Hacker News Reader

Comment by dstu | Hacker News Reader

This may well be very useful, but Claude has ruined me and I have a visceral reaction to ‘gates’ in the opening sentence and couldn’t get any further. If a tool is worth building and sharing, surely it’s also worth writing a brief summary of what it’s supposed to achieve in your own words?

View on HN

The sentence is near incomprehensible without knowledge of the Claudish robolect. (Here I made up a word. Hopefully its comprehensibility isn't gated too much on language nerdery.)

I will add Claudish robolect into my language immediately, thank you.

It's particularly load-bearing to a non-native English speaker such as me.

It looks a lot like English, but it doesn't have the same rhythm human English has. It's as if a human tried and failed to be concise.

It's vague puffery that implies depth without nessesarily achieving it. It's a very effective bullshitting technique with most people, which is why we collectively were so impressed with it we sculpted a robot that does it.

As a native English speaker, I get the same feeling whenever I read press releases and other announcements from executives.

Hear ye, who speaks of the Pompatus of Claude…

Dailect

Dalekect

LLect or 'lect

Claudish is a perfectly cromulent word.

Seriously though, it'd be nice if we started using a more shared and less vendor-specific jargon to refer to what these latest features are. We're getting into JVM vs. .NET Execution Engine distinctions and they just muddy the water on what goes on in the market.

Clodish.

"reliability gates agentic analytics" is quite a garden path sentence, at least to the eyes of a non-native speaker.

As a native speaker, I read this as "This controls enabling or disabling of all analytic features used by AI model loops"

Now there are times when I let the model keep its own docs in its own language, for its own future reference; but, it is not intended for human distribution due to its odd selection of words and phrases (aka slop).

I think it's slightly different: Without reliability, agentic analytics is useless.

Or: Agentic analytics is gated on sufficient reliabilty.

Or reallllly short and hard to understand: Reliability gates agentic analytics.

The more common english term is “held back” instead of gated.

And nvidia probably doesn’t want to say “probabilistic responses including hallucinations preclude reliable ai analytics”

As it is the sentence communicates very little. Things are unreliable for a lot of different reasons. Hardware? Software? Users? Intentional and required use of RNGs? Claude presumes the reader has all the same weights activated.

I've used the word "Gate" in this context.

People are really seeing 'AI' in everything now. You can't tell.

Humans are now hallucinating what is, or is not, AI.

Using gate as a verb is extremely rare in American English, though perhaps more common in British English. I would hazard a guess that very few people who aren't exposed to Claude on a regular basis would think that was anything other than gibberish.

So you're claiming a Claude-shaped readability gate? /s

LOL

People are "gatekeeping" how we use the word "gate".

Using gate as a verb is perfectly fine and I see it all the time where I grew up in America. The problem with the sentence is deeper than word choice. It is like politician language in that it technically says what Claude is attempting to say without ever nailing down the precise context, so that it can be interpreted a million different ways and all would be correct, if you read it right. Which means it says nothing.

I am convinced this is a result of RLVR and synthetic data. LLMs optimize not for human readers, but for passing the LLM evaluators in their training runs, and end up developing sophistry.

I've been screening some twitch streamers and noticed with some alarm that an unexpected number of seemingly healthy American streamers can't read, or very barely can.

The game I was using for this uses a standard memo pads mechanic to fill in the story and many were barely stumbling through it in their own native language.

So it's my impression that this is not entirely Claude's fault.

Conservatively, I'll blame it on "dyslexia".

The line follows: "...a revenue metric answered faster is worth nothing if the number is wrong.". Are you seriously suggesting a human wrote this?

Its tricky with corporate speak. This was released by a big corp. Marketing slop existed before AI. I can't tell. But maybe that is the point, humans have written some convoluted sentences so can't just assume by how it sounds.

Seems like an extremely simple sentence to me, and is an example explaining what previous commenters seem to have had trouble understanding.

I read this whole readme and I have no freaking clue what this does beyond "searchable knowledgebase". How about providing some use cases?

Thank you! After reading the very first line I just had to check the HN comments:

> Agents can retrieve documents and query databases, but reliability gates agentic analytics: a revenue metric answered faster is worth nothing if the number is wrong.

Absolutely no human would ever write this kind of slop. I have no idea what this even means. Is this really the first thing you want users to read?

I wish people would take a fucking minute to at least figure out what their main selling point is and just write it, you know, like we used to.

Agents can retrieve documents and query databases, but retrieval reliability limits the utility of agentic analytic abilities: a revenue metric answered faster is worth nothing if the number is wrong.

Just adding a few words takes it so far...

> Agents can retrieve documents and query databases, but reliability gates agentic analytics

this reads like an attempt at poetry

i had exactly the same issue. That first sentence triggered the bad experience i had with claude opus 5.0 interactions and i just closed the page immediately.. All of the PRs that I have seen with "gates"... it really impacts me

Opus 5.0 lingo left a lasting psychological damage on developers' psyches. And some good memes related to it.

yes pls linguists track these word overuses and help us get rid. Everytime someone says Gate IRL i lose my train of thaught

And yet it still contains what looks like human error, e.g. the "Software Components" table mixed up the columns for the database.

That's much more like an agent error than a human error.

It's quite common for LLMs to mix up values between columns in a table. It's often referred to as a structural hallucination, since it can happen with all kinds of relationships that form structures, not just columns in a table.

Hmm, seems their ontology didn't fix this assuming they use it themselves.

with this i agree whole heartedly, i can tolerate clanker code in exchange of the amount of value it can generate after heavy polishing, but good writing is something AI is leagues behind, so far back that is even making human writing worse by imitation. Use it for grammar, use it for punctuation, never let the clankers write by themselves and call it a day

Is that first diagram also pure slop? I would have to understand more of what they're doing to confidently say it is, but it seems odd.

All the four nodes on the right side have either only incoming or only outgoing arrows.

Typical marketing blocks in a power point. Not everything is AI slop, anymore than marketing has been 'slop'.

What? now I can't draw boxes and arrows without it being slop?

"Ingestion Service" has 3 arrows out and nothing coming in. What is it ingesting? Are DB nodes supposed to show the DB technology they are using or what they store/do? - one node is "PostreSQL" and another node is "Source databases".

Maybe typical marketing power points are worthless. But I called it slop because it didn't help me at all understanding what they are doing.

Especially with the resources of Nvidia FFS

Seriously? This is a professional assessment?

> If a tool is worth building and sharing, surely it’s also worth writing a brief summary of what it’s supposed to achieve in your own words?

Next the complaint will be any such description looks like AI slop.

Yes, it's a professional assessment. This page is 100% unedited slop, and it's unprofessional to publish something like this under the pretense that it's fit for human consumption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com