Which is kind of the inverse of how people work; a really smart person can condense difficult ideas into simple[r] terms. Whereas people who struggle speak a lot but say very little.

High/X.High do seem to deliver better quality results, but it sometimes feels like needle-in-haystack extracting that from the word vomit.

Like, were the other parts not honest? I don't understand how Anthropic let it get like this, it's been such a clear regression

Can't agree with you more. I review 2-3 PRs a day from my team of eight data engineers. Most of my team members use Claude to write SQL, dbt and Python code. Some of them use Claude a lot, some less so. I can easily tell when I review the code that is mostly Claude generated vs. the one that is not. In dbt models where we have a lot of biz logic in intermediate layers, that's where I really have a difficult time following Claude-generated comments. So much jargon copied over from other adjacent dbt models (yet inconsistently), and the prose is super choppy (for the lack of better word).

After reading a looooong sentence/comment line, I still can't figure out what it really means. Had to always re-read the line 2-3 times (sometimes, more) to sort of understand. Reading code, however, is so much easier and usually, I just skip to reading the code and then come back to the comments. :D

I find it helps immensely but it'd be nice if I didn't have to do that.

I took time to figure this out after Fable spat out "...then stays purely as cascade-debugging provenance rather than load-bearing arbitration."

I will say that Kimi feels nice but slow, GLM feels faster but has limited tokens (even off-peak) and OpenAI is nice and fast but has limited context (258k shows up in Codex, really).

Neither of them are perfect, but I prefer their type of prose across the board to what Opus 5 and Fable 5 kept outputting. I'll probably check out Anthropic again in a year, but for now I need a break from its brand of slop. Oh also all of the other ones allow usage in OpenCode with their subscription plans.

This sentence reads like Claude wrote it. Perhaps it did, or perhaps Claude has learned to write like the folks who work at Anthropic?

(Had I edited this, I would have said that a colon is not the right separator here. The second clause does not _explain_ the first, per se, bur instead expands upon it. Consider instead: "In some cases, however, its prose is denser than Claude Fable 5's, with longer sentences and fewer paragraph breaks.")

Gotta fit in the watermarking.

that feels like they just blocked words like load-bearing but can't actually fix the real problem. The insane word slop density and run on sentences was the real reason it became annoying to work with claude, colored with way too many analogies and pointless linguistic comparisons.

"If you respond with more than 3 paragraphs, give me a TLDR"

"Do not assume I know all technical jargon, please explain things plainly"

But LLMs will fail at this question: they will tell you about Lamborghini's latest car and mix some history in it. Just try.

Which is the wrong answer anyway, because there's at least two major companies called Lamborghini, one making cars, one making agricultural equipment and at least one famous person (Elettra) with that family name.

This very simple test/question makes me realize how much do I hate LLMs in a sense: while I agree that the answer it gives is the most plausible for 90% of the users, it's ultimately both wrong and long. And that 90% compounds.

But there's no "correct" answer in my eyes than "who are you referring to?". Possibly without listing all the possible Lamborghinis.