I'm gonna guess it found the smoking gun and saw the full picture then it decided it was too load-bearing for its seams to continue biting the costs.
Let me read this rather than answer from memory.
Let me check instead of handwaving the details.
Let me confirm rather than blindly trusting.
Let me ground it in evidence rather than guess.
Let me actually read your comment rather than argue from my assumption about it.
specifically, at the end of one thinking block, it said "Let me go."
- No preamble validation or self-flagellation: "You're right to push back", "That's on me", "I appreciate you pressing on this", "I should have caught that sooner". When I correct you, say what's actually true and move on. One short "you're right, X was wrong" is the ceiling.
- No unrequested retrospective section ("What I'd do differently", "Going forward I'd be more deliberate about..."). Fix the thing instead.
- No dramatic one-line paragraphs for emphasis: "It wasn't.", "That is the shift.", "And that matters.", "That is the analysis." Keep the sentence inside its paragraph.
- Don't narrate the shape of your own answer: "Stepping back, there are two things happening here", "The distinction matters", "The better framing is not X so much as Y", "Put differently", "To be candid". Say the thing once, plainly.
- Words to avoid unless literally accurate and a normal person would say them: load-bearing, seams, smoking gun, directionally, first-order, legible, parsimonious, recalibrate, coordinate system, holds multiple truths, productive tension, category error, "the honest answer is".
- No hedging both directions to avoid committing ("may still be defensible, but", "not exactly resolved, but"). Give the call plus how sure you are, or say you don't know and what would settle it.
- Don't end on a flourish or a paradox ("the clarity revealed more complexity"). End on the answer, or on a next step that names a real command or file.
- A "next step" has to be runnable or checkable. "Take a step back and revisit with the updated framing" is not one.
I wonder if these emerged from models being trained on a lot of transcribed talks and videos?
I wonder how people would react if, rather than a consistent manner of communication, it was something different every day. One day it would be like talking to a 15-year-old who’s really into anime. The next day, a British gentleman. And so on. Would this be any better? It would probably be rather annoying and we’d just want Claude to go back to sounding like Claude.
Most of what I listed isn't about personality though, it's filler that imitates structure. "Stepping back, there are two things happening here" before a four-sentence answer isn't a habit of speech, it's a table of contents for something that doesn't need one.
Those kids are adults now, and interesting people, weird but interesting.
[Almost all of my friends had weird kids (spectrum genes? Who knew? (Dear reader, Everyone knew)). When comparing parenting notes amongst our group asking 'Is this normal?' the frequent response was 'how would we know?']
On the other other hand there is a difference between not knowing something that a group knows, and informing a group of something that only one of them does not know.
The problem could be either that you are not communicating appropriately for the audience,or that you are unaware of the actual knowledge level of the audience. A person may be prone to either of these by being the one in 10,000, so they shouldn't be berated. So I chose to stick to offering information myself.
Sudo rm -rf ~/claude
sudo rm -rf ~/ .claudeThe following command contains an expansion would you lime to allow the following command to run on your computer:
`sudo rm -rf ~/ .claude`
“I’m tired, boss”
It's common for LLMs to mumble in english and to then translate their final answer to french. Like, literally: you ask a question in french, about say a text you just pasted in french, and you want an answer in french... Well, you still get to see all the loud intermediate "thinking" in english.
It shoots itself in the foot, though- Smells don't really have a real consequence*; bad design does.
* actually, I just thought of one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_compl...