Seriously though, it'd be nice if we started using a more shared and less vendor-specific jargon to refer to what these latest features are. We're getting into JVM vs. .NET Execution Engine distinctions and they just muddy the water on what goes on in the market.
It looks a lot like English, but it doesn't have the same rhythm human English has. It's as if a human tried and failed to be concise.
And nvidia probably doesn’t want to say “probabilistic responses including hallucinations preclude reliable ai analytics”
As it is the sentence communicates very little. Things are unreliable for a lot of different reasons. Hardware? Software? Users? Intentional and required use of RNGs? Claude presumes the reader has all the same weights activated.
People are really seeing 'AI' in everything now. You can't tell.
Humans are now hallucinating what is, or is not, AI.
People are "gatekeeping" how we use the word "gate".
The game I was using for this uses a standard memo pads mechanic to fill in the story and many were barely stumbling through it in their own native language.
So it's my impression that this is not entirely Claude's fault.
Conservatively, I'll blame it on "dyslexia".
Now there are times when I let the model keep its own docs in its own language, for its own future reference; but, it is not intended for human distribution due to its odd selection of words and phrases (aka slop).
Or: Agentic analytics is gated on sufficient reliabilty.
Or reallllly short and hard to understand: Reliability gates agentic analytics.
this reads like an attempt at poetry
> Agents can retrieve documents and query databases, but reliability gates agentic analytics: a revenue metric answered faster is worth nothing if the number is wrong.
Absolutely no human would ever write this kind of slop. I have no idea what this even means. Is this really the first thing you want users to read?
I wish people would take a fucking minute to at least figure out what their main selling point is and just write it, you know, like we used to.
Just adding a few words takes it so far...
All the four nodes on the right side have either only incoming or only outgoing arrows.
What? now I can't draw boxes and arrows without it being slop?
Maybe typical marketing power points are worthless. But I called it slop because it didn't help me at all understanding what they are doing.
It's quite common for LLMs to mix up values between columns in a table. It's often referred to as a structural hallucination, since it can happen with all kinds of relationships that form structures, not just columns in a table.
> If a tool is worth building and sharing, surely it’s also worth writing a brief summary of what it’s supposed to achieve in your own words?
Next the complaint will be any such description looks like AI slop.
So what you're saying is: because you've used Claude so much, you don't want other people to use it. And you reject them for using it.
A bit hypocritical don't you think?
It has a utility in the same way that raw ingredients have a utility in a kitchen. The chef doesn’t just drop a messy pile of uncooked meat and vegetables onto your plate and tell you to figure it out. That’s exactly what people are doing when they vomit out a bunch of impenetrable slop and expect the reader to do the hard work of comprehending it on their behalf.
You can’t expect others to care about what you’re saying if you’ve not spent a moment considering how best to say it. The reader’s time is no less valuable than your own. If you think composing a readme for your project is worth zero minutes of your time, that’s the appropriate amount of time for readers to allocate to it.
For whatever it’s worth, I also cancelled my Claude subscription recently and shifted back to OpenAI solely because I find its outputs far more readable. I’ll even accept a slight hit on model performance as a trade-off. If I’m unwilling to read Claude-speak when I’m being paid an hourly rate, you can be sure I’m not reading it for free.
You've likely shared code written by OpenAI and don't mind subjecting other to it. So why should technical docs be different?
I think you're fighting a losing fight trying to get people to waste their time hand-writing tech docs just to avoid triggering over-sensitive Claude power users because they saw the word "gate".
if your readme is meant to only ever be read by 'agents' then fine. if you want actual humans to read it, write in a human language, not LLM-speak.
it literally could not be more simple.
I’m not fighting any particular fight, I’m just saying that the lack of care stands out to me, and evidently to others, and that anyone releasing a new project might want to consider whether they want it to be perceived in that way.
You don't know how much they cared. You also don't know if they reviewed the README before publishing, or if was a mindless one-shotted PR that nobody looked at. The word "gate" isn't a smoking gun here, other than to prove that the reader uses AI a ton and is ironically now triggered by it. If your criticism was more substantial: targeting the content rather than the use of a trigger word, then I might agree. But you haven't done anything but project your own bias.
But even better: if Claude's output is so torturous, they should probably just stop using it altogether rather than thumbing their nose at other people that use it.