> The problem isn't that the LLM generated that text, the problem is that a human didn't read it properly and ask what that meant and fix it before pushing.

The amount of garbage AI generates quickly overwhelms the human. The whole reason for computers to exist is to remove burden from humans. And yet here we are.

I ended up vibe-coding a comment linter for my projects that catches the garbage and forces the models to rewrite. Just look at this: https://xcancel.com/dmitriid/status/2097632371650552084#m

I am in this camp but the downvotes are telling -- there isn't consensus in this community at all -- many find such clanker classification valuable. Some of these folks are growing an anti-AI economy that others, like myself, find odd, distracting and even amusing -- particularly with the universal naiveté of the classification algorithms. I have seen downvotes in these comments from similar criticism but I have points to spare.

Quick tip to make AI code better is just delete the comments. Usually they’re CoT that shouldn’t be there.

hahaha 99.9% of the time this is accurate, especially when the comment is accurate and long

> that means it's a bad writer.

The problem is that Anthropic and others use the text generated by LLMs also to power the AI's internal thinking loop. This means that text is used in two different ways: one as input to AI, and the other as input to humans.

They are always trying to make the LLMs more intelligent. Guess what kind of output will suffer?

It's more than disorganized - that disorganization hides a bunch of 1) horseshit assertions from nowhere and 2) contradictory statements both given as evidence for the same conclusions.

My entire day is getting praised and apologized to for "holding me to a higher standard" and "pointing out the obvious contradiction." Meanwhile, I'm stuck and can't move forward (because every suggestion is dumb but asserted with the same confidence as the last) and the tokens are draining dry.

When I hear about people converting huge projects to Rust, I'm starting to think that translation is the only thing that they're good at. If you've already entirely specified the problem they can restate the problem without making more than a couple hundred (and getting fewer every day) mistakes.

It's just making it up, and when the things that it is making up are not obvious, it bullshits, it doesn't retrace. Then it builds on that bullshit.

It's not you that's dumb, it's them that are dumb. The people evaluating its output in post-training are also too often deciding that it's they themselves that are misunderstanding, especially when it buries the topic at hand with a bunch of excess verbiage and strange assumptions that they don't have time to independently verify. The need to believe something based on expediency often results in the rationalization that some 3D chess is being played. More like 3 card monte.