11–20 of 758 posts
After paying for ChatGPT and OpenAI API credits for a year, I switched to Claude when they launched Artifacts and never looked back.
Claude Sonnet 3.5 is already so good, specially at coding. I'm looking forward to testing the new version if it is, indeed, even better.
Sonnet 3.5 was a major leap forward for me personally, similar to the GPT-3.5 to GPT-4 bump back in the day.
Why not rev the numbers? "3.5" vs. "3.5 New" feels weird -- is there a particular reason why Anthropic doesn't want to call this 3.6 (or even 3.5.1)?
though I am looking forward to using the new one in cursor.ai
Why not rev the numbers? "3.5" vs. "3.5 New" feels weird -- is there a particular reason why Anthropic doesn't want to call this 3.6 (or even 3.5.1)?
For a company selling intelligence, that's a pretty stupid way of labelling a new product.
Computer use API documentation: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/compute...
Computer Use Demo: https://github.com/anthropics/anthropic-quickstarts/tree/mai...
I still feel like the difference between Sonnet and Opus is a bit unclear. Somewhere on Anthropic's website it says that Opus is the most advanced, but on other parts it says Sonnet is the most advanced and also the fastest. The UI doesn't make the distinction clear either. Then on Perplexity, Perplexity says that Opus is the most advanced, compared to Sonnet. And finally, in the table in the blogpost, Opus isn't eve…