| ▲ | abroszka33 4 hours ago |
| What's the point of 150 pages description of a model that's going to be replaced in a couple months? Who even reads this? I know it's cheap to generate text with LLMs, but this is just noise at this point. |
|
| ▲ | Diogenesian 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I actually do read them. Not in severe detail, but not casually either. 150 pages is really not very long and there doesn't seem to be too much bloat. (I would cut out the moral personhood stuff but that's a political/ideological thing). This is snarky but I am grumpy: I wonder if there's a correlation between me refusing to use LLMs and me being happy to read a novella-sized PDF about them. |
| |
| ▲ | unshavedyak 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I wonder if there's a correlation between me refusing to use LLMs and me being happy to read a novella-sized PDF about them. Semi related, but i would hate to read that PDF but i also hate reading what LLMs write lol. LLMs are pretty terrible at being concise. Using an LLM these days means putting up with bizarre and often confusing phrasing, wordy explanations, etc. It's kinda crazy to me how good they are but how bad their writing style is for me personally. Even though i use an LLM constantly i can't stand reading its responses. | |
| ▲ | abroszka33 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 150 pages is really not very long and there doesn't seem to be too much bloat. Maybe it's just me, but 150 pages is like third of a good book. Quite long. And it's full of LLM slop, they did not even bother to remove the em dashes. | | |
| ▲ | no_multitudes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you have specific examples you think are LLM-generated? I have only read a few parts, but they did not seem primarily LLM-generated to me. Using em-dashes is really not a good signal for this IMO. I'm not saying you're wrong btw; I'm sure this has many authors and some of them probably used LLMs significantly in the writing process. | | |
| ▲ | abroszka33 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Do you honestly believe that there is a person at Anthropic, creators of one of the smartest LLM models, whose only job is to spend months writing 150 pages about a model they are going to release? And this person is not using LLMs? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm more confident about winning the lottery next week. | | |
| ▲ | no_multitudes 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | No, I think it is the work of many dozens of people, not one person. It's probable that LLM text is pasted directly into early drafts of the document, and plausible that some of that text survives in the final document. However, no section of the final document I have looked at reads to me like un-edited LLM output (which is almost always very obvious to me.) Therefore, I think it is more likely than not that human editors go over the document carefully and rewrite anything that is full of the uselessly punchy sentences or constant over-corrections that hallmark LLM speech. | |
| ▲ | brokencode 7 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | So your complaint is about LLM slop, but can’t point to anything that’s actually wrong about it other than that there are dashes? You can use an LLM to create work that isn’t slop. And you can hand write slop with no computer involvement at all. Most of the people I knew in high school 15 years ago would write slop on a daily basis. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dgellow 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, but don’t read it like a book, it’s more of a document to skim through |
|
|
|
| ▲ | srveale 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's common practice to release a detailed system card (OP) and a high level summary: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5 It's okay if you're not the target audience for one or the other. |
|
| ▲ | stravant 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The system cards are effectively a data dump for researchers to sift through. They're not meant for normal consumers who just want to use the model for work. |
|
| ▲ | neuronexmachina 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| System Cards aren't really targeted to users, that's what blog posts and docs are for: https://ai.meta.com/tools/system-cards/ |
|
| ▲ | reasonableklout 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's part of their transparency commitments? They've been doing this since 2023: https://www.anthropic.com/system-cards And lots of folks read these. For example here's simonw's notes on the Claude 4 system card: https://simonwillison.net/2025/May/25/claude-4-system-card/ All of this seemed like utter sci-fi just a couple years ago. Do you think that frontier AI companies should be less transparent? |
| |
|
| ▲ | ajmurmann 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It was probably faster to generate 150 pages than 10 useful ones |
|
| ▲ | volkk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| literally nobody. i think most sane people would just run that through an LLM and get some high level takeaways or ask some specific questions they might be curious about. |
|
| ▲ | bonoboTP 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can just read the part that interests you. There's a table of contents. |
|
| ▲ | coffeebeqn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Some AI bro will pop it into their LLM of choice and pretend to learn something |
