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

Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 315 posts

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#51

Post by bcooke »

trefoiled wrote: post #31

I've been grappling with this for weeks, not just in Claude but in Codex as well, which isn't quite as bad but still annoying. AGENTS.md does very little, agents will consistently violate the communication preferences, especially as the session drags on. It's incredible to me that there's no good way to reliably change the way an LLM responds to you that a workaround like this would even be necessary. It seems like s…

Very well said.

And when you say it like that, I have to wonder how much of this is a natural consequence of RHLF on such a grand scale, when you have millions of people pretty much much skimming chat responses or operating outside their depth and giving unqualified feedback to the models.

Seems like a lot of people may be reinforcing what sounds smart over what is smart.

Also as an aside: funny how much the LLMs continue to mirror the human communication they’re trained on

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#52

Post by excentricus »

bob1029 wrote: post #20

At some point one has to wonder if it's still worth using anthropic's models if we need to babysit 100% of its output with another vendor's model. Why not just use that other vendor's model for everything? I can't help but feel the circumstances that enable this kind of front page article are vestigial from the days when OAI was super bad and Anthropic was beyond reproach. This change-over-time is why I avoid getting…

> Why not just use that other vendor's model for everything?

This is what I think too. But, users’ psychology might be playing a role here. Anthropic has great advantage from being the first major player delivering functional agentic coding solution (rather than an intelligent autocomplete) and they were able to impress people by Opus’ iterative improvements early this year.

It’s technically very easy to switch between models, harnesses but their moat or perhaps a main source of users’ friction could be FOMO. That’s especially powerful in this competitive environment where everyone keeps wondering/worrying about what others might be doing to get or stay ahead.

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#53

Post by unshavedyak »

ericpauley wrote: post #42

I suspect that sustained reading of Opus 5's unconscionably bad prose could actually cause psychological harm. We're strongly considering moving all of our Anthropic spend to Codex/open weight models. It's a mental health decision at this point.

I'm on my last straw with them. I've been around for a year now and for many months i've just stuck with Claude because it was plenty good and i didn't care to provider-hop to constantly compare. Previously though my UX wasn't actually affected that much, despite growing complaints/etc, generally everything was fine for me.

Opus/Fable output these days though is... not enjoyable. It's just really bad. The code quality is fine, but i want information from claude and it's just awful to read.

My biggest problem honestly is that i can't move my day job.. we're using enterprise claude and i'm not sure how much effort it would be to get access to another provider. I should inquire though, claude is really frustrating these days.

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#54

Post by unshavedyak »

pickledish wrote: post #11
imalerba wrote: post #5

I like the "Claudish to English" name better. https://github.com/gvzdv/claudish-to-english

Word, that one also includes an example which is great, shows really clearly what the issue is for those who might be less familiar

It's such a great example. It writes so well compared to Claude.

I'd love to know what the hell Antrhopic has done to make Claude's writing so, so bad.

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#55

Post by mechazawa »

juancn wrote: post #28

Just set the following incantation: You must use ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English (STE) when it doesn't detract from meaning.

I'll give that a try. Hopefully it reduces the text vomit Claude tends to do.

Right now all I have is

> - Give terse and concise answers unless the user asks you to elaborate. Big walls of text are not usefull when trying to communicate.

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#57

Post by _zoltan_ »

Bluestein wrote: post #22
rootusrootus wrote: post #13

Which Claude 5? Opus 5 does seem to have diarrhea of the mouth. But Fable 5 hasn't been so bad for me. Or perhaps it is just better at adhering to my guidelines.

Pre Trump-castration Fable was verbose, but had a point , and used that wordiness to say or show the indeed intelligent things it reasoned about. This, whatever this is, is something else.-

Is the nerfed Fable worse or better than Opus 5?

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#58

Post by palmotea »

trefoiled wrote: post #31

I've been grappling with this for weeks, not just in Claude but in Codex as well, which isn't quite as bad but still annoying. AGENTS.md does very little, agents will consistently violate the communication preferences, especially as the session drags on. It's incredible to me that there's no good way to reliably change the way an LLM responds to you that a workaround like this would even be necessary. It seems like s…

> The baked in communication style of these models is so obnoxious it's impacting my work. The best way I can describe it is that everything is optimized to impress the user and make the agent sound more authoritative, but the way this is done is through deliberate obfuscation, inserting inappropriate and extremely dense jargon, and bizarre, stilted metaphors. It's like they've been trained to produce output that's hard to read.

Don't worry. You'll get used to it. If you don't your kids will (as they'll know nothing else).

The top minds of our generation have decided that's the way things will be, and who are we to question them? It's not like it'll do any good anyway. Resistance is futile. There is no alternative.

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#59

Post by sulZ »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #39
trefoiled wrote: post #31

I've been grappling with this for weeks, not just in Claude but in Codex as well, which isn't quite as bad but still annoying. AGENTS.md does very little, agents will consistently violate the communication preferences, especially as the session drags on. It's incredible to me that there's no good way to reliably change the way an LLM responds to you that a workaround like this would even be necessary. It seems like s…

> especially as the session drags on. This is because these harnesses are missing a very important feature. Anything like this needs to be included with every turn, otherwise the LLM quickly drifts. I first noticed it when I wrote a harness for D&D (because it's so damn noticeable there), but now I include this for any harness I write.

I’d be interested in seeing and using this harness if you’re willing to share

Re: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM

#60

Post by Der_Einzige »

ericpauley wrote: post #42

I suspect that sustained reading of Opus 5's unconscionably bad prose could actually cause psychological harm. We're strongly considering moving all of our Anthropic spend to Codex/open weight models. It's a mental health decision at this point.

I've been trying to figure out ways to get models to create actual cognitohazards or memetichazards SCP style.

Hasn't worked yet outside of the classic "you're now manually breathing" kind of stuff.

Post reply on HN