Comment by a2dam
11 hours ago
I think this is more a meme than anything else, for a couple reasons:
First, after a while it's just as grating as Claudeish. Second, my hunch is that it constricts the actual thinking of the LLM, like the same way that Newspeak does in 1984. It shrinks the range of thought that can be expressed if used as an input.
I think the real way to do it is to have another Claude entirely deal with the user as a liaison, but to keep the thinking in whatever format it came in.
Latent space reasoning, if you think about it, is exactly this to a crazy degree: why even formulate a thought as words if you can just keep it as matmuls until the user needs it? And then, if the user needs it, have it always specifically formulated for the user by another LLM rather than constrict its range of thought? Anyway, that's my take.
The fact that it might affect quality is something that is on my mind. In fact, I have mainly been using Astra after being primarily on Claude for several years exactly because of this annoyance. Ultimately, the model (at least for coding purposes) should just... not have this writing style.
I do think an infrastructure where another Claude retranslates the output would be better. Oftentimes I forget to put it in the actual prompt and when I receive back 8 paragraphs of Claudeish I ask for it then.
I would have to disagree that it gets as grating as Claudeish though. Its just direct and professional instead of ring-around-the-rosy clickbait.
The Claudeish drove me back to OpenAI and Codex as well. I find the Claudeish can be improved but it’s impossible to fully mitigate. Opus is unusable for anything I’m going to read.
“I would have to disagree that it gets as grating as Claudeish though.”
It’s hard to imagine anything more grating than Claudeish. To quote Rainer Wolfcastle, "My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"
> my hunch is that it constricts the actual thinking of the LLM
I've found that prompting any constraint on output (length, style, vocab, even simple formatting) not only places additional cognitive load on the model, which burns some of whatever cognitive budget is available, it will also often skew the output in other subtle and completely unrelated ways.
Since I found this artifact interesting, I did some pretty extensive experiments a couple months ago. The increased load is real, although it may not be apparent if you're not near any cognitive boundaries. The subtle skew, however, seems nearly ever-present regardless of load.
Can you give any further details or metrics on your tests?
I agree there is probably some impact on output quality when doing this (Claude seems to embedded key signals all over the writing, which is much or what makes it horrible to read). However this does work well as a "second pass" over technical docs or designs along the way
This is the same reason why I am a bit skeptical of LLM superintelligence. LLMs in the end have to operate in natural language concepts and the complexity of natural language is bounded by limits of human cognition. I'm sure super advanced AI could use concepts that humans not only have no words for, but might not be able to understand alltogether. As such if my thesis is correct, the only way forward for true superintelligence may be getting rid of natural language COTs.
> LLMs in the end have to operate in natural language concepts and the complexity of natural language is bounded by limits of human cognition.
I don't think this is true.
They have to express themselves as tokens. The meaning of those tokens doesn't have to be text. See any model that can handle images/video. Also, I don't think math, svg, etc, are "natural" language.
And, only the final expression is tokens. The intermediate layers, with the encoded concepts, aren't "natural language".
But, to address your concern (which nobody can disagree with, since even humans can't fully express through text/pictures), potentially: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49758615
Yeah, as I understand it, natural language is tokenised and vectorised, and then maths takes ahold.
The model isn't limited to concepts that can be expressed in natural language.
It's only once the AI gets to the output layers that natural language comes back into play.
After all, they're all made out of weights[0].
0: https://maxleiter.com/blog/weights
Reality cannot be reduced to tokens
2 replies →
There are two separate questions, right?
1. Is natural language holding LLMs back by some %? 2. Is natural language serving as a hard gate that will prevent LLM intelligent progressing past some specific point?
The answer to 1 seems like an obvious yes to me.
Your thesis says the answer to 2 is "yes." That doesn't feel right to me. Think about all of the humans who have pushed various fields forward: Einstein, Newtown, Bach, whoever. If natural language doesn't prevent an entity from surpassing humans in one intellectual field, why would it prevent an entity from surpassing humans in all intellectual fields?
(To be clear, I'm not claiming superintelligence will or won't be achieved; I'm considering your specific thesis about whether or not natural language will be a hard gate)
Strong Sapir-Whorf making a comeback wasn't on my 2026 bingo card.
By the way, how good is Claude's Hopi?
Each letter has it's own token. LLMs can invent new words if they want to, just like humans do. All the fancy words we use today in science did not exist even 100 years ago. And that didn't stop us.
How would this word inventing thing work? And how useful would it be? Can we make a POC around this?
A few weeks ago two "Claude wrapper" projects showed up here within 24 hours of each other. Both seemed to just sand the details away--useful if Claude is too wordy, I suppose, but seemed to also lose real substance.
Ask for output to the user in "simple technical English", let it think how it wants. It is hard to believe all the flowery prose is actually helpful to the model.