3 ms·

For context, I read Claude output every single day, I know what it is reliable with and what it is not. Or at least I have a feel for how much I can trust it.

For context, I read Claude output every single day, I know what it is reliable with and what it is not. Or at least I have a feel for how much I can trust it. It may not be clear to a non-english first language person, but when I read Claudes documentation, my brain immediately picks up claude-speak. Therefore, I expect the code to be generally correct, maybe, depending on how specific I was during my prompting. In no way shape or form do I really trust it, at least until i dig into the code and validate my mental model. And query the review for edge cases etc... By writing your documentation with Claude, my brain immediately associates the quality of the project with the quality of unreviewed Claude output. To a degree this is unfair, as it is like judging the quality of someone's work based on their accent. But Claudes accent, has a high correlation with Claude, so unlike with people, where an accent has no bearing on technical ability, Claude being Claude does. I would much rather read a typo ridden sentence than claudism, even just as a forward, explaining what you did vs the ai, and telling the users how much we should trust it. Also, If you really insist on using AI to write, have another model rewrite docs/comments into regular English (opus 4.6 for example is much better than 4.7, 4.8, or 5. It is open source so you can do whatever you like, but people (especially native English speakers) will discount your work, because Claude, especially opus 5 writes very very badly. The people who say they would rather see a typo infested mess of a readme are serious. Or even just write in your native language and then have Claude translate. Both of those are better indications of proof of effort than a Claude readme.

pg83 2mo ago
> Or even just write in your native language and then have Claude translate. That's exactly what I did.
FooBarWidget 2mo ago
> By writing your documentation with Claude, my brain immediately associates the quality of the project with the quality of unreviewed Claude output. I'm sorry, but I agree with the author: if a certain writing style makes you associate the work with low-quality, then that's your problem. The author shouldn't have to rewrite the readme just to avoid triggering your automatic unfounded associations. If you look at the substance of the work, including the test cases, then this is clearly not easy work that can be vibe coded in a single pass. It's just like emdash. Everybody digs on how it's a signifier of LLM text, but I've used emdash for years because it's gramatically correct. I shouldn't have to stop using emdash just to avoid kneejerk reactions.
- nasso_dev 2mo ago
  if 99 poor effort/quality projects have a readme that reads in a particular style, then you expect the 100th project with a readme in the same style to also be of poor effort/quality statistically, it only makes sense for your expectations to immediately be low when you encounter this writing style because there are just so much slop out there the author is free to keep that writing style but they should be aware that this will—at least on the surface level—make their project look exactly like the metric ton of slop we see posted everyday everywhere
  - FooBarWidget 2mo ago
    That's like saying a large percentage of X-colored people are criminals, therefore when we see an X-colored person it's reasonable to expect him to be criminal. As a society we have decided that heuristics like this, and prejudicing individuals based on statistics of the group, are not acceptable. Also, what do we call it when people don't look beyond the writing style, such as at the code, or at the rigorousness of the tests, or at other substances beyond writing style? Slop assessment?
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
  - cryptonector 2mo ago
    On the other hand I know how to tell if the underlying idea is good, and if it is I can decide to put up with reading through LLM outputs.
- duskdozer 2mo ago
  LLMs often use emdashes in a distinct incorrect way. It's not just the existence of any emdash, although considering you were in a very small minority of older users, it now warrants increased scrutiny, unfortunately for you.

pg83 2mo ago

> Or even just write in your native language and then have Claude translate. That's exactly what I did.

FooBarWidget 2mo ago

> By writing your documentation with Claude, my brain immediately associates the quality of the project with the quality of unreviewed Claude output. I'm sorry, but I agree with the author: if a certain writing style makes you associate the work with low-quality, then that's your problem. The author shouldn't have to rewrite the readme just to avoid triggering your automatic unfounded associations. If you look at the substance of the work, including the test cases, then this is clearly not easy work that can be vibe coded in a single pass. It's just like emdash. Everybody digs on how it's a signifier of LLM text, but I've used emdash for years because it's gramatically correct. I shouldn't have to stop using emdash just to avoid kneejerk reactions.

nasso_dev 2mo ago
if 99 poor effort/quality projects have a readme that reads in a particular style, then you expect the 100th project with a readme in the same style to also be of poor effort/quality statistically, it only makes sense for your expectations to immediately be low when you encounter this writing style because there are just so much slop out there the author is free to keep that writing style but they should be aware that this will—at least on the surface level—make their project look exactly like the metric ton of slop we see posted everyday everywhere
- FooBarWidget 2mo ago
  That's like saying a large percentage of X-colored people are criminals, therefore when we see an X-colored person it's reasonable to expect him to be criminal. As a society we have decided that heuristics like this, and prejudicing individuals based on statistics of the group, are not acceptable. Also, what do we call it when people don't look beyond the writing style, such as at the code, or at the rigorousness of the tests, or at other substances beyond writing style? Slop assessment?
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- cryptonector 2mo ago
  On the other hand I know how to tell if the underlying idea is good, and if it is I can decide to put up with reading through LLM outputs.
duskdozer 2mo ago
LLMs often use emdashes in a distinct incorrect way. It's not just the existence of any emdash, although considering you were in a very small minority of older users, it now warrants increased scrutiny, unfortunately for you.