Having listened to him give a couple of talks I am always struck by how much he talks and writes like Claude code.

I don’t think he farms out all of his writing and talking to LLMs. I don’t think Claude code was trained to emulate him or anything.

I think his “voice” has been filed LLM smooth by years of agent based interactions. He claims Anthropic engineers use an average of 500+ agents a day. They are human interfaces to token generators more than human to human communication. They are picking up the tendencies of their most frequent communication partner.

Unfortunately, I see Claude being wrong often enough that I view it as a faulty narrator. Often helpful, sometimes totally full of it.

And now I subconsciously apply this filter to anything that sounds like Claude.

Makes me nervous that my voice may be becoming that of a faulty narrators.

▲

pixl97 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To err is human.

Higher level thinking has fewer constraints on being wrong than lower level subconscious thinking. Low level stuff tends to have some repetitive and evolutionary basis. Higher level thought tends to be more one off, less evidence based, and more exploratory until we get to the point of being an expert around particular concepts.

A huge amount of human thinking is being a parrot and repeating statements without a deeper understanding. For example when I say 1+1=2 I'm not thinking about it. If I say 638483+949948= calculation is necessary.

So in this, your voice has always been one of a somewhat faulty narrator, LLMs just may be further degrading the quality of the narration.

	▲	pclowes 15 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Lets say you have a colleague named Bob. Bob is a pretty good engineer, but he is as confident when he doesn’t know as when he knows. You can never tell his degree of confidence in his answer. For low-level things he is pretty good but for critical high-level things it is more ambiguous. You work around this by checking Bob’s work. Having formal verification steps to check what he says. Now let’s say you meet Bob’s twin brother Bill. Who talks and sounds just like Bob. He makes fairly grand high-level statements that you can neither test nor verify. How much do you intuitively distrust him?
	▲	mpalmer an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Left, right, higher, lower, male, female. People love to explain the brain by dividing it in half, or into poles. Nothing more human than to label, simplify and categorize, even in the absence of higher quality information.

▲

ramesh31 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>"They are human interfaces to token generators more than human to human communication. They are picking up the tendencies of their most frequent communication partner."

I see this happening at work, too. All communication and collaboration between engineers has broken down. Juniors don't have questions anymore. Seniors don't discuss architecture anymore. Everyone is just off in their own world of feature work with the only interaction coming at merge time. Really depressing what has happened to our trade.

▲

bmitc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> He claims Anthropic engineers use an average of 500+ agents a day.

What are they doing all day with that, I wonder?

▲

pixl97 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, trying to make RSI for one so humans don't have to do that work.

LLMs are still a very new technology in relation to human timeliness. There is a whole lot of exploration to be done.

▲

simonw 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does that mean 500 separate agents or 500 agent sessions I wonder.

▲

bdangubic 2 hours ago | parent [-]

the former

	▲	simonw an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What does that mean though? Does it mean there are more than 500 different "agent" systems within Anthropic and employees interact with most of those in a daily basis?