[mewpmewp2]

The issue is that you can't trust that every word of the message was intentional due to how much Claude will usually add various levels of nonsense, some more obvious some less to your voice or requests. Considering how much Claude alters the meaning of what I want to communicate I wouldn't trust the accuracy of that output right.

And I use Claude a lot, 24/7, but not for things like that. And I appreciate how much it elevates my productivity, but not like this. It usually prioritizes or highlights the wrong things, it overfixates on one thing I said and adds random content there out of nowhere.

So then I can't tell what part of it is slop, how slop, and it becomes impossible to trust.

[J_Shelby_J]

LLMs literally are incapable of writing in the way humans are. Generating a string of tokens is a completely different task than composing prose be it fiction, documentation, or product releases. It would take an insane harness on the par of a complexity of a coding harness to write at the level of college graduate.

So when I see someone saying LLMs are suitable for this use I must assume that they don’t think what they are writing is worth the effort or they don’t understand how effective written communication works. Either way, I’m resentful of it in the way someone reviewing a slop PR is.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot this week after having fable try to write some design docs and it outputting 1k line docs which I had to manually rewrite to 200-300 lines. I should of just did it myself to start.

[satvikpendem]

Literally incapable? This is literally false, as you can easily fine tune models to write exactly like you if you so choose.

[yawaramin]

Then don't trust it. Don't read it. Don't use it. But I don't get this obsession with trying to police and control everyone's use of AI. Hint: you can't control everyone. They're going to do what they want whether you like it or not. The only thing you can do is move on.