291–300 of 389 posts
As a person who has ADHD, it feels weird when people who obviously do not have it, claim to have it, while there's very little I wouldn't do to "get rid of it" (in quotes because it makes me, me but it's very hard to be me).
Ah yes the old "I have it but you don't"
“Be concise “
Let's face it. Claude (in particular) is a terrible writer. There's a whole cottage industry of skills and CLAUDE.md instructions trying to push it toward writing better, but each new model iteration seems expressly designed to override all that so that it can load up its writing with unnecessary participle phrases, not-this-but-thats, burying the lede, and other nonsense. I genuinely wonder if the people inside Anth…
You've identified a load-bearing problem and it's worth naming
AI slop blog posts are as bad as ever but the stuff the agents say in the chats don't annoy me much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you want it to use instead? "I" is normally used for everything. You could be writing from the perspective of a slab of concrete and you'd use "I".
I want it to use nothing. Use impersonal statements. Say “X was changed for Y” not “I changed X for Y”. As any tool would. Finder doesn’t ask “Do you want ME to delete this file?”. Photoshop doesn’t ask “Do you want ME to save this file?”. Claude shouldn’t assume itself to be a person either. > You could be writing from the perspective of a slab of concrete and you'd use "I". Except this isn’t prose. Claude is not te…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're anthropomorphizing in the same breath that you criticize anthropomorphism. Nice attempt at a “aha, gotcha!” comment, but sadly you’re too off-mark for it to work. > Claude predicts the next token of the predominantly human training input, and humans use "I". This is inconsequential. It could very well be programmed to not assume such a personified stance, and yet here we are. Nothing you do makes it drop thi…
Is this a troll post? Claude is not "programmed" at all.
On it's own a model is just an inert set of data structures.
The biggest "Claudism" that I have a hard time getting the LLM to stop doing is its insistence on talking about what it didn't do in addition to what it did. "I edited this.py and that.py but I did not edit README.md and I did not commit." or code comments like "This code invokes foo on bar and returns the results directly -- not through a callback." "This code returns true if the user clicked on a button -- not on t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant anecdata because I've burned many a Claude sessions on this. If you're using Claude Code, then it's in the harness. At the close of many sessions, I would start a meta conversation over why the LLM would consistently break certain rules. What it found when debugging itself is that some of the "contradicting" rules that I had were in fact, not from my rules. Instead, the instructions from its own harness had…
You can't trust it's account on why it did something, it does not "remember". It will just make up something plausible sounding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing I struggle the most with is getting it to stop referring to itself with personal pronouns. No Claude, you are not an “I” you are an “it”. You are a fucking tool, dammit. Tell me what you did without trying to assume personality; stop impersonating humans you steroidal autocorrect.
You're anthropomorphizing in the same breath that you criticize anthropomorphism. Claude predicts the next token of the predominantly human training input, and humans use "I".