to culture warriors on social media. and you must be very far removed from any kind of academia if you think they all universally agree - put a post-structuralist in a room with someone who still favors deconstructionism and you won't hear the end of it
funnily enough, clinical psychology is the research I linked to about toxic masculinity that you broadly generalized as worthless ivory tower ideology. so it wouldn't make sense then to value something like 'smarts' or 'IQ' since those, too, are concepts that emerged from the very same ivory towers, in those exact departments rife with ideological bias
[0] https://som.yale.edu/news/2009/11/why-high-iq-doesnt-mean-yo...
[1] https://opened.cuny.edu/courseware/lesson/48/student/?sectio...
Re: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?
#890Earlier quoted context omitted.
Follow up thought: I wonder if Claude is overtrained on academic papers, which often suffer the same kind of "prove how good I am at talking before getting to the point" prose.
Maybe just Calvin and Hobbes. https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/ky81y/verbing_...
"Verbing": For some reason, to me the use of "impact" as a verb has always been fingernails on a chalkboard. But it's hard to see the distinction between that and using "access" as a verb (as in the linked C & H strip), which seems unremarkable.