Why is Anthropic's public writing style so unlike Claude's?

zzdw about 8 hours ago 23 commentsRead Article on cmart.blog

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

60% Positive

Analyzed from 669 words in the discussion.

Discussion (23 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

toasty228•about 1 hour ago

Same reason the tech execs kids aren't using the tools created by their parents

salvozappa•about 1 hour ago

Anthropic's public writing style is very different from Claude's because it's written by humans. Even in their job ads they ask candidates to not use AI for any writing (or at least they used to).

BoredomIsFun•18 minutes ago

There are many different ways to make an LLM sound more human-like (the author has actually explicitly mentioned ChatGPT sounds more natural). For their public announcements etc. they might as well used specially trained small 24-32B creative writing model or put a LoRA on top of their Haiku. One could also use "antislop" samplers, maybe some encoder-decoder unslopping postprocessing small models etc. Or they simply may have been written by humans.

swiftcoder•15 minutes ago

> or put a LoRA on top of their Haiku

Are there any creative-writing LORAs published for open-weight models?

BoredomIsFun•8 minutes ago

> Are there any creative-writing LORAs published for open-weight models?

Oddly enough standalone LoRA adapters are very popular in image generation world and utterly unpopular in LLM world - there it is customary just to distribute fully merged models on HF.

Having said that I personally use a finetune of Qwen 3.6, Qwen3.6-27B-Fable-Fusion-711-Uncensored-Heretic, which was was not designed for creative writing per se but is far better than any other 24B-32B model I've tried for writing, let alone awful vanilla Qwen 3.6.

simonw•about 2 hours ago

Anthropic's guide for job applicants on how you should use Claude when applying for a job there is relevant here: https://www.anthropic.com/candidate-ai-guidance

names_are_hard•about 1 hour ago

I find the language of "collaborating with Claude" off-putting. I don't collaborate with Claude, I use Claude. It's a tool in my hands, not a colleague or a friend.

michaelt•about 1 hour ago

AI companies seem eager to perpetuate the fantasy that all users carefully review all LLM output, and supervise all tool calls.

Anthropic certainly isn't planning to take responsibility for Claude's mistakes - that's the user's responsibility. Describing everything as 'collaborating' is I think part of their efforts to emphasise the user's role in the process.

einszwei•23 minutes ago

I think the opposite. AI Companies use the term collaborate to increase the trust in the LLM output.

I trust the output of colleagues I am collaborating with and have an assumption of some shared responsibility. But if I use a tool like numpy/matplotlib then I am accountable for the conclusions I come up with. I can't make an excuse that "matplotlib" created a plot so my decisions were incorrect and not due to my own negligence.

cyanydeez•18 minutes ago

If that were true, they'd cut their token gen speed and reduce all prices to th level their users could actually read what it produces.

JSR_FDED•about 1 hour ago

I’ve read the link, but I don’t get how it’s relevant to the OP’s point that Anthropic public communications don’t sound like Claude. Can you enlighten me?

simonw•15 minutes ago

Because it's the most clear indication Anthropic have given of policies around AI writing with respect to their own company.

Things like:

> Not allowed: Prompt: "Write my answers to the application questions for an AI safety researcher position at Anthropic." Result: Generic content with experiences you haven't actually had

I haven't seen other policy documents from them that are as relevant to the question anywhere else.

gjvc•about 1 hour ago

why do you care?

JSR_FDED•44 minutes ago

Because Simon usually posts interesting comments.

Do I need a different reason?

miranaproarrow•about 2 hours ago

Ive given up trying to fight claudes language, and Im afraid Im getting used to it and can even understand what claude is saying faster or should I say I can parse it faster now.

miranaproarrow•about 2 hours ago

gate= some sort of a guard or test

name= a variable name or fields

load bearing= coupled dependencies that can break other things if you change it

alex43578•13 minutes ago

While these are clunky, was this phraseology that much of a problem for people? I don't like reading it, but I didn't find that I couldn't read it.

JSR_FDED•about 1 hour ago

Other than the specific phrases like load-bearing etc, I find the biggest tell of all just to be repetition.

Every damn Claude article does the “tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em, tell ‘em, tell ‘em what you told ‘em” routine.

BoredomIsFun•16 minutes ago

Stiff, repetive style is often a result of very small, less than 0.5 sampling temperature, very small top-k, very high min-p etc. Most of "normies" (wrt to /r/localllama and /r/sillytavern) never tweak the samplers.

perching_aix•about 1 hour ago

I do really enjoy the style of their blogposts, they remind me of the Cloudflare postmortems. Wish their models could produce it.

Not sure I agree about e.g. GPT not sounding this formulaic though, imo it definitely does.

I don't actually have a problem with the common terms Claude emits, I think they're appropriate for a coding agent. But I do find them overused.

miranaproarrow•about 2 hours ago

whats troubling here is that one of the anthropic devs on twitter or github don't seem to acknowledge this issue, If they don't acknowledge there's nothing for them to fix

wiradikusuma•about 2 hours ago

On the bright side, I'll know immediately a post is Claude-generated. If the author didn't bother writing it, I don't bother reading it.

/s?

reddozen•about 2 hours ago

This is where the concern-trolls barge in with "what about non native English speakers using AI to blogslop everything is actually a good tool!"