undefined

points

[-]

Everyone has their own distinct mix of jargon and uses some words more or less than others, but now it's as if you have 1000 coworkers who are all the same person, and talk the exact same way, and it just so happens that their writing is grating to read. It also doesn't stop when you log off for the day. The same guy follows you home in ad copy, message board comments, spam, and in some cases even the correspondence of your loved ones.

by smj-edison12 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I like to imagine that there's this one employee that oversees RHLF, who has a particular style of writing, and that got so ingrained that it's just them x1000.

by r_lee10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I remember asking claude in claude code why the "seams" and it instantly in very fine detail said how it's from a book on working with legacy code

so they might be RLHFing on these specific approaches and then it becomes the entire model

just an anecdote but I found it interesting how it went full on that it's from that book vs just "it's technical jargon"

by NoDodgeQuestion10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

AI model does not know special insight into how model itself was trained. All it tells you is it's prediction of expected explanation.

by nl4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I checked this, and Claude says "it's a real term of art from Michael Feathers' Working Effectively with Legacy Code (2004), where he defines it as a place you can alter a program's behavior without editing in that place."

While I agree the model doesn't have insight into how it was trained I do think the history of the term itself is interesting.

by r_lee5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

yeah but I didn't prompt it in a way where I tried to get such an answer, it gave an entire boilerplate rundown just from like me asking "what's up with the 'seams'?"

I might be wrong, but usually it'd be a lot less deliberate, and at least in my mind it wouldn't be surprising if they were heaving training these on these specific "best practices" books/methodologies and thus picking up lingo from them

by nonethewiser8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

The jargon isnt even the worst part. The phrasing is just downright incomprehensible sometimes. And its not even "academic". It's just extremely awkward, bad writing. And it is much worse than say Opus 4.6-8.

Actually I have found the copy that Claude Design spits out is way better than using the same model directly. I have no idea why. It has its flaws but it sounds like it's written by a human who uses derivative language. But usually the models just soudn incoherent.