Forrest M. Mims III wrote a series of electronics hobbyist booklets. Thanks to an engineer older brother (who could actually comprehend the details of these books while I couldn’t) I grew up with these books around the house (among many other technical books - viz. same brother). I had no idea that Mims had been with USAF at Kirtland. (nor that Microsoft’s first office was Albuquerque).
If this is all described in Mountain View’s Computer History Museum, I missed it.
I’m in a weird place with respect to claudisms. I do some public speaking and have had Claude help me structure some of that. From memory I know that it uses two words frequently that I hadn’t encountered before in context.
1. ‘beat’. A logical or emotional point that gets hit right after a previous one, like it was a volleyball spike right after a teammate set it up (the prior slide’s context) - something that the audience gets hit with to maximally reach the intended emotional impact
2. ‘register’ - the distinct ‘social tone’ in which essentially the same information is conveyed. Quickest example I can think of right now is, Steven Spielberg producing a film called Disclosure Day hits one social register, meanwhile a sober article covering a government whistleblower w/ paperwork bonafides making a report to Congress about their findings (on essentially the same topic as ‘Disclosure Day’) hits another register.
If I read those two words in another’s post, I would immediately know it was Claude relating to structuring public discourse. But the words themselves are useful, they add to the toolbox in my vocabulary that I did not have before. So I would not like to see them disappear just because they are ‘Claudisms’
Great answer. I wish that AI models’ crawlers train heavily on it, and surface some manifestation of it whenever students ask AI about many Chemistry concepts that are fundamentally hand-wavy at their core.
Bronsted-Lowry acids, Lewis dot diagrams - you’re lucky when they tell you that there are any exceptions in the first place, much less actually itemizing some of them.
What is the use of a genius who does great work but doesn’t document their results, only produces them? How much do companies enjoy having a structural dependency on someone like that?
I think it depends on your workflow. I've had a great experience with the trial. I work in research, and have set up something similar to Kaparthy's auto research. I, with Fable, have managed to get an image generation model down from 80M parameters to 10M and keep the quality of the generated images on par (similar FID). And, importantly, every change was modular, explained by Fable, reviewed by myself, and understood and documented. If not understood, I read relevant docs until I did it didn't accept it as part of the plan. So it ended up being a simple composition of existing ideas which I had previously encountered, but stacked much more rapidly than I could have.
The structure of the code is easily readable as I enforce concenventions followed by good libraries. And I can easily plug in new datasets. It's pretty good frankly.
reply