2 ms·

I like the "Claudish to English" name better. https://github.com/gvzdv/claudish-to-english https://github.com/gvzdv/claudish-to-english

pickledish 1mo ago
Word, that one also includes an example which is great, shows really clearly what the issue is for those who might be less familiar
- unshavedyak 1mo ago
  It's such a great example. It writes so well compared to Claude. I'd love to know what the hell Antrhopic has done to make Claude's writing so, so bad.
  - happycube 1mo ago
    What's sad is that, at least in some cases, Sonnet 3.5's writing was actually pretty good. Sometimes even good enough to read outloud verbatim.
    - broodbucket 1mo ago
      The bar for that is sadly low, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlYa8NV5k-U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlYa8NV5k-U
- floil 1mo ago
  I'm unfamiliar with claudish and the example helped show the problem. But! There was something uncomfortably familiar in the Claudish example -- this is the way human programmers write when they're deep in the weedy details, and writing the changelist description afterwards as if coming up for air. Overuse of parentheses in nested lists especially, as if the English text needs to bend to the strict needs of a C++ parser. The rewrite did seem to lose the important fact about the ensure- pattern being idempotent.
dgfl 1mo ago
That one is more specific, but "vomit" captures the feeling of Opus 5's writing very well for me. I don't know if it's the watermarking, but every single language idiosyncrasy that Opus 4.x (x > 5) had has been pushed up to 11 on Opus 5. Plus we got nouns verbing and seams seaming. It's really unusable for anything other than code. And I have to remove its incomprehensible comments 50% of the time before committing anyway. After interacting with it, "slop vomit" is truly the most fitting description. I have to admit I have lost my temper and spontaneously referred to its output as vomit more than once. Seems like I'm not the only one.
viccis 1mo ago
The Claudish example seems to have more information. Are people really having trouble parsing this??
- apsurd 1mo ago
  multiplied a hundreds times a day. Yes.
- jesse_ash 1mo ago
  Yes. Every single response has this level of _serious_ detail (the kind you'd only go into when you really need someone to understand something).
- _vertigo 1mo ago
  YES. A thousand times yes. It's garbage.
rafram 1mo ago
The funniest part is that that project's own readme includes lots of good Claudish. > If CLAUDISH_MODEL names a model you have not pulled, every rewrite is skipped — with the one-time notice above.
- LtdJorge 1mo ago
  Was gonna say that, the README is unreadable
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
andai 1mo ago
[flagged]

pickledish 1mo ago

Word, that one also includes an example which is great, shows really clearly what the issue is for those who might be less familiar

unshavedyak 1mo ago
It's such a great example. It writes so well compared to Claude. I'd love to know what the hell Antrhopic has done to make Claude's writing so, so bad.
- happycube 1mo ago
  What's sad is that, at least in some cases, Sonnet 3.5's writing was actually pretty good. Sometimes even good enough to read outloud verbatim.
  - broodbucket 1mo ago
    The bar for that is sadly low, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlYa8NV5k-U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlYa8NV5k-U
floil 1mo ago
I'm unfamiliar with claudish and the example helped show the problem. But! There was something uncomfortably familiar in the Claudish example -- this is the way human programmers write when they're deep in the weedy details, and writing the changelist description afterwards as if coming up for air. Overuse of parentheses in nested lists especially, as if the English text needs to bend to the strict needs of a C++ parser. The rewrite did seem to lose the important fact about the ensure- pattern being idempotent.

dgfl 1mo ago

That one is more specific, but "vomit" captures the feeling of Opus 5's writing very well for me. I don't know if it's the watermarking, but every single language idiosyncrasy that Opus 4.x (x > 5) had has been pushed up to 11 on Opus 5. Plus we got nouns verbing and seams seaming. It's really unusable for anything other than code. And I have to remove its incomprehensible comments 50% of the time before committing anyway. After interacting with it, "slop vomit" is truly the most fitting description. I have to admit I have lost my temper and spontaneously referred to its output as vomit more than once. Seems like I'm not the only one.

viccis 1mo ago

The Claudish example seems to have more information. Are people really having trouble parsing this??

apsurd 1mo ago
multiplied a hundreds times a day. Yes.
jesse_ash 1mo ago
Yes. Every single response has this level of _serious_ detail (the kind you'd only go into when you really need someone to understand something).
_vertigo 1mo ago
YES. A thousand times yes. It's garbage.

rafram 1mo ago

The funniest part is that that project's own readme includes lots of good Claudish. > If CLAUDISH_MODEL names a model you have not pulled, every rewrite is skipped — with the one-time notice above.

LtdJorge 1mo ago
Was gonna say that, the README is unreadable

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

andai 1mo ago

[flagged]