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

281–290 of 315 posts

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

#281

Post by RealityVoid »

ineedasername wrote: post #223
cafebeen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 may have to apologize, quite a bit, for what might only be a small part or perhaps an outsized influence if weighted highly (I can’t be sure, could have been mv dev/null’ed)… well, it’s this— my own style of not-kept-in-check by the need to be comprehensible (legible in Claude-speak) to others is, I’m afraid, to rather allow prose to sprawl and go everywhere and even sometimes nowhere at all until it just drifts of…

When reading text like, this, I quickly start glazing over and my thoughts become cloudy. Really unsettling feeling, like I _actually_ become dumber after reading it.

And for certain text that seems to make sense, I am unsure if the text is just junk, or I am unbearably daft. Either way,, nasty feeling.

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

#282

Post by RealityVoid »

sroussey wrote: post #100
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…

So many vacuous statements at the seam. This is the hermetic load bearing part, which I confirmed rather than assuming.

It is mathematically impossible for this to happen.

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

#283

Post by janee »

striking wrote: post #148
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…

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,…

thanks! I've been having quite a lot of success with your instruction today. Tried so many variants, best practises bla bla bla, but yeah this one seems be working quite nicely for me so far :)

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

#284

Post by ATMLOTTOBEER »

LtdJorge wrote: post #235
cnity wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly, it’s absurdly dense, it’s almost impossible to follow. An it always omits the subject of each sentence.

Ngl I think this is partially an artifact of it having a better grasp of English than almost everyone

Frequently its choice of a particular word is perfect and gives me the vocabulary to talk about the task at hand the way I want

Like it’s tuned to just be “maximally dense” instead of “dense/technical where you can handle it and simple where you can’t”

It doesn’t know where your language strengths/weaknesses are, so it can’t communicate to you like a fellow human does.

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

#285

Post by Bluestein »

SyneRyder wrote: post #159
cafebeen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mostly agree. Though sometimes the models come up with useful concepts that I'm happy to be introduced to, like the "shape" of a problem (probably like intelligence being "spiky", and Kiki & Boba). I still don't quite 'grok' what the 'seams' concept is yet though. But I have noticed that while "loosely held" is a convenient shorthand for uncertainty, I don't like that one slipping in to my daily language. Except ma…

Allow me to offer a complementary point: I understand exactly what the poor "thing" means - and perhaps through some deformation or another I have done so since having had to read it - but something functional in the modus is still "off".-

... not to mention the fact that it stops making sense, beyond some point: If it takes us more cognitive load to understand the tools we use, meant to save us from intellectual work, what's the point?

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

#286

Post by nijave »

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?

On the SMB side, you can find yourself with enough money for a Claude subscription (which generally provides a really good $/token value) but limited other options (compliance paperwork, cost, finance, legal)

Personally I wouldn't bother with Anthropic at home but at work it's one of the most cost-effective options that keeps data in the U.S. (which our U.S. customers tend to want)

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

#288

Post by rahulyc »

ernsheong wrote: post #287

Gosh, instead of wasting time vibing another slop project, stop using Claude Code, use pi or whatever, own the harness, and explore the plethora of models out there. You guys are software engineers, yes?

What are you using the plethora of models and your own harness for exactly?

Oh, right...

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

#290

Post by RugnirViking »

customguy wrote: post #227
theGeatZhopa wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

honestly, it's really load bearing and boiling the ocean which we don't want. There is no edge! To avoid speaking vibe'ish I start to speak in 3 words sentences. Like this typical dialogue How are you? that's not/very good. I think too. ... Even complexity works. everything is expressible! Just try it. /S

All is sayable? With three words? That seems unlikely. At least, annoying.

want to space. go to there. me, preferably now. build big machine. several large problems. can't breathe there. very far away. must fly fast. no air there.

- fuel tanks heavy. far too heavy. we drop them. drop when empty. solves heavy problem.

- gas in air. we breathe "oxygen". take with us. good seals important. solves breath problem.

- very far away. need big machine. small weight added. machine much bigger. take less weight. else can't build.

- no air there. can't use propellor. can't use wings. must use rocket. engines get hot. cool with fuel. dangerous but effective. build complex pipes. solves cooling problem.

- must fly fast. air slows machine. it's called drag. speed increases drag. must reduce drag. make machine pointy. much less drag. solves speed problem.

now problems solved. you come with?

Post reply on HN