Exactly, looking at a few of these traces is enough to realise that it's a waste of time to read them. A friend once described it as like reading a fever dream,

Exactly, looking at a few of these traces is enough to realise that it's a waste of time to read them. A friend once described it as like reading a fever dream, which seems fitting. They're a necessary crutch for how the tools work, but probably should be considered an internal state representation that only sometimes accidentally seems to make sense. Wasn't there a study recently that even found a model's performance was sometimes better when the "reasoning" was nonsense? As in, no clear correllation between what the reasoning says in a human's interpretation, and how the model actually did with the task. I sometimes read the traces out of boredom or morbid curiosity. My favourite bit with Claude is how, even if you give a very comprehensive prompt in complete sentences, almost every trace will contain a variation of "the user asks me to X, but their thought cuts off mid-sentence." Fever dream.