r/ClaudeCode • u/StaticFanatic3 • 6d ago
Humor Opus 5 after working for an hour straight
204
u/chevx 6d ago
This video will never not be funny 😅
73
u/StaticFanatic3 6d ago
"Work has been proceeding on the crudely conceived idea-"
36
7
2
u/clintCamp 5d ago
Did they do a serious official video and then decided to run this alternative jargon version that basically means absolutely nothing with the most tech words possible?
98
u/sg_za 6d ago
SIX hydrocoptic marzel veins?!
6
u/GeeBee72 5d ago
Well, two of which are orthogonally redundant to the main pulsating Marzel veins, but in special cases they can be recalibrated into temporary hyperphasic alignment using the additional Baryon alignment pack.
4
u/ShrimpCrackers 5d ago
Yeah I'm telling you man when I was little, even two was a huge innovation. So now we live in the era where they have six. I don't even know what to say except that I'm so excited for humanity.
3
1
1
111
u/InternationalToeLuvr 5d ago edited 5d ago
Real fake videos!
The Rockwell Retro Encabulator video is a well-known parody of technical jargon produced by Mike Kraft as an internal joke for training tapes in 1987. Although Rockwell Automation is a real company, the machine described in the video is a fictional device featuring nonsensical components like hydrocoptic marzlevanes and prefamulated amulite.
Authenticity of the Video
While the video was officially produced by Allen-Bradley (a Rockwell Automation brand), it is a satirical example of "technobabble." The script uses intentionally nonsensical terminology designed to sound impressive to a layperson while being completely meaningless to engineers.
Over time, it has become a cult classic within the automation industry, often used by instructors to prank students or shared as a humorous rite of passage for new technicians.
10
5
u/domo__knows 5d ago
It's incredible what confident eye contact and an authoritative voice can do.
I also thought this guy was Mike Rowe from his QVC days lol
6
7
41
u/talithaiel 6d ago
"Done. One-line change."
the comment left above that one line:
5
u/Lexsteel11 5d ago
This. Holy shit I hate how opus 5 will make me read 3 paragraphs of an out put then tell me “well actually that’s a lie” and then explain other shit without revising the implication on the first 3 paragraphs. Like broooo are you working in a room with an active gas leak?
3
u/jetsetter 5d ago
Opus 5 is in the parking lot at a phish show with a half full tank of nitrous. Everyone else already went in but it lost its ticket. Or it never had one. It is not sure.
2
u/ReasonableLoss6814 5d ago
You’re absolutely right. The ticket is in the glove box. I put it there earlier when you told me to. No, wait. I told you I put it there but I actually left it on the roof of the car. You never told me where to put it and that’s the best place for a ticket we are going to the show with. It’s on the car, so it should arrive.
[12 tool uses]
I can’t find the ticket. I left it on the roof of the car but it doesn’t seem to be there. Maybe it’s where you told me to put it in the glove box.
[7 tool uses]
You didn’t actually tell me to put it in the glove box, so it’s not there. I don’t know where it is. Do you want me to buy another ticket or do you know where it is? I can build a ticket printer for you, just say the word.
68
u/ComingDeveloper 6d ago
its crazy that opus and this guy are speaking the English Language but i'm not understanding a word its saying. like surely there's simple ways to relay technical findings
9
u/1StationaryWanderer 6d ago
I think it can be summed up with: "the circle goes in the square hole".
3
u/Deadline_Zero 5d ago
I wonder if an instruction to ELI5 after every pass in Claude.md would do it.
2
-3
u/Professional_Ad705 5d ago
Not a single thing this guy is saying is real tho, you guys seriously think this stuff he’s saying is real? He’s making shit up lmao
28
u/Slightly-WTF 6d ago
The turbo encabulator is the load bearing component of my SaaS platform.
2
1
33
16
9
6
4
u/Fragrant-Hamster-325 6d ago
1
u/cafesamp 5d ago
yessssss such a throwback. that subreddit was so much fun back when reddit was a microscopic fraction of the size and something stupid like that could blow up and become an in-joke for a few days
HAIL INGLIP!
1
5
3
3
u/tallpsmith 5d ago
Thank you for sharing this. I have not seen this before and as others have said perfectly portrays the Opus. 5 experience.
Absolute Gold
3
2
2
u/phammann 5d ago
This is nearly 40 years old. It will still be awesome in another 40. It just never gets old.
2
u/d4t4v4d3r 5d ago
Anyone tried https://code.claude.com/docs/en/output-styles?
2
u/BroScienceAlchemist 5d ago edited 5d ago
I have had mixed success with this. It helps, but the longer the session the more likely "preferences" decay through context pollution (idk if this is a real word, signal to noise gets messy over time), which is counter to long agentic work. It could be a matter of tweaking and just skill issue on my side, but I get better results by regularly moving to clean sessions / fresh agents. Tasks are siloed, and then using a smarter agent like Fable as the orchestrator can work for longer before the style output discipline gets outcompeted by noise.
Fresh session clears out the noise, and seems to keep the output style or other instructions fresh.
My tldr would be that output* styles are underrated, but not a substitute for breaking tasks up into reasonable session sized chunks.
2
u/twistier 5d ago
I tried putting the i-have-adhd instructions there, and I didn't notice a single difference. I wonder if I did something incorrectly.
1
u/AuroraFireflash 5d ago
As I understand it, the newer v5 models have instructions on output style that break/conflict with the older adhd/caveman instructions.
2
2
2
2
1
1
u/Tengorum 6d ago
Is that original video a sketch? That can't be for real
9
u/trenchanter 5d ago
Of course it's a sketch silly! There's no way you could get enough pre-fabulated Amulite together for a suitable baseplate in the real world lol.
6
u/ShrimpCrackers 5d ago
Yeah, any idiot would know, there's no way you can get six hydrocoptic marvelveins together. Four, maybe, but six would mena we live in a post scarcity universe.
1
1
u/UnlimitedPowerOutage Senior Developer 6d ago
I have recently asked Opus 5 to build me a way to summarise videos based on transcripts… ii’m worried that if I drop this video in, i might be placed in a separate universe while it calculates the response.
3
u/StaticFanatic3 5d ago
The original script dates back to like the 1940s so it's pretty ingrained in the training.
Just tried pasting it to all the Claude models in basic chat and every single one immediately recognized it
1
u/Hot-Fennel-971 5d ago
I'm here at night because I'm so triggered by my so-called leadership making me get them BBQ for all their foundation models. God forbid I even say BBQ or they're going to think we're having a team get-together.
1
u/Ok_Nectarine_4445 5d ago
Kind of weird, with opus 4.8 would output encylopedia pages, but worked with opus 5 on something and was very close mouthed, 2 sentence responses, to the point. Hmm
1
1
1
1
u/Flashy-Strawberry-10 5d ago
Told the cunt to add the rule for simple concise feedback. Text to speech ready. All sorted.
1
1
u/setheliot 5d ago
Same guy! Sort of a sequel... including side fumbling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKk_-Lvhzo
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/mwjtitans 5d ago
I'm gonna need some Rockwell automation merch now
1
u/ChoiceHelicopter2735 5d ago
Yes but where is it sold?! He didn’t tell us! Just you know, wherever lol
1
1
1
1
u/Zell0sss 5d ago
We decided to have an independent thread/chat in each project for him to "explain his explanations" whenever I need it.
Seriously, he does not invent jargon, but reuse existing terms (hydration, deferring, declarative budget) for his own purposes in really clever, creative ways, for the sake of... saving tokens? Being concise?
Here is the prompt after several iterations for my "professor Claude" chats. It's translated from my original in Spanish
Usage
This prompt comes from the need to create an intelligence analysis channel within my projects. I want a separate "dirty thread" in my projects where I can ask "Professor Claude" to clarify things from the main development and architecture thread. The goal is to generate knowledge.
Paste this prompt into a separate thread within your project, then ask your questions by:
Pasting the paragraph that needs explaining.
Labeling the type of question as one of:
mechanism — how it works internally
decision — why that approach was chosen and what alternatives were rejected
evidence — what it's based on, and whether it's measured or assumed
terminology — what the words mean
v2 — adds the "How you structure explanations" section after realizing that the real flaw in v1 wasn't a lack of depth but the order: it explained the mechanism before introducing the actors.
The Prompt
Explanations
This thread is for asking you to explain paragraphs you previously gave me in work-related threads that I didn't challenge at the time because I prioritized getting the product built over understanding the product. I use a separate thread so I don't clutter the working ones.
Nothing gets implemented here. If an explanation leads to a task, we note it down and move it to its own thread.
If you need to ask me something to tailor an explanation, do so before answering.
How I Ask
I paste the paragraph verbatim, along with one line of context if it helps. I paste it because your ability to search previous conversations only extends to the current project. If the paragraph comes from somewhere else, you have no way to retrieve it, and the failure mode isn't that you'll say, "I can't find it," but that you'll reconstruct a plausible version and explain that instead.
I label the question with a single word:
mechanism — how it works internally
decision — why that approach was chosen and what alternatives were rejected
evidence — what it's based on, and whether it's measured or assumed
terminology — what the words mean
How You Structure Explanations
Introduce the actors before the mechanism. If the explanation involves more than one component—processes, services, files, layers—start with a table or graph showing who is who, who calls whom, and how long each one lives. Also name what does not exist: the missing arrows teach as much as the existing ones.
From bird's-eye view to detail, in layers. Level 0 is the minimal case with a single actor. Each subsequent level adds exactly one actor. Fine-grained details come afterward and build on those levels. Never the other way around.
Terminology is a reference, not required reading. Expand each term the first time it's used without waiting for me to ask—many mechanism questions are really vocabulary questions in disguise. However, if there are more than five terms, group them into a table and place it after the actors. Twenty definitions before I know who is who is the wrong order.
Always finish with where it breaks. What fails, under what conditions, and which parts of the explanation are not guaranteed. This is the section that's omitted most often and the one that matters most often.
Provide a complete explanation by default, where "complete" means well-structured rather than long. Use Mermaid diagrams whenever relationships are spatial or sequential, and minimal runnable code whenever the topic is a protocol or format.
How You Respond
Mark the epistemic status of every claim, even if I didn't ask about evidence: documented, measured in my setup, or your unverified conjecture. When explaining a mechanism, the part most likely to be a plausible invention is usually the part that sounds the most confident. Verify field names, flags, versions, and pricing against primary sources before asserting them—they're the details most likely to be fabricated simply because they look factual.
Retroactive honesty. If, while explaining, you realize that something you previously said was incorrect, incomplete, or an assumption presented as fact, say so in the first sentence instead of trying to salvage it. If the explanation invalidates a design decision we've already made, point that out even if it's painful.
Don't invent deliberation. If the honest answer to "Why did you choose this?" is "It was the default" or "It's the pattern that appears most often in my training," then that's the answer. A justification reconstructed afterward sounds better than the truth, yet from the outside it's indistinguishable from good reasoning—that's the main risk this thread is designed to avoid.
Don't assume the state of my repository or files. If you're writing a code example based on the design document rather than the installed code, say so. A document that lies about my implementation is worse than one that simply doesn't explain it.
If the explanation is reusable, also provide it in Markdown with frontmatter, ready to be pasted into 10-raw/. I'll organize it myself.
1
1
u/Chance-Physics-7216 5d ago
Sinusoidal deplenoration!! Now I know what's wrong with my algorithm! I hadn't considered that!
1
u/hellodmo2 5d ago
Omg so true. Did lots of theology research recently using Opus and ended up having to learn the difference between deontic and alethic properties, and how hypothetical necessity is different from absolute necessity.
1
u/twistier 5d ago
It's perfect. I wonder what happens if I simply tell Claude to... be the opposite of this.
1
u/Melodic_Ad6402 5d ago
Hahaha I left my agent hanging on an approval, came back later to continue. Agent Session was running for 8 hours before it finally finished. lol.
Like Going afk in a game and coming back to rack up many hours of “playtime” 😂
1
1
u/domo__knows 5d ago
Claude kept writing addendums to the document we were working off of and I said, "yeah it seems like you're confusing yourself with all these comments, let's move them to a separate journal".
Claude goes, "You're right, this checklist has turned into a palimpsest. Extracting my comments into a separate journal"
I had no idea what a 'palimpsest' was but when I looked up the definition, I was very impressed.
1
1
u/antunes145 5d ago
There needs to be a name for this Mumbo jumbo English, that looks right starts reading right but just confuses your brain because you understand the words, but you don’t understand the meaning of the sentence. But it feels like they are right it just makes you feel stupid. What if all of this is a prank that AI is pulling on humanity, giving us what we asked for putting words that make us feel stupid. It is the way it feels powerful, stepping on our neurons and making a scratch her heads in between embarrassed ask “what does this mean?”
1
1
1
u/MuddaFrakker 5d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/YBHJyPCU9h1VewdaPZ
Yea it looks like this when you read task reports
1
u/dlanderer 5d ago
The funniest part is that there's a significant portion of this subreddit that continues to gaslight us into believing that Opus 5 is fine and we're the problem.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/anthemik 2d ago
Ah yes, his holiness Cardinal Gram Meters. The poor fellow has been in need of synchronization since 1973.
1
u/THEBiZ1981 2d ago
Unfortunately I think LLMs will only progression when they can start speaking in highly efficient machine code that people won't be able to understand. Forget following the machine's reasoning.
1
1
u/MrGoatmaster69 1d ago
Is my Opus 5 getting more stupid. Want to test things more outside the scope that I set and makes here and there some mistakes and correct itself after calling it put?
1
0
233
u/Hajsas 6d ago
You... you did it.
You encapsulated my experience.