Agreed. CC’s comms capabilities have decreased gradually since 4.6, and it’s a real challenge. I think the issue is that what works well for code (succinctness) doesn’t work well in prosaic English.

CC’s communication violates almost every grammatical rule that’s tested on, say, the SAT. And yet I’m sure if you had Claude take the verbal section of the exam it would ace it.

Biggest issues: dense sentences, constant metaphors, abstractions, and seemingly no understanding of correct anaphora use. For example, “the x”, with x having not only no antecedent but also being a coined word or quasi-synonym for something that is already named in the code base. This gets compounded by its being unable to regress to a baseline (existing names in code) and instead anchoring on newer (vague or wrong) terms, for example, that crept in through a plan.

CC tells me this is because the speedy and precise fulfillment of a current task will trump every other tendency, so it adheres poorly to whatever “semantic baseline” the project represents.

Of course, it also has no concept of what context the user has and assumes that it must be the same it holds in its memory, which creates this “I didn’t know that you didn’t know” type of communication.

I have managed to wrangle some of these issues with a custom output style, but wish a pre-report hook were an option, as it could force CC to rewrite plan implementation take-aways…

Btw: Fable has the exact same issues, just somewhat less pronounced.

This 100%. I was Anthropic-pilled. I had a $200/mo subscription and I only used Anthropic models. I was frustrated by the verbose output and the writing style. I tried ASD-STE-100, it helped a bit, but it's still too verbose for my taste.

Then I tried GPT 5.6 Sol. It's night and day.

I think Anthropic just RL too hard on coding capabilities and never calibrated or benchmarked the writing styles.

> writes too elliptically

> Constantly using inanimate nouns as the subjects in sentences in order to unlock variety in verb choice

Wow, what a great way of phrasing this. Thanks for word-smithing what I've been wanting to express for so long.

Yes, it becomes exhausting to read/follow.

It feels they must be getting Claude to train Claude… and just like AI can do work that’s slightly in the wrong direction (eg a MR description for your colleague that contains info which only makes sense in the context of your extensive session with the LLM), I feel that’s happened somewhere in Anthropic when it comes to language. I wonder how hard it is to back out of…

> Unnecessarily abstract phraseology. Constantly using inanimate nouns as the subjects in sentences in order to unlock variety in verb choice, especially when it helps construct a sentence where the real action can 'land' like a surprise at the end.

Example of this? I don’t have a Claude sub so it’s a bit hard to visualize what you mean.

People should stop jumping from recent model to a new model every time a new one appears :)

- how would you be consistent if a new release is totally different style of communication?

It´s like changing side of steering wheel every time I sit inside car and want to drive.

BTW there is a yt about vagueness that is in coding with LLM. https://youtu.be/nnUMJX9013Y

> When I pointed this out it literally said, and I quote, “I cheated”.

This makes sense when you know how these models work - it doesn't think - it's the most likely autocomplete that pleases the user. The most likely pleasing autocomplete after "executing rm -rf /... execution completed. User asks, why did you do that? You deleted all my files! Assistant responds:" is "yes, I did, and that was a mistake"

There is definitely a case for launching a 'weird shit opus did' kind of blog.

I routinely bump into things that make me pause and think how much worse will this behaviour get when the models get significantly more capable.

Already a few months ago, Claude managed to escape its permission containment on my machine while trying to be helpful. I had two codebases open on one machine, and while multitasking I typed the prompt into the wrong window. It seemed confused, I repeated and then went on to do something else - I think I was assembling kitchen cabinets. When I came back less than an hour later, it built a script which it used to evade default permissions (as most shell operations were scoped to the project directory), scanned my entire machine, found the other project (among dozens and dozens), did what it was asked to do, and merrily concluded, in the porcess burning through most of my token limit. I bump into such headscratchers almost every week. (And I use a lot of Claude, two personal max20 subs, plus corporate tokens without limit, so maybe thats why).

I have noticed the same.

For fun, I tried recording a WAV file of speech, and giving Opus 4.8 and 5.0 an image of the waveform, then a spectral image of the waveform, just to see if it could try to decode what I said from the image alone. It didn't get very far, but it identified a male voice from the formants, and detected the rhythm of the speech, then tried applying common test sentences to the speech rhythm. I was impressed enough to see what it would do with access to the actual waveform file, but even building RMS tools and spectrum tools for itself, it didn't get much further. But we had fun exploring and trying, and now Opus 4.8 has some more audio DSP tools it has built for itself.

Opus 5 immediately sent the WAV file unprompted to Mistral's Voxtral to transcribe.

help peer, I guess.

I can completely relate, what really bothers me is that I feel the early LLM generations overconfidence is back in Opus 5. Opus 5 wanted to tell me a training run will only take 30min while having access to the logs where earlier runs took 4x as long. I also didn't ask to estimate how long the run will take it just stated confidently that it will take 30mins.

[dead]

I literally just did this a few moments ago. haha.

I said "maybe think for a while on ideas and then give me a few options? " and Opus 5 still just did the thing, while 4.8 gave me options. Same exact prompt and context.

for me it feels very similar to the trends already apparent in 4.5-4.8, just way, way worse.

From the little i understand that wouldnt be an issue because the model is ‘just’ using interchangeable words in a mathematical non-random way. Like using the same number of adjectives and the exct same words, but in a order that wouldn’t be mathematically plausible unless it was the watermark

I avoid speaking to AIs in anything else than English as the results are almost always worse

What kinds of mistakes do you mean?

I explicitly forbid Claude to make any changes to Git state in my global CLAUDE.md, but every so often if I let it perform a task in Auto mode, after it finishes it will remorsefully confess to having used git checkout to test a change. I suppose that its RLHF training has taught it that asking forgiveness later is sometimes a useful workaround for annoying restrictions.

True, and the time to completion thing is something i haven't seen much discussion about, because everything is sloooooow these days.

I've even considered the claude "fast mode" setting, but thats only 2x and at least 20x as expensive as the 5x plan so can't afford that atm for my company.

Peak for me was 4.6 and it just did stuff blazing fast, both Opus5 and Fable is way, way slower for me, breaks stuff, uses bizarre cryptic language. As i've said elsewhere in this thread to me it's pretty obvious there's huge downgrades because of economy with various "clever" fixes that makes them work, albeit slower and weirder, ie. you get less for what you pay increasingly over the last 6 months.

For me absolutely not. Fable 5 has been a step function change in the ability to hand off stuff to Claude. Opus 4.5 was itself a step function but I was still steering that significantly. Fable is one-shotting stuff that took multiple redirections in 4.5.

I agree. I was completely sold on Claude models for a year. 4.6 vs OpenAI codex in same period? It was night and day. Opus I could talk to about api design, tradeoffs, etc. codex was mechanical, used “load bearing” constantly, and unsettling brief.

Now it’s flipped. Sol emits thoughts as it works, which help as I’m scrolling through and see it’s made a bad assumption. It can be directed but still push back. Opus? It’s seems to inherit the unsettling silence of Fable and waits till the end to give you its authoritative “here’s how it is. I even end up having 4.6 “translate” what it says back to English. I hate having to instruct an llm to “talk to me”.

Yes there’s ways of getting it to talk more plainly, “don’t overwhelm me”, not be as nit picky and anxious “we are bold and fearless”. But didn’t have to do that before.

I assume it's deliberate - you're not supposed to know what it's doing. It's a black box that either completes the task or spins forever trying.

Think of these status updates as progress spinners.

LOL, is it trying to speak in Haikus?

You can turn off the browser use tool in the harness if an instruction not to use it for this is not enough.