Wow, I’d been contemplating signing up for the Blue program, but using it as an opportunity to opt people back in to training is pretty underhanded. I guess I’ll be sticking to the friendly neighbourhood Chinese guy in a trench coat whenever I want to do any security work.
This may well be very useful, but Claude has ruined me and I have a visceral reaction to ‘gates’ in the opening sentence and couldn’t get any further. If a tool is worth building and sharing, surely it’s also worth writing a brief summary of what it’s supposed to achieve in your own words?
The sentence is near incomprehensible without knowledge of the Claudish robolect. (Here I made up a word. Hopefully its comprehensibility isn't gated too much on language nerdery.)
Seriously though, it'd be nice if we started using a more shared and less vendor-specific jargon to refer to what these latest features are. We're getting into JVM vs. .NET Execution Engine distinctions and they just muddy the water on what goes on in the market.
It's vague puffery that implies depth without nessesarily achieving it. It's a very effective bullshitting technique with most people, which is why we collectively were so impressed with it we sculpted a robot that does it.
The more common english term is “held back” instead of gated.
And nvidia probably doesn’t want to say “probabilistic responses including hallucinations preclude reliable ai analytics”
As it is the sentence communicates very little. Things are unreliable for a lot of different reasons. Hardware? Software? Users? Intentional and required use of RNGs? Claude presumes the reader has all the same weights activated.
Using gate as a verb is extremely rare in American English, though perhaps more common in British English. I would hazard a guess that very few people who aren't exposed to Claude on a regular basis would think that was anything other than gibberish.
Using gate as a verb is perfectly fine and I see it all the time where I grew up in America. The problem with the sentence is deeper than word choice. It is like politician language in that it technically says what Claude is attempting to say without ever nailing down the precise context, so that it can be interpreted a million different ways and all would be correct, if you read it right. Which means it says nothing.
I am convinced this is a result of RLVR and synthetic data. LLMs optimize not for human readers, but for passing the LLM evaluators in their training runs, and end up developing sophistry.
Its tricky with corporate speak. This was released by a big corp. Marketing slop existed before AI. I can't tell. But maybe that is the point, humans have written some convoluted sentences so can't just assume by how it sounds.
I've been screening some twitch streamers and noticed with some alarm that an unexpected number of seemingly healthy American streamers can't read, or very barely can.
The game I was using for this uses a standard memo pads mechanic to fill in the story and many were barely stumbling through it in their own native language.
So it's my impression that this is not entirely Claude's fault.
As a native speaker, I read this as "This controls enabling or disabling of all analytic features used by AI model loops"
Now there are times when I let the model keep its own docs in its own language, for its own future reference; but, it is not intended for human distribution due to its odd selection of words and phrases (aka slop).
i had exactly the same issue. That first sentence triggered the bad experience i had with claude opus 5.0 interactions and i just closed the page immediately.. All of the PRs that I have seen with "gates"... it really impacts me
That's much more like an agent error than a human error.
It's quite common for LLMs to mix up values between columns in a table. It's often referred to as a structural hallucination, since it can happen with all kinds of relationships that form structures, not just columns in a table.
with this i agree whole heartedly, i can tolerate clanker code in exchange of the amount of value it can generate after heavy polishing, but good writing is something AI is leagues behind, so far back that is even making human writing worse by imitation.
Use it for grammar, use it for punctuation, never let the clankers write by themselves and call it a day
"Ingestion Service" has 3 arrows out and nothing coming in. What is it ingesting? Are DB nodes supposed to show the DB technology they are using or what they store/do? - one node is "PostreSQL" and another node is "Source databases".
Maybe typical marketing power points are worthless. But I called it slop because it didn't help me at all understanding what they are doing.
Thank you! After reading the very first line I just had to check the HN comments:
> Agents can retrieve documents and query databases, but reliability gates agentic analytics: a revenue metric answered faster is worth nothing if the number is wrong.
Absolutely no human would ever write this kind of slop. I have no idea what this even means. Is this really the first thing you want users to read?
I wish people would take a fucking minute to at least figure out what their main selling point is and just write it, you know, like we used to.
Agents can retrieve documents and query databases, but retrieval reliability limits the utility of agentic analytic abilities: a revenue metric answered faster is worth nothing if the number is wrong.
Yes, it's a professional assessment. This page is 100% unedited slop, and it's unprofessional to publish something like this under the pretense that it's fit for human consumption.
I’ve never shared Claude text output with another human without explicitly flagging it as such. I believe my ability to communicate effectively in my own words is a large part of the value I offer and Claude’s writing (at least in relation to code) is so convoluted and malformed that I wouldn’t dream of attempting to pass it off as my own.
It has a utility in the same way that raw ingredients have a utility in a kitchen. The chef doesn’t just drop a messy pile of uncooked meat and vegetables onto your plate and tell you to figure it out. That’s exactly what people are doing when they vomit out a bunch of impenetrable slop and expect the reader to do the hard work of comprehending it on their behalf.
You can’t expect others to care about what you’re saying if you’ve not spent a moment considering how best to say it. The reader’s time is no less valuable than your own. If you think composing a readme for your project is worth zero minutes of your time, that’s the appropriate amount of time for readers to allocate to it.
For whatever it’s worth, I also cancelled my Claude subscription recently and shifted back to OpenAI solely because I find its outputs far more readable. I’ll even accept a slight hit on model performance as a trade-off. If I’m unwilling to read Claude-speak when I’m being paid an hourly rate, you can be sure I’m not reading it for free.
I have yet to see a well written readme from LLMs. Usually they are filled with weird minutiae of implementation details, elaborate explanations for simple things the reader would be expected to know, strange condensed text that a reader has no clue how to parse and context dumps explaining something the “author” asked the LLM but which is completely irrelevant to the reader.
LLM docs suck and I’d rather have no docs if a human is too lazy to write them well, at least I can tell my LLM to look at the code.
> I’d rather have no docs if a human is too lazy to write them well, at least I can tell my LLM to look at the code
Sure, but you're not going to waste your time (and money) having an LLM look through random piles of source code. That's kindof the point of these generated READMEs that you hate so much: to give you an idea of if you want to investigate it more deeply.
If it bothers you so much, just ignore the README. But this "how dare they present this garbage to me!" is an entitled and hypocritical rant that's being repeated over and over and it needs to stop.
Code and prose are different things, but that aside, no, I don’t expect anyone I work with to be subject to my mindless one-shotted PRs – which is as close a comparison I can think of on the development side. I also wouldn’t consider a readme to be a pure technical doc. It’s very likely to be the first, and possibly last, impression someone forms of your project. It matters.
I’m not fighting any particular fight, I’m just saying that the lack of care stands out to me, and evidently to others, and that anyone releasing a new project might want to consider whether they want it to be perceived in that way.
> I’m just saying that the lack of care stands out to me
You don't know how much they cared. You also don't know if they reviewed the README before publishing, or if was a mindless one-shotted PR that nobody looked at. The word "gate" isn't a smoking gun here, other than to prove that the reader uses AI a ton and is ironically now triggered by it. If your criticism was more substantial: targeting the content rather than the use of a trigger word, then I might agree. But you haven't done anything but project your own bias.
“Gate” was just the trigger to quickly scan the rest of the copy, at which point AI’s fingerprints are so obvious that it’s impossible to believe a human wrote it. I haven’t bothered to check, but I’m sure any of the AI detector sites would light up like a Christmas tree on this.
it's full of AI Slop fingerprints. Clearly hasn't been read or edited by a human before being published, or they're already deep in the brain rot that they can't see just how bad it is.
I can’t recommend this documentary enough. The algorithm dropped it onto my YouTube homepage one day and I wasn’t expecting to watch more than a few minutes but I was drawn in immediately.
I don’t consider myself a birder but I’ve got into nature photography in recent years and it’s such a joy to get out for sunrise or sunset and to come home with a special shot.
So far Ubuntu LTS isn’t picking up the new packages for me via apt update, and Laravel Forge appears completely unresponsive as a result of being flooded by people trying to update their servers.
And I'm maintaining a box on 18.04 over here, and lo and behold its Pro subscription isn't showing up as active, so I couldn't get the update even if they do release it.
Going to migrate the box to Debian in-place. (Or Gentoo, the way things are currently going.)
I’m surprised this hasn’t had more attention, it seems like it should be a really solid half way house between the Jev-alikes and full-fat LLM calls. Hopefully ‘soon’ means ‘days’ for the open weights release.
reply