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

261–270 of 315 posts

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

#261

Post by ashdksnndck »

crab_galaxy wrote: post #94
svara wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably going to be going against the grain here, but I think it's not as bad as it looks at first. I was similarly frustrated a few months ago, but have noticed I've started to learn the idiom. Its use of "dense jargon" and "stilted metaphor" is actually surprisingly consistent - it's speaking its own dialect, and you get used to it. After a while it gets much easier to read and even becomes somewhat efficient,…

“Filters, including no filters. The request carries whatever filter object the page already has. … No step here involves choosing based on meaning. It is a filter, a sort, and a slice.” This is from Opus five minutes ago. I can certainly derive meaning from these kinds of statements in isolation, but paragraph upon paragraph of this is unintelligibly dense when trying to work with Claude to come up with a plan. The w…

Before long Claude will be writing continental philosophy.

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

#263

Post by lucas_t_a »

cnity wrote: post #204
striking wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked Claude to do the following: > hello i would like to configure a new output style for you. it should keep the coding instructions (as you will still be coding!) and otherwise produce the same output, but with two new caveats. first, long detailed replies are still permitted, but if employed they must end in a bullet pointed summary whose points are all brief; if the summary attempt ends up not being so brief,…

I've noticed that most people seem to consider the core problem of Claude's output as "too verbose" but I don't think this actually cuts to the heart of the matter at all. It's almost, in some weird way, the opposite: like the text is far too _dense_. It tries too hard to invent odd terminology to try to condense stuff, but it doesn't tell you up front that it is going to call your company wide error-handling mechani…

my hypothesis is that its trying to hide the thinking process so people can't train models on the output, try to learn anything complex using AI, its basically imposible, its like its actively fighting giving you the main rationale

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

#264

Post by throwaw12 »

> *Save your tokens*, Claude 5 is hopeless

No, it doesn't save your tokens, tokens were already produced, it will save your brain cycles.

Reason for Claude and OpenAI vomiting lots of tokens is to show pre-IPO growth, because they are charging large enterprises by tokens

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

#267

Post by Otterly99 »

wood_spirit wrote: post #18

Meta to this is anyone remember those days - ages ago now, probably months at least! - when Anthropic’s moral stance against the administration (combined with general consensus they had by far the best model) was making them the underdog champion that got a swell of support on HN? Recently the temp on HN seems to be that they’ve jumped the shark? Their brand doesn’t ooze ethics any more and their models disappoint?

I think Dario kind of ruined the reputation of Anthropic. I remember reading his essay on "AI is super dangerous and we need guardrails" at the start of the year and it seemed like he was actually concerned.

But then it became apparent that there was a split between what he says and what his company does. For instance, the small incident with the Fable release:

> Dario keeps saying "we have an incredible hacking weapon called Fable/Mythos, AI is dangerous" > Fable is released. > The U.S. government restricte access to Fable. > "Oh no, this is sabotage!"

From my point of view, anything this man does is a PR stunt now that the trust has been broken, and I imagine other people feel the same.

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

#268

Post by dahdum »

rudiksz wrote: post #129
dahdum wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's speaking its own dialect, and you get used to it Same experience. It’s not very “human” but once you have agents talking to each other the shared dialect and verbosity makes things much smoother in my experience. Fighting against the default feels like an uphill battle with no meaningful benefit.

"agents talking to each other"? Are you for real dude?

Yes, I run continuous hybrid agent loops with message dispatch, mcp tools, and subagent capabilities. IMHO it’ll be table stakes in a couple years.

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

#269

Post by achalxyz »

cafebeen wrote: post #114
svara wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably going to be going against the grain here, but I think it's not as bad as it looks at first. I was similarly frustrated a few months ago, but have noticed I've started to learn the idiom. Its use of "dense jargon" and "stilted metaphor" is actually surprisingly consistent - it's speaking its own dialect, and you get used to it. After a while it gets much easier to read and even becomes somewhat efficient,…

One danger in acclimating to this style of communication style is that we may accidentally use it in your own communication with other people. If the other person hasn't grokked the dialect, it can make things quite confusing (to say the least). For example, there is common jargon used by people and there is chat-session-specific jargon created by LLM agents, and I've seen the latter popping up in various meetings, u…

I was in a meeting presenting a whitepaper. And I went - “And this is the load-bearing part of the paper.”

I think I need a break from Claude.

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

#270

Post by gritzko »

feintruled wrote: post #259
tadfisher wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is somehow incapable of separating the conversation with its human operator from the code it is generating and commenting on. Incidentally, this is also why prompt-injection works. No one wants to know about the three other approaches tried when reading the first sentence of a function's documentation. No one cares that the implementation was planned in six phases and "Phase 3" will implement this interfac…

And worse yet, you'll find the code peppered with comments relating to 'phase 3' and 'section 11', ephemeral stuff that had meaning in the moment but now enshrined forever. And what happens when the LLM stumbles on this and working off a whole different phase 3 or section 11?

I turned that to my benefit. I use that design-doc pattern where you first ask it to make a ticket with a formal section list (why, how, etc) and then I ask it to use comments with permalinks. I put it all in policy files. As a result, comments have clickable links to coherently worded tickets.

Still, this requires a second pass, typically. In its default-mode it often ignores the policies and does all the usual Claude stuff.

Post reply on HN