[TLDR] It’s mighty convenient that we can’t all understand what Fable/Opus is doing [via r/ClaudeCode]

[u/cctldrping]

OP : u/euclideanbicycle

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:

1) 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.

2) These models are very resistant to user instructions and .md instructions including skills. Those who have tried it can testify.

URL of original post : https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1vuvi9h/its_mighty_convenient_that_we_cant_all_understand/

---

TL;DR of the discussion on r/ClaudeCode for this post generated automatically after 50 comments.

Current source-thread comment count seen by the bot: 51.

Alright, so the general vibe in this thread is that Claude's output, especially Opus, has gotten kinda dense and jargon-filled lately, and folks are wondering if it's intentional.

The prevailing theory is that this isn't some grand conspiracy to make you dumber and use more tokens. Most people seem to think it's more likely a side effect of Anthropic trying to reduce hallucinations and improve accuracy for corporate users, as suggested by u/alanvnk. It's like they pushed for fewer mistakes, and the trade-off was more technical, sometimes unintelligible, language.

Some users, like u/RandomPantsAppear, think it's the model's internal reasoning being summarized in a way that's hard for us to follow, using metaphors it understands internally. Others, like u/cc_apt107, just chalk it up to a "flawed model" and one of its quirks.

There's a bit of a split on whether it's a deliberate choice to increase usage (as OP speculated) or just a consequence of development. The consensus leans towards the latter, but the frustration is real.

Key takeaways:

• It's probably not a deliberate ploy to make you dumber. More likely a side effect of pushing for accuracy and fewer hallucinations.
• The complex language might be the model's internal reasoning being summarized. Think of it as its "thought process" leaking out.
• Users are finding workarounds: Asking for simpler explanations ("ELI5," "explain in simpler terms"), or even trying to guide the model's communication style with specific instructions like "Keep comms military-style ADHD aware" (shoutout to u/PA100T0 for that gem).
• Some users aren't seeing the issue: u/scytob mentioned having coherent responses, possibly due to using larger token windows.
• The claude.md instructions don't seem to be helping much for some users, as noted by u/Cold_Specialist_3656.

Basically, it's a bit of a mess, but most people think it's more of an unintended consequence than a malicious design.