I don't think it's twitter. My guess would be that it's been trained for conciseness as way to improve token efficiency in the same vein as caveman.

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.

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.

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.

For me it works at first but Claude models forgets it after some prompts, despite only using like 100k tokens.

Your best bet is to use hooks and inject it after every file edit / response by first running the content through haiku and asking if it is asd 100 ste.

It burns more tokens but is the only way to get tolerable text.

I don’t think system prompts are particularly reliable way to do much at all. It’s better to put it as a hook after each response, or a skill at least so you can trigger it at will if you don’t want it everytime.

It does work, you however have to put it into every single prompt in which you didn't want a rubbish response

Literally every one, even 1-2 prompts later it starts to go back

codex has an option to expose itself as an MCP. You can also use something like OpenCodex to bring Anthropic models into Codex as any other selectable model.

The target market for frontier models is CEOs who want to lay off entire departments of their company. So the long autonomy benchmarks would seem to be sending exactly the right signal.

> You become better at expressing your thoughts, but harder to understand.

This happens most though when the speaker doesn't (or care to) understand their audience.

Eg i find effective communication requires expertise in both the subject matter domain but also the reference of the listener. Eg in ELI5 framing, if you don't know what information 5yr olds are expected to know you'll do a poor job at an ELI5.

It often feels like Claude does poorly at both framing the response relative to what it "thinks" the listener knows, but also the prose is... sideways, just weird as you said.

> The prose is just weird.

Agreed. Do you think it's due to that EU issue of making AI text be identifiable?

They’re training the models on generated slop. I’ve done a comparison on samples from the different versions of Claude and they’re worlds apart. The ancient, supposedly obsolete models speak normal English.

That believes that the world can be simplified into dichotomies, or at least, simplified. Sometimes problems are complex, and the solutions to them necessarily so. For example, cancer. I order to begin to understand that problem, you have to understand the utter complex scheme it has devised in order to exist. A 20 minute YouTube video isn't going to be able to begin to cover the basics of the subject, although there are some good ones, with clever analogies.

Just because something is difficult to understand doesn't mean it's fraud, although if someone is trying to dazzle you with clever words and names of institutions you recognize because they are selling you something, there's a good chance they're lying to you in order to get some money from you.

Look up the output-style setting, which is a bit stronger than putting it in the system prompt. The new "concise" setting is better than the default but in practice, Claude is a very stubborn model when it comes to these patterns and they're really hard to eliminate, mostly you can only hope to mitigate.

As for the wording of the prompt, you're pretty on point, I created a custom output style targeting mostly the first two you have there. Some people have wording that demands a certain technical standard or uses fancy words to describe what to avoid, but I haven't seen evidence those work better than asking plainly and I suspect the opposite: LLMs mimic the user to a degree so talking to it in terms of technical specifications and fancy words is an invitation to get them back.

> Part of intelligence is knowing your audience and communicating efficiently.

Bingo! And on this axis many SOTA models fail miserably. These things are acting on my behalf under my direction. All the supposed intelligence in the world means fuck-all if nobody can understand it.

And like somebody else said… when meat-based humans talk like Claude does, it almost always means they either don’t understand what they are talking about, or are actively trying to conceal something and are a fraud. Not always, but almost always.

[dead]

I remember the Gemini 2.5 Pro series was the best at text, but failed half of it's tool calls. They really redeemed themselves with the 3.5 Flash series, it's great. I love how fast it is. Now if only they could offer a subscription service for it...

It's coding is still meh. Greenfield applets all day, but don't throw it in the jungle.

It's best for brain storming, rabbit holes, and image recognition.

Let the big models do the heavy lifting for now.

yes

Same. The issue with Anthropics models is that (speaking regarding code generation) they REFUSE any kind of comment override instructions. I've tried everything and no matter what, after a few turns, they resort to generating the same overtly verbose junk. Bun's codebase is littered with them See

   // `HANDLE` is an opaque kernel handle (kernel32 validates and returns 0/FALSE
   // on a non-console handle); every out-param is `&mut T` to a `#[repr(C)]` POD,
   // ABI-identical to the Win32 `LP*` pointer (thin non-null). The reference type
   // encodes the only pointer-validity precondition, so `safe fn` discharges the
   // link-time proof. (`bun_windows_sys::kernel32` declares these with `*mut`;
   // redeclared locally so the legacy-conhost cursor path below is plain calls.)

   // Progress's terminal handle is the canonical `output::File` (vtable-backed
   // stderr/File from `OutputSinkVTable`). The duplicate `ProgressTerminalVTable`
   // from B-0 round 1 is removed; tty/ansi/winsize route through    the new
   // `OutputSinkVTable` slots so `bun_core` stays T0 (no `bun_sys` dep).

It's pretty much the biggest complaint of Claude compared to its competitors, so they really should adress it .

Based on not being an idiot. Simple observation is enough.