How to stop Claude from saying load-bearing

Post by DANmode » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 10:33 PM UTC

rpdillon wrote: post #353

doctoboggan wrote: post #309

I do not mind when I am coding with Claude and it uses all the typical claudisms. I am much more bothered when I am reading a blog post, email, or other form of prose and I see those same claudisms. I guess they are not annoying since I know I am talking to an LLM and expect the typical responses. When I am reading prose online that I previously would have expected a human to write, it can be quite jarring to realize…

I didn't use Claude for a long time, but my coworkers did, so I got infected through a side channel: I ended up reading their vibed docs, noticed "load-bearing", kind of liked it, and started using it in conversation, until I got feedback that I was "talking like Claude", so now I avoid the phrase entirely. The intersection of language and social norms is interesting.

Post by nilsbunger » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 10:35 PM UTC

Post by rsoto2 » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 10:36 PM UTC

theowaway213456 wrote: post #232

sublinear wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah wow fascinating! It's almost like LLM output quality was never the point from a business perspective. Real people think in concepts and experiences instead of words. The words are not so important to get the idea across, but LLMs only model language. The problem is fundamental. There's no workaround. Averaging out word usage might even make the problem worse.

This sort of take is so tired and boring, and frankly has zero grounding in reality. "LLMs will never " is constantly being disproven every time they scale up to the next 10X and apply architectural improvements. Their internal representations are so cryptic and complex that even the top AI researchers don't really know how they work or what their limits are. No one is going to take you seriously as a rando HN user i…

Post by rsoto2 » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 10:40 PM UTC

sebastiennight wrote: post #290

AlexandrB wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can their internal representation represent "concepts" when the training data is all words? There's no possible experience of the world there. No input other than a bunch of imperfect labels we created for stuff.

This is a wild argument. If I use the word "semantic", do you have a concept of what it means? If so, can you please share which of your senses have shaped the world experience that inform this concept? What have you smelled, tasted, caressed, that informed this concept outside of words? If I make up the word "polysemantic", do you need to recall a personal experience of polyamory to understand it, or could you possi…

Post by rsoto2 » Tue, Jul 14, 2026, 10:44 PM UTC

Zambyte wrote: post #248

sublinear wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming to know better than researchers. They do know how they work, and so does everyone else, except you I guess. The research goals were and still are clearly distinct from the business goals.

Understanding how transformers work does not mean understanding how they compose into the capabilities we observe. The former is concretely understood. The latter is an active area of research where no, we (in general, including you) do not understand how they work.