Live data from Hacker News

Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article

github.com

111–120 of 254 posts

Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article

#112
post #21

I've started giving these instructions and I think I've been much more successful in generating clear output: Comment blocks are Limiting the number of words is the strongest factor in cleaning up the output, IMO. For older code I've instructed it to delete all the comments, and then I re-comment it using a new session and these guidelines, asking it to rejustify the need for every comment to itself.

The problem is, when the context window grows, Claude tends to forget these kinds of rules. It will then do whatever it wants. I had to outright ban comments in the global claude.md, the local claude.md AND write a hook to catch any that still slipped through.

Yea, I've started making it write linters to check the code that goes out. Anything that can be deterministically measured, gets added to it once we lock it down.

Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article

#113
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

// The lesson from the Parse-dont-fail-era campaign // Judged on merit from computed properties during the cursor saga // Chop 6ms due to lenience and lax-constraints vs 18ms baseline April perf measurements

Thanks, this sequence of 33 words alone was enough to give me a searing migraine.

Glad to know it worked. Still pending: the assumed-defaults research track plus the validation-only build phase D demanded — your call on whether to start one now or deploy tonight’s campaign to surface any wrinkles the spec drifted on

Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article

#114
post #76

I've started giving these instructions and I think I've been much more successful in generating clear output: Comment blocks are Limiting the number of words is the strongest factor in cleaning up the output, IMO. For older code I've instructed it to delete all the comments, and then I re-comment it using a new session and these guidelines, asking it to rejustify the need for every comment to itself.

Claude not only writes verbose comments, it also writes comments about how things used to work when refactoring. That might have a place in version control comments, but not in the code.

This speaks to the general problem with using LLMs for writing. The audience they are writing for us you, but you're trying to write for a totally different audience. In code, this manifests as comments in the code that are hyperspecific to the conversation you are having, and not the long term benefit of having those comments in the code.

I see this in docs a lot. I've been reading a lot of docs these days where it feels like the LLM is trying to hype up the person writing the docs. It's like it has no conception that the writing is meant for a 3rd party audience.

Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article

#115
post #38

Everybody is complaining about this, at this point I’m sure they will deliver a tone of voice change in the 5.1 releases. Possibly with a new set of problems though, especially if this is part of an effort to obscure thinking to reduce distillation efficacy. In that case I believe Anthropic is doing damage to themselves. Caring about the quality of your product is the best strategy, the competition will come no matte…

I don't think they can change at this point without starting from scratch

Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article

#116
post #6

this isn't just necessary, it's mandatory. that's the difference.

Everyone seems to think so, but I honestly don't understand why it bothers people so much. I find it slightly amusing when I even notice at all, normally I am so focused on the content of what I am working on that I don't really pay attention to the prose. I honestly don't understand why it bothers people so much.

Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article

#120
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, this sequence of 33 words alone was enough to give me a searing migraine.

Glad to know it worked. Still pending: the assumed-defaults research track plus the validation-only build phase D demanded — your call on whether to start one now or deploy tonight’s campaign to surface any wrinkles the spec drifted on

Idk if you’re coming up with these on the spot but they’re linguistically fascinating.
Post reply on HN