Listen and read USA nuclear forces Emergency Action Messages, heard on 11175 kHz

rafram 9 hours ago

> Mostly static. The net is quiet until it isn't.

> Preformatted is what you can hear: the same shape every time.

> hearing it is all anyone outside the force can do.

> The day has a shape.

I would recommend switching to a newer Claude model.

cowlby 8 hours ago
Everyone worried about AI detectors and here I am thinking I can spot Claudenglish in a sentence or two.
- Natsu 7 hours ago
  > Claudenglish
  I prefer to call it Cloddish, myself.
  - fosco 6 hours ago
    I initially thought Claude was a reference to clod from warbreaker and your spelling made me think of it again, for those that read warbreaker they might understand his description is darn close to what Claude is, but alas I believe I was deftly wrong
- loloquwowndueo 7 hours ago
  LLMese
Avamander 6 hours ago
All Anthropic models write like that since Opus 4.8. Opus 4.8 was still tolerable.
Unfortunately only Gemini models can write text that isn't vomit-inducing.
- qlte 1 hour ago
  Every other comment on LLM news in 2023:
  "this is the worst it will ever be"
- wyager 6 hours ago
  Opus 5.5 doesn't write like this anymore
  - 0c3ca83 5 hours ago
    It has different awfulness.
    unshavedyak 5 hours ago
    I don't find it anywhere remotely as bad. I'm not saying it's good, but jesus.. i was ready to leave anthropic lol.
    r_lee 4 hours ago
    I literally left. 5.5 is so much better. I don't know how they managed to mess up 5 so bad
    SJMG 3 hours ago
    5 I couldn't bear. It was terrible AND verbose
  - alexgoodhart 5 hours ago
    Fable 5.1 does. Wretched
bragr 8 hours ago
>Mostly static. The net is quiet until it isn't.
Having tuned in myself with a SDR, it isn't that quiet. There's pretty steady rate of messages.
jpablo 8 hours ago
Which newer Claude model doesn’t do that? Fable 5.1 still writes like that for me. I have to fight against it to write proper software labels, or (the horror!) rewrite things manually.
- kccqzy 8 hours ago
  IMO Opus 5.5 has surpassed Fable 5.1 in terms of both writing style and actual capability. Like I would give the same task to both models and Opus 5.5 consistently produces better results and explains itself better than Fable 5.1.
  - D13Fd 5 hours ago
    That's what I'm finding too. Opus 5.5 feels both consistently better than Fable and faster.
- rafram 7 hours ago
  Fable is inappropriate for the vast majority of tasks (yes, including yours!), and it is quite obnoxious. Opus 5.5 writes concisely and almost sounds like a human.
  - temac 7 hours ago
    IMO the default style of Opus 5.5 is still terrible but it is way better than 5.0. If you tell its styling is horrendous it usually rewrites in an actually quite good form.
    KerrAvon 6 hours ago
    This. You can prompt Opus 5.5 into writing well.
    perching_aix 6 hours ago
    i tend to run a pass of sol 6.1 at its output, cleans up the language well and finds defects opus missed
  - lukan 6 hours ago
    Ok I bite, for what concrete tasks do you get better results with Opus than with Fable?
    Because if true, I see no reason to spend that extra money, but for me Fable clearly outperformed Opus on complex tasks. (Including giving the same task and compare results)
    lostNFound 4 hours ago
    I let Claude do my job pretty much (with company approval) managing the entire stack of an app.
    8hs of “prompt engineering” daily for a year or so.
    I find Fable immensely better than 5.5 in their capabilities and results. Opus makes mistakes, a lot and big. Both on High Effort.
    I just run Fable for literally everything including daily random use. Never run out of tokens on the 100 plan.
- timcobb 6 hours ago
  Opus 5.5 is the only one that doesn't do ths, _as much_, it would still to the "it's ___ until it isn't" all day though. Can't wait for that to go away too.
medellin 3 hours ago
That would require a brain. Claude hasn’t told them to upgrade yet.
0c3ca83 5 hours ago
Welcome to hacker news. All bots all the time.

This is a cool idea. I'm actually quite glad that AI generated stuff is still so very obvious. The world will be a darker place when it isn't.

quasarj 1 hour ago
I have no idea how people are apparently spotting AI generated text. At this point, I don't even think I want to know. Really, I guess it's no different to me than text written by another person.
- devin 37 minutes ago
  It's different to me from text written by another person, because it is awful in a way that even a bad human writer can't replicate without first performing a lobotomy on themself.
publlus_enigma 5 hours ago
Until the kids learn to speak like Claude. Then it will all be the same.
ahofmann 7 hours ago
The obvious AI stuff is obvious, all the rest is either human generated, or you aren't able to detect that it's not.
So I would argue the world is already "a darker place".
- dpc050505 6 hours ago
  It's also a lot easier to get caught when you're not paying full attention to whatever is being sent your way. Say an algorythm starts playing AI music while it's just playing in the background, or a friend posts something silly that you read sideways.
  - lukan 6 hours ago
    "algorythm"
    Spelling errors are so far still a good sign of human written output.
- 0c3ca83 5 hours ago
  Wouldn't it be lovely if we didn't rush headlong into making things worse at the first sign of profit or power?
- InsidiousWombat 6 hours ago
  I mean I've seen people saying that whole "oh, it's just so good you can't detect it" a lot but not any actual evidence. I guess sentence can be short enough to not look clauded, but aside from that smells are still very common even for the best frontier models, so how anything else would be indistinguishable ?
skygazer 8 hours ago
My worry is that what we recognize is the unstylized default, but it might be very easy to emulate any particular human easily enough with some examples and a prompt and n-gram/style template biasing token selection, or iterative generation-scoring loops.
- rcxdude 8 hours ago
  Yeah. The big LLMs have fairly idiosyncratic writing styles. Smaller finetuned LLMs can be quite different (and you can also tune them on a particular person's writing). I think some of the confidence in this is because there's plenty of cases which just don't get noticed.