611–620 of 915 posts
I have to keep reminding it to not write a wall of text. It follows my instruction for a bit and then reverts to type. I have the instruction saved in agents.md but still have to keep reminding it.
The single biggest annoyance with Opus 5 is that it writes too elliptically. Sentences that orbit a point, then jump to it like it's a revealed insight. Unnecessarily abstract phraseology. Constantly using inanimate nouns as the subjects in sentences in order to unlock variety in verb choice, especially when it helps construct a sentence where the real action can 'land' like a surprise at the end. It is definitely mo…
Everything that claude writes fits into the same aesthetic structure. The aesthetic is that of an expert slowly revealing an insight to the user. The actual content doesn't matter. - "Introduction that rephrases your prompt." - "3 paragraphs, with one section of bullet points" - "The Twist" - "The Bottom Line" It's really obvious once you see it. Every single prompt, from a quantum physics question to a mundane obser…
When I tried Claude 5 (Fable?) (In Visual Studio via Copilot,) the results weren't as bad as a lot of the comments here... But it was super-slow. IE, so slow that I could code faster than it, negating the entire point of using AI to begin with! I went back to Opus 4.8, but recently switched to GPT 5.6 Luna. The results are comparable in quality, but it's much cheaper and much faster. --- The thing with coding agents…
Regardless of the underlying issue, I don't agree with: > negating the entire point of using AI to begin with I can almost certainly wash dishes faster than my dishwasher, but the dishwasher frees me up to do other things. Not to mention, you can run many agents in parallel. Resulting in your overall code production throughput (the issue you're raising) being greater.
AI isn't a dishwasher: Context switching among multiple tasks has a huge cost; when a model is 10-20x faster it allows for deep focus into complicated tasks.
A gem Opus 5 gifted to me today: "A devastating pair of findings, and the first is beautiful in a way worth naming: the anti-vacuity floor is what blinds the gate to a vacuous case."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a little too much.... I have to ask it to explain some of the terms in the context they are used and I am getting tired of it. 'Seam', 'overload', 'spine'.... having to mentally 'reinterpret/flatten' the sentence is tedious. When asked to re-explain it starts with some half apology. Then, on the next query it does it all over again.
I call it "jargon slop". Half of my follow-up prompts nowadays when working with Opus were "TLDR please". I switch to GPT 5.6 Sol please and its a much more pleasant pair programming like experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a native speaker, it feels like reading an impression of a literature book by a high school English class’s most overconfident student who’s only ever read LinkedIn-speak. Anyway, you might have more luck just writing to it in your native language. It’ll be equally crummy, but maybe you’ll find it easier to decode.
Which written language has the most history of terse, succinct writing? If Claude doesn't improve I'm ready to learn a new language just to avoid its prose. I'm only half-joking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a native speaker, it feels like reading an impression of a literature book by a high school English class’s most overconfident student who’s only ever read LinkedIn-speak. Anyway, you might have more luck just writing to it in your native language. It’ll be equally crummy, but maybe you’ll find it easier to decode.
Which written language has the most history of terse, succinct writing? If Claude doesn't improve I'm ready to learn a new language just to avoid its prose. I'm only half-joking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m inherently skeptical of big walls of text like this these days. (So here’s a big wall of text of my own!) However, a lot of what is written here makes sense. And particularly “if your comprehension level stops [here] you get 'big words in complex sentence structure sounds smart and right so it is smart and right' even if the reasoning and process is poor” This is exactly the problem. And another point you make: >…
I do appreciate the thoughtful response to a really long wall of text lol. and yes, I agree - I think that'll be the lesson that society is going to take probably far too long to learn, to not see everything as a nail that AI can hammer at. a lot of tech companies are in essentially a 'fuck around and find out' phase with AI taking over code review, testing, etc. combined with the expectation of shipping 3X the amoun…
Which is basically weather the AI storm and come out the other side with something that is essentially purely human.
And then we might - where appropriate - use AI to help surface or explain relevant external content. “Idiots guides” but human reviewed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This 100%. I was Anthropic-pilled. I had a $200/mo subscription and I only used Anthropic models. I was frustrated by the verbose output and the writing style. I tried ASD-STE-100, it helped a bit, but it's still too verbose for my taste. Then I tried GPT 5.6 Sol. It's night and day. I think Anthropic just RL too hard on coding capabilities and never calibrated or benchmarked the writing styles.
I think anthropic is very far up their own ass and it shows up in the model output
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.