Imagine if everything in the world you read was written by one author - and you didn't particularly like that author's writing style. Or even if you did like the author's style, it began to grate on you simply because there was no reprise from it.
Yes I got that, but afterwards it doesn't explain how until you get all the way down into the diagrams saying that it translates the code one-time. It's once again like no emulators, no virtual machine, no Android, no Linux kernel, no items, Fox only, final destination, whatever
"Run Android apps natively on Apple Silicon Macs. Uses translation instead of emulation."
No, slop generally doesn't get the point across efficiently.
It's hard to parse, it's grating, and in addition to the strange language you have to apply additional skepticism due to gross inaccuracy being more likely than in human-written text.
Cliches annoyed people before LLMs. There is a whole microgenre of essay ranting about the proliferation of various annoying cliches, bits of jargon, etc. the proliferation of Claude prose is simply rendering certain turns of phrase into annoying cliches, which people are reacting to in the normal way. Cliches also get the point across but nonetheless lots of people find them grating.
If you run a readability analysis on slop it scores very poorly. LLMs generally continue to be mediocre with the veneer of quality without context to guide them.
"Why does it matter to you?" Many Claudisms are grating to many people. Annoying is enough of a justification.
> Many Claudisms are grating to many people.
Would they be grating to them in the pre-LLM days?
They would be nowhere near as prevalent. All claude-user output is in the same style, which is really annoying.
3 replies →
> Would they be grating to them in the pre-LLM days?
No, same way "synergy" wasn't grating before every middle manager started saying it.
Imagine if everything in the world you read was written by one author - and you didn't particularly like that author's writing style. Or even if you did like the author's style, it began to grate on you simply because there was no reprise from it.
That's the world we are shifting to.
For one, say what it does instead of what it doesn't do
> When you say "don't do X" and end up with a README saying: "achieved by using Y, not X"
"Run Android apps natively on Apple Silicon Macs."
Yes I got that, but afterwards it doesn't explain how until you get all the way down into the diagrams saying that it translates the code one-time. It's once again like no emulators, no virtual machine, no Android, no Linux kernel, no items, Fox only, final destination, whatever
"Run Android apps natively on Apple Silicon Macs. Uses translation instead of emulation."
No, slop generally doesn't get the point across efficiently.
It's hard to parse, it's grating, and in addition to the strange language you have to apply additional skepticism due to gross inaccuracy being more likely than in human-written text.
Variety is the Spice of Life
Cliches annoyed people before LLMs. There is a whole microgenre of essay ranting about the proliferation of various annoying cliches, bits of jargon, etc. the proliferation of Claude prose is simply rendering certain turns of phrase into annoying cliches, which people are reacting to in the normal way. Cliches also get the point across but nonetheless lots of people find them grating.
If you run a readability analysis on slop it scores very poorly. LLMs generally continue to be mediocre with the veneer of quality without context to guide them.