801–810 of 915 posts
I'm sure opinions vary if you're using it outside of a coding agent. I don't know why programmers are complaining, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no if prices were that high, millions of developers would switch to hand writing, open source LLM help and outsourcing at those levels, AI companies know this, you should too.
If OpenRouter prices aren't competitive, the providers would need a cartel to sustain that. It's a commodity market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I've noticed that ChatGPT (whatever model the free version uses by default) likes to phrase answers as though it's correcting me, even when my question doesn't contain any assumptions.
I'm with the author and others in this comment thread, speculating that effectively the balance has tipped to where humans are no longer the target audience of post training - other agents are. Whether it's through the reasoning / CoT, or whether it's in handing off to subagents etc, the focus has moved to agents communicating in "agent-speak" to themselves or other agents. And human niceties are just kind of, noise…
> outcomes are evaluated purely empirically How does that look like?
Or, even better, let's have the AI judge, because humans are too stupid to think for themselves. Look at all the harm they've caused in the world. Let's have this purely neutral AI with absolutely no hidden human intervention, decide how to run society.
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…
Anthropic, if you're listening - by the time this crops up on Reddit, the front page of HN, etc.... you should be expecting calls from CEOs of major corporations next threatening to abandon ship... We've seen this pattern before several times.. I hope they are listening and address this publicly. I'm not sure what is going on, some users report it works fine or great, others report the degradation. I've experienced b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nitpick: The word you meant to use is "offend", not "insult". Just because you can't cause offense to a toaster doesn't mean you can't insult it.
Depends on how we understand the word "insult". Can you really insult inanimate objects? :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, and the load-bearing part of the argument is not what you think it is. Two ambiguities worth resolving before moving on: whether what you wrote also applies to ChatGPT, and whether you have custom instructions set up. Failure mode worth flagging explicitly: I didn't read TFA. (I'm becoming allergic to how these things write).
I am curious why LLM writing has such an uncanny valley feel to it. Like if I was talking to a person who constantly used a phrase they liked I would notice it and it is possible I might get irritated by it, but I wouldn’t necessarily. In high school I had a teacher that would say “that type of thing” a lot. One time my friend and I counted it during one class period and he averaged to use the phrase every 48 seconds…
I guess it has to do with the low temperature (low randomness in final word choce - something all vendors seem to have converged on for some reason) which does make them less likely to skiz out but makes the writing feel dry and samey. It's like repeating a list of dice rolls, and replaying them - there's no inherent pattern in the input, but there sure is in the output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> being a coined word or quasi-synonym for something that is already named in the code base. This annoys me with a lot of LLM code. They rename things for the hell of it all the time.
You can imagine that as people get used to working with Claude, they defer to its judgement. So the people choosing which RL path is better may say "yes, Claude, that was a good refactor!" because it did something hard that it may have been able to superficially justify. Actually the change was unnecessary and complicating. The Claude trainers, as they themselves adapt to Claude's output, are collapsing in their own…