I doubt this was the initial intention for Anthropic to overtune their models to speak like this and make all of our collective heads burst while reading its output, but the result is convenient. I feel like while we are atrophying on our coding skills, having Claude code speak in hieroglyphics forces user’s eyes to glaze over and to rely on the model more. If it’s hard to interpret the feedback after a coding session, it’s easier to just accept what’s going on and let the agent do its thing. From asking WTF it’s saying to just letting it commit code, it allows Claude code to be used as a crutch, while consuming tokens. I’m sure Anthropic performed A/B tests and found that the more technical and pedantic the language, the more tokens consumed and the more retention in usage. How it talks could be a leading KPI in sustained interaction. Users learn nothing from the output while letting whatever skills they have decay. Speculation of course. Some of you may say “skill issue” and while that may be true, the language Claude uses definitely locks beginner to intermediate programmers in their respective experience levels. Edit:
- Some of you are saying ELI5 or have it explain but that supports my argument that increases “usage” and user interaction. It consumes more tokens and helps their metrics. Is it intended? Maybe not but it does help the analytics team argue one way of speaking increases usage.
- These models are very resistant to user instructions and .md instructions including skills. Those who have tried it can testify. submitted by /u/euclideanbicycle
Originally posted by u/euclideanbicycle on r/ClaudeCode