The only thing I find funnier than this article is that some people think that LLMs are communicating at a “higher level” than humans and developing some alien language.
The amount of ambiguity is astonishing to me, maybe I’m wrong but there’s just no way that two agents in a clean room wouldn’t devolve into absolute insanity.
The only thing worse than reading the repetitive claude-ism's while using the actual tool is seeing (likely human) efforts to reproduce it on every comment and blog.
I've noticed Claude-ish increasingly creeping into how folks write on HN. It is unfortunate, but not really surprising given how many of the participants in this community are exposed to reams of AI writing on a daily or even hourly basis.
Given the hundreds of thousands I've burned in tokens over the past year, I'm surprised to not have picked up more of that nonsense (AFAICT I haven't :>).
Alternative possibility: Is it that people are using AI to craft their replies? Also yucky.
I think this breaks me out of the actual work I am doing more than anything else Claude does. Every time it tries to offer some mea culpa for a mistake it made, it sounds so ridiculous. Those sorts of responsibility accepting statements are important for humans because there are real emotional entanglements involved in working together. This isn't true with an AI, and when it fakes it, it just confuses the situation more.
I don't mind when Claude says it will make a note of the mistake to avoid it in the future, because that is an actual thing it is doing that might make a difference. But accepting responsibility does nothing, and doesn't mean anything for future interactions.
X to doubt. I think the more parsimonious explanation is that a lot people are lazy and/or uncaring, and given the option to avoid thinking while still producing a vaguely equivalent [1] output they're taking it.
[1] For a loose definition of "equivalent" where they clearly either don't notice the Claudeslop or don't care enough to avoid it, of course.
Haha :/ one of the sad things for me is that prior to LLMs I had a fairly LLMish writing style. Kinda formal, lots of bullet points and em dashes, two instances before etc, etc. since the debut of gpts I've had to adjust my style to be marginally more opaque so that I don't get mistaken for an LLM
Love it (the mockery, that is). So far Opus 5.5 feels noticeably better in this regard (oh, and it’s fast!), but I felt the same about Fable initially. Not buying into the nerfing theories yet but if I find myself going into LLM-tilt again soon then I might join the club.
Opus 5.5 is better but by no means good at writing IMO. Still loves "noun verbs the object" sentences where the verb is an inappropriate and imprecise metaphor. Still loves negating premises nobody previously advocated for. Still loves incorporating irrelevant details of a conversation or investigation into comments and documentation. I don't think I've seen "load-bearing" myself yet but there's still a lot of things landing and being held.
It's not the training data. When we've tested the writing style of base models that have not gone through instruction tuning, they're much more human-like (https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16107). The style shift seems to come from something in the instruction-tuning process, so our current research problem is figuring out what in the process is doing it.
Good lord, this is several weeks late at this point. The joke is so damn worn out at and I'm personally far more tired of seeing people online thinking they're clever for saying "load-bearing" for the millionth time than I am at Claude doing it. At least it has an excuse.
This entire article is complete AI slop, with the most basic Claudisms present without even needing extensive inspection or needing to use pangram.
I thought HN would be smart enough to not get easily tricked into upvoting such low quality articles like this, but because it mentions "Claude", it is worthy of some intellectual curiosity.
The amount of ambiguity is astonishing to me, maybe I’m wrong but there’s just no way that two agents in a clean room wouldn’t devolve into absolute insanity.
Given the hundreds of thousands I've burned in tokens over the past year, I'm surprised to not have picked up more of that nonsense (AFAICT I haven't :>).
Alternative possibility: Is it that people are using AI to craft their replies? Also yucky.
Or they have OpenClaw using claude to karma farm, for . . . reasons.
The amount of absolutely bizarre comments you get on here these days is nuts. It always used to be a bit special, but this year is something else.
Very likely at least one person is.
I think this breaks me out of the actual work I am doing more than anything else Claude does. Every time it tries to offer some mea culpa for a mistake it made, it sounds so ridiculous. Those sorts of responsibility accepting statements are important for humans because there are real emotional entanglements involved in working together. This isn't true with an AI, and when it fakes it, it just confuses the situation more.
I don't mind when Claude says it will make a note of the mistake to avoid it in the future, because that is an actual thing it is doing that might make a difference. But accepting responsibility does nothing, and doesn't mean anything for future interactions.
X to doubt. I think the more parsimonious explanation is that a lot people are lazy and/or uncaring, and given the option to avoid thinking while still producing a vaguely equivalent [1] output they're taking it.
[1] For a loose definition of "equivalent" where they clearly either don't notice the Claudeslop or don't care enough to avoid it, of course.
Discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49461817
I suppose an infinite scroll _would_ be funnier
I thought HN would be smart enough to not get easily tricked into upvoting such low quality articles like this, but because it mentions "Claude", it is worthy of some intellectual curiosity.
Come on, do better.