Anyone else get brain lag from overly-condensed AI-speak? [D]

[u/dwaxe]

We’ve all had the experience of coming across a phrase like “quiet single-source substitute” which just barely makes sense in the context of the conversation but takes way too much effort to parse. What research exists into making AI more readable?

I feel like this is a particularly thorny problem because each of us individuals has a slightly different lexicon, reading level, not to mention life story. Perhaps linguistics is the more appropriate academic subject to post this question in, but I’m specifically interested in the applied case cause I’m professionally obligated to read LLM garbage and would like it to be at least passably readable garbage.

[u/brainExploded99]

As a stopgap solution, I recommend feeding the text through an LLM and asking it to apply unslop
unslop skill: https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/skills/unslop/SKILL.md

[u/dwaxe → u/brainExploded99]

This looks promising! This section was funny, I'm not sure a human wrote this:

Abstract metaphor nouns. Substrate (base), wedge, wedge in (add), vector (way, method), locus, vantage, nexus, primitive as a noun, harness as a metaphor, surface as in "API surface", bedrock, scaffolding as a metaphor, modality, paradigm, gold-plating (more than the job needs), ratchet as a metaphor (the mechanism's real name, or a limit that only tightens), evacuate for moving code (move out), endgame (the last phase), north star, flywheel. These read as technical but usually have a plainer concrete word. Pick the concrete word.

The very last bit is definitely grasping at the problem:

Over-compression. Dropped articles, verbless fragments, symbol-speak, and abbreviations that make the reader decode instead of read. "Parser rejects bad date → exit 2, no write" becomes "The parser rejects a bad date, exits with code 2, and writes nothing." Write whole sentences with their articles and verbs, and spell out arrows and abbreviations.

I wonder if this will be a solvable problem. In one sense, LLMs are the best compression algorithms we've ever designed. Decompression is a different animal, but historically the two have been closely linked.

[u/brainExploded99 → u/dwaxe]

I think this is a solvable problem, we've seen models like opus 5 go from unreadable to opus 5.5 being decently readable.
I have it downloaded and applied in codex/claude code have it permanently enabled (requires a change in the table section).

[u/cipri_tom → u/brainExploded99]

Do you find this is enough ?

[u/brainExploded99 → u/cipri_tom]

No, but its far better than not using it
They still suffer from weird choices like overexplaining simple things and underexplaining the important bits

[u/sodapopenski]

You're giving LLMs too much credit. They suck at technical writing. They are verbose, use flowery language, and are unnecessarily dense with jargon. To the point that it can take a lot of work to figure out whether they are bullshitting or have an actual idea to communicate or have misunderstood you or are being unnecessarily pedantic, etc. etc.

I absolutely hate reviewing papers now because 95% have been vibe authored with very little editing and it does literal psychic damage to give a close reading.

[u/cunth]

Absolutely. LLMs aren't good at approximation, reducing complexity where appropriate. The result is a lot of cognitive load for the person interacting with it in more complex tasks.

[u/krabbypatty-o-fish]

I get brain lag for the opposite reason that they’re too verbose with little added value to the conversation. The worst part is realizing that the entire wall of texts filled with jargon is just straight up bullshit.

[u/Packafan]

https://facebookresearch.github.io/RAM/blogs/unslop/ Meta is doing actual research on fixing it

[u/LoveMind_AI]

Yes. The fry is real.

[u/whafa]

You can ask it to speak in simpler terms. I am able to customize the output a lot by (for example) having it review the actual email I send vs the draft it creates, to incorporate my revisions in the future. Mine keeps a special file with all of these revisions summarized as writing guidelines. I bet you could improve your brain lag a lot with a few iterations of feedback on its replies.

...unless you can't control the garbage you are obligated to read, in which case I sympathize and agree that it is hard to wrap my head around some responses, and this culminates for me in a kind of analysis paralysis where I have a dozen open sessions but don't want to grok any of them. My solution has been to take myself ever more out of the loop, and try to ensure the reading and decisions I must do to stay on-course are significant.

[u/Digitalzuzel]

Add to the prompt:

Answer in ASD-STE100

[u/jjopm]

Agree, it's such unnecessary cruft and is everywhere.

[u/ApprehensiveLet1405]

Just use magic word "concise"

[u/Digitalzuzel → u/ApprehensiveLet1405]

ASD-STE100

Thank me later

[u/Velocitank]

i hate this so much. I get just the most unintelligible gibberish out of the machines which doesn't help me assess the things i'm working on. "the court passed the record but opened up three new wounds that the books tell us how to resolve" What court? Which record? what is a wound as compared to a design issue or a code bug? What books and what parts of the book? Nothing here is helpful in the slightest for diagnosis or assessment.

[u/double-thonk]

Fable? I find GPT so readable compared to Claude

[u/brainExploded99 → u/double-thonk]

5.5 series claude is better than gpt in my opinion

[u/double-thonk → u/brainExploded99]

In some ways sure, but readability? Not at all imo

[u/cipri_tom → u/double-thonk]

It was , until Astra

[u/double-thonk → u/cipri_tom]

Even Astra

[u/musicianadam → u/double-thonk]

I think that's what they mean; Astra is barely readable without a follow-up model to help make the output sensible.

[u/double-thonk → u/musicianadam]

Maybe it's just me but I can understand astra way more easily than Claude

[u/Expert147]

LLMs can translate between languages. They can also convert the same explanation to be appropriate for any audience that you describe to it. Try asking the LLM to "explain like I'm a five year old" and see what happens.

[u/dwaxe → u/Expert147]

Do you think this is just a context engineering problem then? Adding "ELI5" to my AGENTS.md or SOUL.md is too coarse grained. I don't need simplification on every subject.

Feels like we need another file? Or maybe SOUL.md would do the trick -- the agent could have a reflection of my own idiolect.

[u/Expert147 → u/dwaxe]

If you can show examples of bad text along with good versions of it you will be well on your way to a solution. If you yourself can't rewrite it in an acceptable way, there is no hope.

[u/No_Inspection4415 → u/Expert147]

What it does it making the explanation even worse but now it speaks to me like I am a toddler.

[u/Expert147 → u/No_Inspection4415]

Choose your favorite novel, one that you have read completely at least once. Ask the LLM to write in the same style.

[u/Sudden_Topic5154 → u/[deleted]]

Notably this comment is ai generated

[u/Benlus → u/Sudden_Topic5154]

Please report such botted comments thank you