3 ms·
I find the language less impervious than has been suggested generally, but that it's reasoning is astonishingly, unbelievably bad. Not sure why the focus has be
by ahsillyme 2mo ago
I find the language less impervious than has been suggested generally, but that it's reasoning is astonishingly, unbelievably bad. Not sure why the focus has been only on language, am I the only one seeing this?
- latentsea 2mo agoI'm feeling this too. Like how many times in a day do I have to see "that changes what I told you earlier" before I just want to put this thing in the trash and forget about it.
- throwaway_7274 2mo agoMy impression from working with claude code far more than is good for my sanity is that Claude's human comprehensibility is fractally messed-up. On more superficial levels, this looks more like a "language" thing: it has all these obnoxious lexical tics and so on. But the more time you spend with it, the more you notice it's similarly messed up on deeper and deeper levels. I think that's what you're seeing.
- Bluestein 2mo agoThis gets into interesting weeds. It might get to a point where to actually "upskill" it might have to start sounding less and less human, "less and less agreeable to humans" being a waypoint to that ... ... to where, at some point, it might even begin to construct semantic loadings (heh) that are completely ininteligible to us while still superficially sounding like something we'd recognize.-
- throwaway_7274 2mo agoThis is basically what I believe, too. Its outputs are generally syntactically correct human-language sentences, but semantically, and especially at higher levels of abstraction, it is no longer correct to think of them as human language.
- Bluestein 2mo agoI agree, and am personally split, it being a sign of some "takeoff" curve or model collapse, incipient.-
- cindyllm 2mo ago[dead]