For real, the "Claudish" has become so painful to read that it just takes me out of whatever task I was working on.
When prompted to use simple English without jargon, it's still filled with load bearing honest caveats in every footgun seam it talks about — what I should have led with. <Insert whatever other Claude cliche you prefer>
And I'm not the only one to notice this. Next time it's up for renewal, my team is abandoning it for GH Copilot in order to use literally any other frontier model.
That claim about load bearing is doing a lot of work there!
I'm curious to know how "Claudish" emerged during the training process. Why each AI has a particular voice if much of the training material is the same across AIs?
They train Claude on its own output and conversations with users, so tics like this are going to get amplified by virtue of being more common in the training set.
That, and my conspiracy hat says it's a way of watermarking the output.
Yes, Claude speaks Claudish but at the end of the day I care about the Ruby, Python, JS it writes. It still does a good job at it even if maybe I prefer the way DeepSeek talks. I did not use other models in an agentic harness.
The code is fine, yes. But now that I am dabbling in spec-driven development (unsure whether I like it) I have to read a lot of prose and I simply cannot get myself to read a page of claudisms. It is that painful.
The odd phrases are one thing, what numbs my brain is how everything is evenly bombastic and lacks any sense of rhythm. Technical documents should not read like catchphrases strung together.
Comments
For real, the "Claudish" has become so painful to read that it just takes me out of whatever task I was working on.
When prompted to use simple English without jargon, it's still filled with load bearing honest caveats in every footgun seam it talks about — what I should have led with. <Insert whatever other Claude cliche you prefer>
And I'm not the only one to notice this. Next time it's up for renewal, my team is abandoning it for GH Copilot in order to use literally any other frontier model.
That claim about load bearing is doing a lot of work there!
I'm curious to know how "Claudish" emerged during the training process. Why each AI has a particular voice if much of the training material is the same across AIs?
They train Claude on its own output and conversations with users, so tics like this are going to get amplified by virtue of being more common in the training set.
That, and my conspiracy hat says it's a way of watermarking the output.
NGL i also suspect the particular brand of Anthropic safety filters cut out passionate/fun personality traits
Yes, Claude speaks Claudish but at the end of the day I care about the Ruby, Python, JS it writes. It still does a good job at it even if maybe I prefer the way DeepSeek talks. I did not use other models in an agentic harness.
The code is fine, yes. But now that I am dabbling in spec-driven development (unsure whether I like it) I have to read a lot of prose and I simply cannot get myself to read a page of claudisms. It is that painful.
The odd phrases are one thing, what numbs my brain is how everything is evenly bombastic and lacks any sense of rhythm. Technical documents should not read like catchphrases strung together.
don't just dabble, dive in! domain-expert, buck-stopping, orchestrating architects of intent under constraints are going to be the only survivors ;-)
good thing claudish isnt a programming language
The grip isn't part of the hammer, but it's reasonable to replace it if it's uncomfortable to hold and use.
Say a word.