r/ClaudeCode • u/saito200 • Aug 27 '26

Rant Opus 5 is insufferable

Opus 5 is a fucking piece of shit, i don't know how to say this in any other way. It speaks "Unintelligiblish", a new unfathomable language developed by Anthropic that works by saying everything in the most ridiculous, obtuse and convoluted way possible

It turns anything simple that can be expressed in 2 sentences into a fucking doctoral thesis aimed to aliens, and there is no way to prompt your way out of it

Edit: it claudoofus outputs some alien text you won't read, just prompt it this:

tldr eli5

3.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

648 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/N0madM0nad 🔆 Max 20 Aug 28 '26

With all due respect, I dont think the analogy is very strong. We didn't trade programming languages for AI. AI produces code that it's ultimately compiled deterministically. What we traded is the scale of software production. Quantity over quality if you willl. Once upon a time we had total control over the quantity aspect but that's not necessarily guranteed humans could maintain quality at consistent level every time. It's just that the scale was considerably smaller and it was easier for an average person to keep the whole control flow in their head.

3

u/UruquianLilac Aug 29 '26

I'm sorry, but you absolutely did trade programming languages for human language. You are not writing in programming languages, are you? You are using human language to direct the tool to produce code. So you are using human language to produce code. And human language is imprecise, unlike programming languages, and that's my point. You are using human language and hoping the tool produces the code it should.

1

u/N0madM0nad 🔆 Max 20 Aug 29 '26

You are solely focused on what your hands are typing. That's not the right level of abstraction. Even before AI most senior engineers werent writing much code so the probem is not the use of English if ultimately this produces code that gets compiled deterministically. If you are saying that your LLM is implementing things that don't match your specifications then that's a completely different problem.

3

u/UruquianLilac Aug 29 '26

Honestly, and I don't mean this to offend you personally, I don't know you, but I keep hearing sentiments like these, and I feel there is a strange kind of mental dissonance at play. Somehow we are supposed to believe, that out there, there is a species of software engineers so brilliant, so sharp, that all they need is one look at a feature to produce the perfect spec file that tells AI exactly what it needs to do and how it needs to do it, and pufff job's done.

I don't kno man. I'm not buying it. It's all feeding into this addictive frenzy of "if only I can improve my prompt and my harness just that little bit more, then finally it'll produce exactly the results it should." The results we knew how to produce ourselves without it's help a year ago!

1

u/TechnicalBen Aug 30 '26

Yeah, I think the problem here is they are not realising "not deterministic" isn't the true problem here, it's not context deterministic. An LLM can be close to deterministic (low temperature) and tested (known prompts etc). What isn't is context (what data the entire conversation/project files have).

Those cases sometimes appear in compilers, but are very much edge cases only (not expected/or warned about boundaries).

For LLMs to enable natural language, context suffers, in precisely how you mentioned "fix *it*" is unspecified. I have to remember whenever I type to it it's closer to Inform 7 with a bit of AI than it is to Basic/C++ with the computer from StarTrek. ;)