Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude 2.1

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 339 posts

Re: Claude 2.1

#101

Post by ren_engineer »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #54
sebgr wrote: post #19

For coding it is still 10x worse than gpt4. I asked it to write a simple database sync function and it gives me tons of pseudocode like `//sync object with best practices`. When I ask it to give me real code it forgets tons of key aspects.

Yeah but to be honest been a pain last days to get gpt 4 to write full pieces of code for more the 10-15 lines. Have to re-ask many times and at some point it forgets my initial specifications.

definitely noticed it being "lazy" in the sense it will give the outline for code and then literally put in comments telling me to fill out the rest, basically pseudocode. Have to assume they are trying to save on token output to reduce resources used when they can get away with it

Re: Claude 2.1

#102

Post by a_vanderbilt »

luke-stanley wrote: post #5

Awesome. Any GPT-4-turbo / gpt-4-1106-preview comparisons?

Anecdotally, it's not even close. It has way shallower knowledge and its reasoning is pretty limited. It's not even GPT-3.5 level in practical usage in my opinion. It's definitely faster, but far too lacking to be a replacement.

Re: Claude 2.1

#103

Post by infecto »

michaelt wrote: post #91
inciampati wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except: you can feed it an entire programming language manual, all the docs for all the modules you want to use, and _then_ it's stunningly good, whipping chatgpt4 that same 10x.

I gather the pricing is $8 for a million input tokens [1] so if your language's manual is the size of a typical paperback novel, that'd be about $0.8 per question. And presumably you get to pay that if you ask any follow-up questions too. Sounds like a kinda expensive way of doing things, to me. [1] https://www-files.anthropic.com/production/images/model_pric...

From my perspective it sounds pretty cheap if we get to the answers immediately.

Re: Claude 2.1

#104

Post by YetAnotherNick »

behnamoh wrote: post #14

I don’t like Anthropic. they over-RLHF their models and make them refuse most requests. A conversation with Claude has never been pleasant to me. it feels like the model has an attitude or something.

> over-RLHF

Over RLAIF, which basically makes the model less diverse and being more and more like the seed content which they call "Constitution" in their papers. Seed content is available here[1]. You can clearly see it is awful and has no diversity in opinions and basically generated by a team who only knows of textbook definition of ethics.

[1]: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/hh-rlhf

Re: Claude 2.1

#105

Post by sp332 »

s1gnp0st wrote: post #70
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but to be honest been a pain last days to get gpt 4 to write full pieces of code for more the 10-15 lines. Have to re-ask many times and at some point it forgets my initial specifications.

Earlier in the year I had ChatGPT 4 write a large, complicated C program. It did so remarkably well, and most of the code worked without further tweaking. Today I have the same experience. The thing fills in placeholder comments to skip over more difficult regions of the code, and routinely forgets what we were doing. Aside all the recent OpenAI drama, I've been displeased as a paying customer that their products rou…

OpenAI just had to pause signups after demo day because of capacity issues. They also switched to making users pay in advance for usage instead of billing them after.

Re: Claude 2.1

#106

Post by spdustin »

infecto wrote: post #12

Great but it stills leaves the problem of accessing it. I have never heard back on access from Anthropic's website and still waiting on the request through Bedrock. Not sure the success rate of others but it seems impossible as a business to get access to the API. Not a downplay on their announcement but with how difficult it seems to get API access its hard to see the improvement.

I requested access through Bedrock and had it minutes later. It's an automated process.

Re: Claude 2.1

#107

Post by leetharris »

robga wrote: post #94
legendofbrando wrote: post #31

I would love to use their API but I can never get anyone to respond to me. It's like they have no real interest in being a developer platform. Has anyone gotten their vague application approved?

I applied a few months ago. Last week I received an email: “We’re pleased to let you know that we’re expanding access to the Claude API. As the next step in considering your application, we’ll need some further information from you. Please fill out our onboarding form.” The form seems to be the same form I filled in months before. I’ve not heard back in the 7 days since.

It is amazing to me that VCs are giving billions to these companies that have no idea how to launch or support products.

Re: Claude 2.1

#108

Post by legendofbrando »

jasondclinton wrote: post #71
legendofbrando wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same experience on my side; they're uninterested in actually running the business it seems.

Howdy, CISO of Anthropic here. Sorry that you've had a bad sign-up process. Not sure how this happened, but please reach out to support@ and we'll look into it!

Deeply appreciate the outreach- just sent a note and mentioned your name. I’d gotten a note that you all would have update on my api access within a few weeks so sent that along so the support team has the context

Re: Claude 2.1

#109

Post by CSMastermind »

s1gnp0st wrote: post #70
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but to be honest been a pain last days to get gpt 4 to write full pieces of code for more the 10-15 lines. Have to re-ask many times and at some point it forgets my initial specifications.

Earlier in the year I had ChatGPT 4 write a large, complicated C program. It did so remarkably well, and most of the code worked without further tweaking. Today I have the same experience. The thing fills in placeholder comments to skip over more difficult regions of the code, and routinely forgets what we were doing. Aside all the recent OpenAI drama, I've been displeased as a paying customer that their products rou…

Agreed OpenAI products have a history of degrading in quality over time.

Re: Claude 2.1

#110

Post by jasondclinton »

imdsm wrote: post #63

I don't know what version claude.ai is currently running (apparently 2.1 is live, see below) but it's terrible compared to GPT-4. See below conversation I just had. > Claude 2.1 is available now in our API, and is also powering our chat interface at claude.ai for both the free and Pro tiers. ---- What version are you? I'm Claude from Anthropic. Do you know your version? No, I don't have information about a specific v…

Heya, as with all language models, if you open the conversation with antagonistic questions, the rest of the conversation thread becomes tainted. If you ask most of your questions in a new thread, almost everything you ask here will be answered. See our model card for more prompting guidance.
Post reply on HN