Comment by brof
2 days ago
Another Claude-ism example from: https://www.anthropic.com/research/ecdsa-curve-origins
> This is not a cryptographic break, new attack, or weakness in the ECDSA curves.
2 days ago
Another Claude-ism example from: https://www.anthropic.com/research/ecdsa-curve-origins
> This is not a cryptographic break, new attack, or weakness in the ECDSA curves.
I don't think that's a claude-ism because it makes sense to cover this point at the start of the article as a defence against overexcited journalists.
It's only a claudeism when it says "X is not a Y" when no reasonable person would have been expecting that X could be a Y.
Fair, I just feel like I see negated statements significantly more in AI than in human writing. (And, to me, it's poor writing: if it's not an X, it doesn't tell me much, but that's a personal preference.) The newer models also seem to try to stay almost excessively neutral and avoid over-claiming, by writing explicit disclaimers, like this does. So while we employed these patterns in human writing before, I may be becoming overly sensitive to AI writing smells now (like seeing the word "unusually" in any text). Thanks :)