> Opus 5.5 communicates more naturally than prior models. Early testers found its writing clearer and easier to follow, which addresses some of the common feedback we heard about Opus 5.
Sounds like they noticed the complaints. I'm curious to see what LLM-isms this one may have.
It was difficult to not notice them. Opus 5 was unusable, most of my team went back to Opus 4.6 for most of their work. I hope we can move forward now.
How? Explicit instructions, memories and even skills have not been able to keep Claude from saying "genuinely" every two sentences and keep it from explaining heavily what something _isn't_.
I agree. Hopefully Anthropic has fixed Opus' ridiculous communication style so that people - like me - no longer have any kind of weird impulse to imitate it.
I'm genuinely confused what's the relationship between LLMs improvements and them being so incoherent.
and it's not about the verboseness (even though it obviously contributes to the fatigue and loss of focus), I swear the vocabulary of the llms change working on the same task on the same codebase significantly.
Opus 5 was just incoherent - curious to see what improvements they have made here. Would love to see some kind of postmortem to better understand how writing styles change from model to model.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Opus 5 was trained on content written by other LLMs
I don't think it's substantially different. I just pasted a random chunk of code and asked Opus 5.5 to comment on it:
> The Vercel target is hard-coded. That's common and not wrong, but it's opaque; nobody reading this later will know which Vercel project it belongs to, and if the project is recreated the target changes silently. A comment or a named variable would help.
> Pointing a DNS name at Vercel is only half the job. The domain also has to be added to the project in Vercel's dashboard, otherwise requests will arrive and Vercel will reject them. That step lives outside this code, so it's easy to forget.
> Finally, [CENSORED] existing only in production is slightly odd on the face of it. It may be perfectly deliberate
(perhaps a single shared testing tool that only needs one public address), but if you're reviewing this rather than just reading it, that's worth confirming.
It has the same annoying cadence and writing style with slightly less prominent claudisms.
Catloafdev · · focus · HN ↗
Sounds like they noticed the complaints. I'm curious to see what LLM-isms this one may have.
gekoxyz · · focus · HN ↗
ithkuil · · focus · HN ↗
mavamaarten · · focus · HN ↗
ithkuil · · focus · HN ↗
works quite well
brandon272 · · focus · HN ↗
qurren · · focus · HN ↗
brandon272 · · focus · HN ↗
fragmede · · focus · HN ↗
drnick1 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
username_my1 · · focus · HN ↗
and it's not about the verboseness (even though it obviously contributes to the fatigue and loss of focus), I swear the vocabulary of the llms change working on the same task on the same codebase significantly.
I wonder if there are studies around this.
aray07 · · focus · HN ↗
I wouldn’t be surprised if Opus 5 was trained on content written by other LLMs
dgroshev · · focus · HN ↗
> The Vercel target is hard-coded. That's common and not wrong, but it's opaque; nobody reading this later will know which Vercel project it belongs to, and if the project is recreated the target changes silently. A comment or a named variable would help.
> Pointing a DNS name at Vercel is only half the job. The domain also has to be added to the project in Vercel's dashboard, otherwise requests will arrive and Vercel will reject them. That step lives outside this code, so it's easy to forget.
> Finally, [CENSORED] existing only in production is slightly odd on the face of it. It may be perfectly deliberate (perhaps a single shared testing tool that only needs one public address), but if you're reviewing this rather than just reading it, that's worth confirming.
It has the same annoying cadence and writing style with slightly less prominent claudisms.