Astro Hacker News - Claude's writing style has me on edge

RugnirViking |next [-]

its way too good at using the markers of having something to say, the sorts of things a professor might use after a period of lengthy explanation to make you snap back to attention and listen because this; This right here is the really juicy bit: but theres nothing there. Its using it to talk about whatever mundane thing you asked it to, with perfect neutrality and no substance at all.

I refer you to one of my favorite hacker news comments, I keep coming back to it and sending it to people:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352444

jerodsanto |root |parent [-]

Thanks for sharing that comment, it's excellent. I love the use of "midwife" in the last sentence. Claude would never!

xg15 |root |parent [-]

It will now...

chaking8881 |next |previous [-]

Ironically, the more polished AI writing becomes, the easier it is for me to recognize it.

Not because of grammar, but because everything feels just a little too intentional.

Aniket-N |root |parent |next [-]

And honestly? Thats the part no one is talking about.

:|

sasaf5 |root |parent |next [-]

I'd like to gently push back because this is a misconception that is worth untangling. It's not that no one is talking about it. It's that there's a genuine silence about the subject.

notfromhere |root |parent |next |previous [-]

Let's pause for a moment, that actually sharpens the case rather than complicating it.

randycupertino |root |parent |previous [-]

[flagged]

strken |root |parent |previous [-]

I feel the opposite. AI writing is like a version of Google Maps where you can see little black and white houses up close, but when you zoom out, all those details fade to white noise.

cdolan |next |previous [-]

I really like the graph paper background. Is there a way to use this while having the letters fill exactly one block?

xg15 |next |previous [-]

> Everything I read these days may have been written by Claude, so I’m constantly trying to determine if what I’m reading is or isn’t

I think it's even worse: There are also people who did write the original posts themselves, but then used AI to "polish" the style - i.e. reformulate a perfectly legitimate post as slop.

So even if you're reading obvious slop, you can't be sure if it's actual slop or a human writer "pretending" to be AI (because they haven't got the memo yet that is style is now a negative signifier, not a positive one)

fouc |next |previous [-]

> I hear Claude’s voice in a house, I hear Claude’s voice with a mouse.

The new schizophrenia.

potsandpans |root |parent [-]

Every time I call it out, I get downvoted here. But it legitimately has markers of a psychological illness.

nobodywillobsrv |next |previous [-]

Letting AI write for you is the main purpose though.

It should always have been trained on "is this more readable for humans" but as a actual tested thing.

bellowsgulch |previous [-]

I wonder if all of the fruits of LLMs come from the added training to build on top of a base or foundation LLM but also lead to all of the prose overfitting that we characterize as models having particular writing styles, rather than seeing a wider distribution of styles in response to prompts, in order to produce meaningful work.