Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
131–140 of 254 posts
Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
#132Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
#133this isn't just necessary, it's mandatory. that's the difference.
This is the load bearing comment, and it cuts more deeply than you thought. Let me ground my answer so I'm not just guessing. The blast radius of this change is significant and requires careful surgery to get right. It's clear now and there's two options going forward: A. Use this tool OP suggested B. Rewrite the Internet from the ground up without this clear contradiction in place - 3-5 days I recommend B and starte…
Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people really need to focus more on working with limited contexts rather than trying to work around it. I really try to keep my sessions as short as possible and it helps a ton with keeping Claude (et al) focused. Specifically, I like the "canary" trick that people have discussed where you add a small, innocuous rule to your CLAUDE.md like "When responding to me, start every sentence with my name." so that wh…
I set my env up so I can see the exact context used in CC CLI, and then once I get over about 40% ctx used I have it handoff to a new, fresh session. Nothing good comes from running above, say 60% of your context window. Coincidently, I usually have good results with CC. I never compact a session ever.
```statusline-command.sh
#!/bin/sh
input=$(cat)
model=$(echo "$input" | jq -r '.model.display_name // empty' | sed 's/ context)/)/')
effort=$(echo "$input" | jq -r '.effort.level // empty')
used=$(echo "$input" | jq -r '.context_window.total_input_tokens // empty')
out=""
[ -n "$used" ] && out="ctx: $(( used / 1000 ))k"
[ -n "$model" ] && out="$out / $model"
[ -n "$effort" ] && out="$out $effort"
# bright yellow + bold
printf '\033[1;93m%s\033[0m' "$out"
```Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
#135Has Anthropic said anything about how or why Claude writes the way it does? So many people hate it, seems like they need to do some damage control there. I haven't had the same problems others have but I'm also not a heavy user of it.
They might even have a version that writes less annoying prose, but they are being squeezed hard by OpenAI and the Chinese so unless it performed better or equal to the annoying one it’s never left the lab.
Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vast majority of people using Claude don't really care or even notice this one way or another. You have literally no way to know that.
I do have a way of knowing, but I actually appreciate and respect your reply... My suggestion to you is to take this shred of skepticism that you decided to apply to me, and apply to every comment you read on Hacker News, not simply the ones that don't align with your preconceived notions.
Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
#137You're looking for Poteto's /unslop which cleans up sloppy AI writing. Someone made a Claude version of her skills: https://github.com/michael-denyer/pstack-claude
Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty sad indeed. Switching to other models made me notice how weird and verbose Claude was. The moralizing is incredibly obnoxious as well. It didn't seem so bad at first, but it instantly became intolerable the second I remembered I was paying for those tokens.
Moralizing? Can you expand on that
One of the comments was one guy saying “how he loved to live in Missouri and eat concrete soup” or something like that.
I was too lazy to write a similar reply and asked Claude, instead of saying no, it wrote 3 paragraphs about how I shouldn’t write about eating concrete soup and how it is dangerous to do so.
Re: Claudette: Make Claude stop talking like a BuzzFeed article
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.