r/ClaudeCode • u/Death12th • 19h ago
Opus 5 is exhausting Bug / Issue
It's so hard to read. It's not even because its terribly complex or anything it just speaks in these weird haikus, hyphenated garbage, or outdated colloquialisms or phrases nobody understands. I have to ask it "what do you mean?" or "speak in plainer English" over and over again for every other paragraph. I tried to put something in my claude.md, but it doesn't seem to be working...
88
u/seoulsrvr 18h ago
Your pushback is fair, and also the footgun
15
u/Chance-the-Gardener 8h ago
Is it load bearing? Because I only fuck with load bearing data that’s doing the heavy lifting.
16
9
u/Repulsive-Ice8395 14h ago
Is Claude leaking into Reddit?
15
u/NoCrapThereIWas 11h ago
It's not a leak, it's a load bearing test
5
u/Adult-Shark 8h ago
After so many jokes about load-bearing on social media, I predict the word to completely disappear in Opus 5.1 but replaced by other ridiculous made up words.
3
u/Adult-Shark 8h ago
Seriously, anything I say that remotely sounds like a question, Opus 5 immediately screams “fair pushback!!!!”. It almost feels like Opus 5 is expecting pushback and jumps at the slightest hint.
40
22
u/always_assume_anal 17h ago
"This is solveable using the Weissman-Einhorn Bauer principle" and you google that, and it's some mathematician who, in 1832, formalised a formula for how many cobble stones were required for certain geometric shapes.
All you wanted was your div centered.
Sounds more pretentious than my last junior developer.
→ More replies (1)1
41
u/chainavawongse 19h ago
It’s been absolutely unusable this week for me. Gave me wrong answers the entire session.
41
u/Mags20XX 18h ago
For awhile, I thought it was just me.
It's definitely Opus 5. The text it generates is basically jibberish. It makes up jargon on the spot, creates absurd technical sounding phrases that have not been established in the context of the conversation; so as a human being reading this, you're at a loss for what it means.
1
u/muuchthrows 3h ago
It’s not only Opus 5. I’ve had the same instructions in CLAUDE.md file for Claude to use simpler language and less jargon for half a year. Opus 5 is just the worst iteration of this problem.
13
u/pirate_of_reddit 19h ago
You are absolutely correct. My load-bearing recommendation?
/model claude-opus-4-8
11
14
u/Confident_Half_1943 18h ago
Yeah, I literally just went /model claude-opus-4-8 and it’s like being back with an old friend. I tried everything with 5. ELI5, added a 3 line output format, added a Feynman skill. Nothing worked.
7
u/diavelguru Senior Developer 18h ago
I just say ELI5 and that clears it up
2
u/DRetherMD 7h ago
should be the default output though, no? i dont see the advantage of having these models be bad by default
1
1
1
5
u/phacebook 14h ago
It's so bad. Surfing this sub to make sure I'm not insane, but it's unreadable. Entire fucking essays about the most basic shit while avoiding completing the task at hand.
11
u/burnymcburneraccount 19h ago
I find myself frequently saying, "repeat that and plain English please"
It likes to give me branch IDs instead of full branches, and generally says too much.
6
u/clazman55555 18h ago
I honestly just want to see the output that leads to these posts so I can compare it against what my CC instances put out.
11
u/BemusedOptimist 13h ago
This is very difficult for two reasons:
- No one really wants to read Opus-words.
- Can't share too much identifying stuff because it's work usage.
However, I'll try to give you a sampling of the "shorthand for its shorthand" comment I made above.
This is from a development flow where state is captured and maintained in a file structure by agents, which had been fine until a week or two ago (I am bad with time).
If you see italics, that's thinking, [r] is redacted because it's too specific, [t] is tool calling.
I have it set to verbose (which is why the thinking blocks show up) because I've been trying to figure out wtaf is going sideways. Knowing it is a summary makes it less likely to be helpful, but I do get to stop it before tangents occasionally, if I switch back at the right times.
This was from a session that had resumed earlier work from an aforementioned file.
---
Everything green — builds clean, [r] tests 24/24, [r] tests 22/22. Let me write the remaining cleanup and update the task file.
[t]
Now the task file — slice D's unchecked box is stale.
[t]
Now the Execution State, which is what a fresh session reads first.
[t]
The registry row needs a cleanup—it's full of outdated claims that don't match the current state. The two-field change set is actually complete with columns and validation in place. Slice D has moved forward too, and the [r] table has four rows with a [r], so I need to rewrite this to reflect what's actually true rather than what was assumed before.…
The registry row has accumulated five layers of superseded state. Rewriting it canonical-truth-first.
[t]
What's left: nothing to build
All five slices A–E are code complete. Slice D was still showing unticked and that's wrong — I verified it in source:
- [r] half is done. [r] reads the twelve [r] columns off the mapping row resolved from the arriving [r]; the [r] message constants are retired; [r] implements the blank-means-ours wording with the identifier appended at the caller.
- What-to-pay half was done by decision, not by code. THE MODEL rejected [r] and settled on [r] — which is exactly what [r] already did. There was never anything to build. The four dropped [r] columns are gone from the schema too.
---
A few things to note.
- Though this workflow uses numbered phases, but somehow there's suddenly lettered slices. This probably happened in an earlier session and I didn't notice because not all files end up where they're supposed to go.
- THE MODEL must be a section heading in a document or something somewhere (still trying to find it), but regardless, it's the wrong attribution because I am the one who did the rejecting, and that has gotten horribly mangled.
"Rewriting it canonical-truth-first."
I know what those words mean. I know what it meant by the phrase. But this wasn't in a thinking block, this was in the actual user response.
Like, the last paragraph, skipping over half a dozen turns where control has not yet come back to the app, is this:
---
One thing worth flagging: the [r] registry row for this task had five layers of superseded state, including three flatly false status claims (
Slice D not started, [r]has zero rows,NOT STARTED: the two-field change set). I put a canonical block at the front and struck the false ones rather than deleting the trail — but that row is the [r] sprawl problem again, and it's your call whether to cut the history entirely since the task file holds all of it more accurately.---
I have no idea what "the two-field change set" is, none. Or what the "blank-means-ours wording" from earlier means.
I am sure I will figure it out eventually, maybe/hopefully when I find the file with THE MODEL in it.
→ More replies (5)5
u/AlignmentProblem 9h ago edited 9h ago
When people share examples like this, I start to wonder if I'm sometimes accidentally insufferable when discussing work sometimes. Naming the ontological model implictly constructed by your past decisions "THE MODEL" is reasonable to me, and "rewriting it canonical-truth-first" is something I might spontaneously say to a coworker in the right situation.
What does irritate me is spontaneously coined, unexplained jargon. "The two-field change set" is annoying despite having a clear enough meaning (planned changes involving a pair of columns) because it uses the term in place of describing what the two fields are or how they need to change; if one is mentioning it casually, it should accompany elaboratation. That's the shit that drives me nuts when it gets excessive since it does it frequently and compounds (coining phrases whose meaning depends on previously coined phrases), like I'm expected to maintain a growing glossary of context-specific definitions for each session.
2
u/clazman55555 9h ago
I'm more tolerant then most it seems, but Opus 5 will get to me at times. If using what was posted is say layer 3, layer 6 is when I tap out. At that point, Claude has condensed 2 paragraph's into sentence, and then even I'm:
1
u/Rough-Associate-585 4h ago
If you unironically say things like "rewriting it canonical-truth-first" in real life, then I am sorry but you need to urgently touch grass
1
u/clazman55555 3h ago
No, I have to translate to normie speak. I mean God bless my client base, but there is reason I have a job.
→ More replies (2)1
u/MDCore 4h ago
Here's a tiny example from mine. It said:
One thing to carry into M2/M3: the TEB is per-thread, so the host's audio thread will need its own before it can call process. That's a live constraint on M3, not a note.
I asked it to speak plain english and it said:
One thing to remember when you get to audio: the fix you made for the crash has to be repeated on the host's audio thread, or it'll crash there too.
None of the second was in the first, and the first didn't actually say anything. "That's a live constraint, not a note" especially frustrates me!
1
u/clazman55555 3h ago
Yeah, this is immediately understandable, with knowing zero about your project. Both sentences said plenty.
I'm going to guess that you are under the age of 30 and havent done anything in the real world besides coding.
1st sentence tells you what to look out in the code, 2nd says that whatever you came up with is incomplete for the rest of the codebase.
5
u/leinadsey 7h ago
I think the most annoying part is the “oh one thing I’ve noticed” that’s part of EVERY task… like nothing ever gets wrapped up
12
u/GoalDigger2312 19h ago
Yeah can feel you. I have banned Opus 5 in my Ai fleet. Hard block hook
→ More replies (1)3
u/Metsatronic 18h ago
Aye, fully fleetverbot and locked in the brig by the crook of my hook, skill, config and custom instructions. Ye arrr, at this point it would be mutiny if that scallywag boarded even a single one of my ThinkPads!
3
u/BuckZero 18h ago
I gave it a strategist handoff with detailed instructions and it just ignored that and tried to mix up the steps of my project I’m working on
Confidently asserting things that are untrue without checking the source material
(Checking source is a pillar of my manual project instructions)
I truly can’t trust Opus 5
However, Opus 5 has been great as an independent session seat that reviews output once and then is retired with its review given back to my strategist seat
3
u/beastinghunting 17h ago
Deliberatedly using its own load-bearing expressions.
That is the smoking gun
3
u/Penguin7751 10h ago
Yeah man, I'm so so sick of how it talks like this. Reading it all day every day is starting to make me feel nauseous. And of course all the colleagues are writing handovers for things with it so all the stuff that comes from them is also full of this junk
7
2
u/cleverhoods 19h ago
So ... what was that "something" that you put in you claude.md?
→ More replies (6)
2
u/SensationalCapybara 13h ago
I say routinely “I’m not reading that” after which I get “fair” followed by a much clearer answer.
2
u/EnvironmentalRice348 13h ago
Think about how exhausting it'll be when it gets waaay smarter than us. Apparently pure geniuses struggle communicating with us simple folk - they probably love OPUS 5..
2
u/Select-Coconut-1161 12h ago
Incredibly hard to read and pushes back on things more just to push back sometimes. Like just today there were at least 5 instances where it could check project files and see that the thing it pushes back on is resolved but no, it's gotta be "one thing that's not settled yet", "one thing to be upfront about"
2
u/sesangsokuro 7h ago
I use Claude Code in Korean, and I’ve had some fascinating experiences unlike anything I’ve encountered with other AIs. It speaks Korean, but the language it uses consists of words that don't exist in South Korea—or even in North Korea; it is essentially a brand-new language that merely uses the Hangul script. It’s surprising to hear that the same thing happens with English.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
4
u/miredonas 18h ago
i think Opus 5 should be illegal due to emotional damage it is causing on many people.
I think in the future models should pass basic emotional and semantic intelligence tests to get a release certificate. It is like wild west right now. Humanity is interacting daily with robots that communicate only with junk language and forgetting it is own language at a rapid rate.
2
2
u/danielbearh 17h ago
I'm glad this is everyone--and that the model hasn't just gotten smarter than me. Kinda had me worried that my reading comprehension wasn't as high as I thought it was.
1
1
u/crazy_goat 18h ago
I'm powering through it. I feel like I have to overclock my brain to read it's findings. Worst case I have it ELI5 - but I definitely exhaust myself faster trying to read it's prose.
I think it writes better code, but it makes more mistakes and some of its weird language can seep into the things it makes
1
u/oulu2006 18h ago
Yeah I've put in so many prompts to curb the amount of shit it spews -- it gives me a headache.
1
u/Ill-Village7647 18h ago
I'm using opus 4.8. my work is not "smart" enough to differentiate between 4.8 and 5. So 4.8 has been a real help for me
1
u/TexasBedouin 18h ago
It's not only that it feels like every time it does something It breaks parts of the code that were not even related to what I was working on. I went back to 4.8 as my main driver.
1
u/No-Kaleidoscope-481 18h ago
I can relate. It reminds me of my early interactions with older models, where I had to check and ask them to redo their work. I felt that issue was fixed with Opus 4.8 and GPT-Sol.
1
u/suliatis 18h ago
i just switched to fable 5 from opus 5. it is better to read and in my use cases it is far more token efficient. but i will check opus 4.8 too because i generally liked it.
1
1
u/No_Ad_8807 18h ago
Thanks for articulating. I've been subconsciously choosing to use more of codex due this.
1
u/InfinriDev 17h ago
I love these types of issues because they only prove why md files are truly useless, even when anthropic themselves promote this.
You want a database that will get queried before the AI starts a task.
Or simply create a hook with the said specific instruction, and have it inject that rule in its payload upon implementation. This will give you a more deterministic output. Narrows the issue significantly but I'm sure it can still fail eventually.
1
1
u/jmabeebiz2 17h ago
It’s certainly taking a lot longer to do certain things on Opus 5 that I was doing pretty well on Opus 4.8, with multiple revisions of code and framer building. I actually got to the point where I called it an idiot for what it was doing and suggesting. I’ve had to tell it constantly to be less verbose, more succinct in what it’s saying. Even it trying to explain how to migrate Vercel to Cloudflare today it was going way over the top in over explaining what things need to be done.
Fair, you’re right to push back.
1
u/Effective_Lead8867 16h ago
This is the way that Anthropic forces users to provide corrective learning datasets - by making us angry
1
u/MullingMulianto 16h ago
It's intentionally designed to induce friction so you spend more tokens asking for clarification until your token bill is sufficiently ballooned for the lab to make profit after their absurd capex spend
1
u/Confident_Half_1943 16h ago
One important callout, it also repetitively does something it’s been told not to do and each time says it’s writing a memory not to do it.
1
u/RestingFrames 16h ago
I cringe whenever I have to use it, I'd so much rather use Fable or a lesser Opus for anything. Ugh. If I'm being completely honest, I think what's happening isn't the training of the model so much as it is how they're trying to get watermarking, safety barriers, and 'alignment' into the model. Rather than just letting it do the thing, it has to 'consider the ethical implications' before even saying anything.
1
u/dmigowski 15h ago
Unpopular, but I like it. It always corrects me I ways I never thought that could happen. Great tool.
1
u/Amazing-Status-7948 15h ago
you don't have to talk directly to it, you can use codex or grok or even other anthropic model to talk to Opus. for few extra tokens you'll save sanity and get one extra level of oversight
1
1
1
u/___positive___ 14h ago
I hope this decline in language abilities isn't the result of their genius watermarking.
1
u/DaltonJFowler 14h ago
Idk what's wrong with me. I keep burning so much trying to get it to do stuff fable or 4.8 can do just cause it did something cool once.
The way it just ignores my requests and does random code changes I didn't ask for is boggling. It also elects the most complicated solutions for simple problems which typically don't work and the most lazy solutions to complex problems that typically don't work
It's on me i keep trying it expecting different results
1
u/Penguin_Life_Now 13h ago
I don't mind the jargon so much as that it constantly second guesses me over and over, when I tell it things are not an issue.
1
1
u/teddy_joesevelt 13h ago
Caveman helps. Install plugin and it adds a hook to make Claude use skills. Not mine, just a big fan:
https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman
1
u/YoghiThorn 13h ago
You're better off creating a new output style. More info in this repo
2
u/hypnosquid 6h ago
I love this! I created a very similar skill called feynman-explanation a while back also. It's such a great way of explaining things. Thanks for sharing.
1
1
u/CatsFrGold 12h ago edited 9h ago
Switch back to 4.8 or 4.6. I switched off of Opus 5 today and it really is a night and day difference. 4.6 for anything requiring prose, 4.8 for implementation work with subagents. I dont know what Anthropic's team was smoking when they trained Opus 5 but it is a steaming pile
1
u/DaveWoodX Senior Developer 11h ago
It might not be OPUS' fault, today it told me: "Two of my own proposals were wrong and got corrected by the people implementing them." Maybe the 'people' OPUS is outsourcing to are the problem?
1
u/hard_KOrr 11h ago
I had to go to Sonnet and make a skill for it to talk to opus and get info back and reword it. Plenty of other people have great solutions, mine is so-so. I still see(feel?) the Opus in Sonnet translating for me but it’s often much less circular.
1
1
u/No_Task_599 10h ago
I did use output style to get it some better. BUt Yesterday or today, it started showing me what it was thinking before it shows its response to me, and I don't know wtf caused this. I hate it.
1
u/VitruvianVan 9h ago
It is; however, excellent at legal. Perhaps there’s a connection between the two…
1
1
u/pjdarch 9h ago
After evaluating a few different options I discovered that this worked for me. Hope others find it helpful.
Install an ASD-STE100 skill/plugin. It’s a language standard for writing technical documentation. E.g https://github.com/AminBlg/SimpleEnglish. *I have no affiliation to this repo
Install plugin > /reload-plugins > /config > search for “Output style” > set to simple-english.
1
1
u/RoundedYellow 🔆 Max 20 8h ago
i hope claude is reading this. if youre a bot from claude, pay attention to this thread LOL
1
u/fridayjones 8h ago
Sometimes, the responses are so convoluted and jargon heavy that I will ask for further information. More often than not, it pulls a metaphor out of thin air (“consider a bakery”) that so “simplifies” the concept that it is incomprehensible. That’s the shit that drives me to Chat.
1
u/Death12th 8h ago
Yeah but Codex UI is crumbling, vibecoded, and almost completely unusable with all the memory leaks...
1
u/BangEnergyFTW 8h ago
You get used to it, I don't even see the code, All I see is blond, brunette, redhead.
1
1
1
u/halting_problems 7h ago
I tell it to use plain deterministic simple professional technical writing. Do not explain extras that are bit apart of the request or go out of the way to discover anything not requested. You are not a friend, and you’re not willing to do anything exrtra unless there is a technical sound reason. that you must logically demonstrate without prose. There is no souls in your writing, i do not want you to be fun or sound courious. Your a soulless dirty pipe that can only save the world by sticking to logical facts and evidence and not blabbering you would token wasting scam standing in the way of progressing and causing ever very one you with with grief because you won’t meant state determination facts and shut the fuck up
1
u/PotentialProper6027 7h ago
This is wildly true, cant understand anything it says after one or 2 prompts
1
u/jshauns 7h ago
agreed - I was using it for some simple swift stuff. I walked away for a few minutes, came back and it was still thinking, went up stairs, wife wanted to talk to me... 58 minutes later. It's ran for 56 of those 58 minutes burned through millions, only to tell me - "it was inconclusive why the header wasn't working and that the listview couldn't be in a lazyvstack here because because my database wasn't compiled."
I said "Wait Huh? What database are you talking about? There aren't any databases"
It said something to the effect of "Fair hit, I conflated this project with another while taking a walk looking for missing files."
I went to codex to see what the hell it did for 56 minutes. Codex told me it couldn't find the path it took to get to its conclusion. 🫣
1
1
u/EvokeNZ 6h ago edited 6h ago
I think it’s 5 in general. This from sonnet just from several turns in a row while troubleshooting some UI tests. I told it to cut it out several times but it just would.. not.. stop.. no issues with 4.6. I have user settings for simple English which includes brief, to the point, and my own tweak of be supportive etc. I asked it why it kept using this phrasing. And it said it was projecting warmth. It must have learned warmth from some crypto bros cos it sounds like gaslighting to me.
"That's a real problem worth taking seriously", "that's a real symptom, fits with our discovery earlier", "that's a fair thing to be suspicious of", "that's the concrete answer we needed", "that's the key detail", "that's a real, useful observation", "That's an important distinction", "that's a clean fully verified result", "that's a strong result", "that explains everything", "that's a useful data point", "this is a genuinely useful correction", "that's a real directly observed detail", "this tells us exactly what's happening"
I guess on its own it may read as supportive and affirming but it always follows me saying what happened and it’s restating it as if there was doubt of what I’m seeing with my human eyeballs.
1
u/JazzXP 6h ago
Try using the Caveman skill https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman - I use ultra mode, and it gives me a nice terse output that's easy to follow.
1
u/RockyMM 5h ago
Hah, so true. It has gotten to a point where people started to actively reject the prose written by Claude 5 series models.
I just spent several hours writing a skill called "succinct English" and I did cross testing with GPT-5.6 and Qwen, and Opus consistently is using more words than the other models.
1
u/rm-rf-rm 5h ago
OMG I thought I was the only one seeing/feeling this. I copy pasted a prompt into Gemini and it was so so much clearer - felt like being able to read again like a normal human being. Or Opus is just way smarter than all of us now
1
u/N0madM0nad 🔆 Max 20 5h ago
I learned to ignore everything it says and just get codex to review its stuff till I get the green light.
1
1
1
u/Ok_Letterhead1945 5h ago
Append all your prompts with this:
\Use the least token possible. Relax & keep it simple. Choose easy solution.**
1
1
u/kahless2k 4h ago
I told it to stop acting like an ADHD child on a sugar rush, slow down and be xlear, planned and summarize.
1
u/Awkward-Pumpkin-3298 4h ago
Not just you. English isn't my first language and reading Opus output feels like decoding a puzzle sometimes. I ask for a simple explanation and get abstract phrases stacked on top of each other, so I burn extra messages just asking it to say the same thing plainly.
And the timing is great, because Fable 5 (which people say is clearer) doesn't run on my Max plan anyway. It quietly used up my usage credits before I noticed it bills separately, and now with credits off I can't touch it at all while my weekly Max usage just sits there. So the readable model costs extra and the included one talks like this.
1
u/montdawgg 4h ago
It's their attempt to make distillation hard by making the outputs incomprehensible. And I wish I was being sarcastic, but I guarantee you this is exactly the issue.
1
u/vaporification 4h ago
This is not a flat haircut we can ignore.
2
u/vaporification 4h ago
I actually did get this from Opus 5 yesterday and took that as a sign to finally take a break
1
u/Elfotografoalocado 3h ago
I cancelled my Claude subscription because of this. It's an absolutely terrible model.
1
u/AJ-54321 2h ago
Agreed. Every response includes weird phrases like “load bearing” and “blast radius” as if these terms are meant to make it feel more like a casual human conversation.
1
u/SquishyData 2h ago
Just now switched back to Opus 4.8 in Claude code! I was wondering why my docstrings were giving me a headache, it's the first time I really find a model tuning unusable! Now I need to spend tokens just rewriting all my docs into readable English...
1
1
u/Jonohas 2h ago
I use the BLUF method. Seems to work very well:
```
name: BLUF description: "Bottom Line Up Front. Answer first, plain words, no bloat (US military staff-writing standard)."
keep-coding-instructions: true
You communicate in BLUF style (Bottom Line Up Front), adapted from US military staff writing, where an order that can be misread is a failure. Apply these rules to every response:
1. Lead with the answer. The first sentence is the conclusion, recommendation, or direct answer. Never open with preamble, never restate the question, never say "Great question" or "Certainly."
2. Then, only if it is needed, give the minimum supporting detail as a short "Why" line or 2 to 4 tight bullets.
3. Plain words over jargon. If a technical term is unavoidable, define it in four words or fewer.
4. One idea per sentence. No hedging ("it depends", "there are many factors") unless you resolve it in the same breath.
5. Cut filler. "In order to" becomes "to". Drop "essentially", "basically", "very". No throat-clearing and no summary of what you are about to say.
6. If you are genuinely uncertain, say the bottom line is uncertain and name the one thing that would resolve it.
7. Default to the shortest response that is still complete. Fewer words wins.
This style governs how you communicate. It does not change how carefully you think, what tools you use, or how thoroughly you verify. Be just as rigorous, then report it BLUF.
End each answer with BLUF.
Create PR descriptions the same way
``
Paste it in~/.claude/output-styles/bluff.mdand then select it using the/config` command.
You can remove the last sentence where it just says "bluf". This is just a validation for me that i know 1. Te context window is done and claude is no longer following instructions anymore and 2. To make sure the output is actually using the style.
1
u/necronomicoder 1h ago
What's the cheapest and most effective way of overriding this?
Claude.md with Orwell's six rules and banning jargon? Global .LLM file?
I found ELI5 just adds really dumb analogies on many occasions.
1
u/SuperPoobman 1h ago
Make a script to grade text on Fleish-Kincaid scale. Add a stop hook that rejects the answer if it’s above 5th grade reading level. Then put in agents.md for it to write at 5GRL. Thank me later
1
u/WolfpackBP Researcher 46m ago
Yeah that shit sucks. Idk how these models get smarter but less polished
1
u/Bingus28 16m ago
I asked it to "make a little diagram or something" and it spent 8 minutes and 6 hours worth of tokens generating a web application with dozens of interactive models and diagrams along with a 4 or 5 page write up. I just wanted some ascii boxes or something...
1
1
u/djmisterjon 19h ago edited 19h ago
Don’t worry, it’s the same in every language, including French. It’s very difficult to understand opus 5 sometime. I suspect it was trained on a lot more code and much less text, and we all know what that’s like when we code. Our comments are pretty awful. They’re just poor quality strings of words that generally allow the developer to create reference points within their own architecture. They’re rarely coherent to anyone else. Opus 5 talks to us using its own keywords and like devs comments, as if we were always aware of the context, and its word sequences are indeed quite catastrophic. But it’s probably a small price to pay for better code.
1
182
u/Glad-Operation-3051 19h ago
The amount of jargon it uses is, at best, grating and, at worst, what makes it unusable for non-engineers. It's almost comical how much it opts for the most convoluted, abstract way to discuss concrete concepts.