Who knows. I wish ant harshly penalized speaking litotically because it’s essentially reward hacking as it can often be read multiple ways.
It’s also annoying as a human because Claude et al rate their own writing very highly, putting human<>LLM interactions at a disadvantage to human->LLM<>LLM interactions.
Claude doesn’t think or have a goal like correctly summarise a topic, it just generates text based on the corpus and training. So not really weird that it is sometimes vague and sometimes incorrect.
Training could not address semantic density unless it was for the very specific pattern you need for this very specific article.
I guess the people generating the article don’t really care if is correct or easy to read, as long as it gets indexed in Google and linked by prominent sites like HN it has done its job (seo).
It's not hard to parse, but it's a dense pair of sentences that say nothing. It just pads the length of the article and gives readers mental fatigue trying to read between the lines to figure out what the point is.
I actually don't think this article was LLM generated but these two sentences suck. I think they were moved from another part of the article without being modified.
First, "the hardest lesson". What lesson? It is out of context. Nobody was talking about lessons before this.
Second, "the bottleneck wasn't what we were measuring and observing". Of course the bottleneck itself wasn't that. They couldn't discover what the bottleneck was using the information in their measurements and observations.
It is a clunky and frankly incorrect passage in an otherwise well written article.
