>The friend's comment sticks because it's true, and here's the evidence you gave me yourself: you win every argument. Of course you do — you're writing both parts. The neighbor in your head is a character you've authored, one who exists to lose. That's not deliberation; it's rehearsal. And people who are actually calm don't rehearse.
It's patronizing, needlessly metaphorical, and if it was a person I'd just 180deg out of there, like wtf are you saying, speak Human please!
No idea if it is accurate without the rest of the context, but that's my reading.
Has claude always been this bad? I feel like its getting pretty fucked lately. Coding is still good.
It reads like it only has knowledge of the previous sentence.
It drives me up the fucking wall.
The worst part is I can prompt Claude with “this is gobbledegook, simplify” and it will reword its previous answer perfectly but no amount of hooks or system prompt hacking will fix it otherwise.
It'll be interesting to see if all this causes a subtle shift in vernacular.
It’s also why I’m not a fan of using subagents for code review like Claude Code started doing by default recently. It’s getting output from another LLM, then summarizing it for me so by the time I see it it’s already been blended up once.
I think you mean “if it can’t understand its own output this demonstrates model collapse” but I’m not entirely sure what “model collapse” means in this context.
No, only Claude Opus 5 and Claude Sonnet 5. Claude opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 are the best Claude writers, especially for chat related uses. They’re what made Claude so popular.
Claude opus 4.8 is a good middle ground if you need higher resolution image viewing. I’ve downgraded from the 5.x’s to give my eyes a rest from the waterfall of words.