Comment by yowlingcat
7 hours ago
But that assumes this is a net improvement on linguistic efficiency rather than an artifact. Given that they tried to RL away from this style in 5.1 I'm not terribly bullish of Claudlish becoming something people try and learn. It being dense is less the issue than it being vacuous (as another commenter mentioned here). It's just very unclear and ambiguous writing. I think it has no place anywhere that needs language to be put to productive use.
I agree with you here, but to make it clear what I meant, I'll reiterate what I said in a sibling comment: I wasn't referring to the current state of Opus 5 (or even Fable 5.1) output. I was referring to possible future information density (vocabulary and sentence structure) that LLMs may evolve to use.