← Back to context

Comment by Drupon

1 day ago

I guess my point is that when people are regularly reading dense and challenging material, they can absorb information quickly. It's a literacy gap. Nothing about Claude's output should slow anyone down who did the readings in their upper and higher education coursework, particularly if they continue to read to keep their mind sharp. Based on the examples of "inscrutable" text I've seen, I would be shocked if the average Claude user complaining about this reads a single novel (that's not sci-fi/fantasy written for teenagers) a year.

6 comments

Drupon

Reply
omsta  1 day ago

If you really must have a counterexample, though I am afraid it will not reach you given your apparent stance about the other people, when I read Shakespeare I am constantly thinking of poetic ways to translate sentences and paragraphs into my native language (which, for the record, I consider to be great fun), yet Claude has been delivering the gibberish with increasing velocity, yes, even to me.

That said, I must confess that I have not been complaining per se—I assumed that Claude was getting better and better at mimicking the idiosyncrasies of Silicon Valley bro-speak. Judging from other comments, this may not seem to be the case after all.

  • astrange  6 hours ago

    It's a specific dialect of its own that comes from RL. Nobody on Earth talks about load-bearing honest caveat seams.

    (Another strange thing about Opus 5 is that it will constantly re-mention things it thinks are important, probably a strategy to avoid losing them in the context history.)

aidanhs  1 day ago

Every single time Claude has confused me and I've asked what it's talking about, it's because it's got something completely wrong and has managed to obfuscate the wrongness behind never-introduced terminology, poor analogies and (what I can only assume is) exposure to wording it's used in its chain of thought reasoning.

A single question is enough for it to retract the error and correct itself. Suggesting that not understanding some of these messages is a lack of human comprehension rather than the agent being flat out wrong is...a bold take.

Typically a feature of good human technical communication is the ability to concisely explain key ideas so one can quickly identify any divergences between understanding. Opus 5 is dreadful at this.

The single saving grace is the intuition that if I don't understand it's probably wrong.