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

Claude 4

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#151

Post by htrp »

htrp wrote: post #19

Allegedly Claude 4 Opus can run autonomously for 7 hours (basically automating an entire SWE workday).

>Rakuten validated its capabilities with a demanding open-source refactor running independently for 7 hours with sustained performance.

From their customer testimonials in the announcement, more below

>Cursor calls it state-of-the-art for coding and a leap forward in complex codebase understanding. Replit reports improved precision and dramatic advancements for complex changes across multiple files. Block calls it the first model to boost code quality during editing and debugging in its agent, codename goose, while maintaining full performance and reliability. Rakuten validated its capabilities with a demanding open-source refactor running independently for 7 hours with sustained performance. Cognition notes Opus 4 excels at solving complex challenges that other models can't, successfully handling critical actions that previous models have missed.

>GitHub says Claude Sonnet 4 soars in agentic scenarios and will introduce it as the base model for the new coding agent in GitHub Copilot. Manus highlights its improvements in following complex instructions, clear reasoning, and aesthetic outputs. iGent reports Sonnet 4 excels at autonomous multi-feature app development, as well as substantially improved problem-solving and codebase navigation—reducing navigation errors from 20% to near zero. Sourcegraph says the model shows promise as a substantial leap in software development—staying on track longer, understanding problems more deeply, and providing more elegant code quality. Augment Code reports higher success rates, more surgical code edits, and more careful work through complex tasks, making it the top choice for their primary model.

Re: Claude 4

#152

Post by leetharris »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #112
sali0 wrote: post #51

I've found myself having brand loyalty to Claude. I don't really trust any of the other models with coding, the only one I even let close to my work is Claude. And this is after trying most of them. Looking forward to trying 4.

Gemini is _very_ good at architecture level thinking and implementation. I tend to find that I use Gemini for the first pass, then switch to Claude for the actual line-by-line details. Claude is also far superior at writing specs than Gemini.

Much like others, this is my stack (or o1-pro instead of Gemini 2.5 Pro). This is a big reason why I use aider for large projects. It allows me to effortlessly combine architecture models and code writing models.

I know in Cursor and others I can just switch models between chats, but it doesn't feel intentional the way aider does. You chat in architecture mode, then execute in code mode.

Re: Claude 4

#153

Post by [deleted] »

thimabi wrote: post #67

It’s been hard to keep up with the evolution in LLMs. SOTA models basically change every other week, and each of them has its own quirks. Differences in features, personality, output formatting, UI, safety filters… make it nearly impossible to migrate workflows between distinct LLMs. Even models of the same family exhibit strikingly different behaviors in response to the same prompt. Still, having to find each model’…

[deleted]

Re: Claude 4

#154

Post by zamadatix »

minimaxir wrote: post #102
tptacek wrote: post #83

Have they documented the context window changes for Claude 4 anywhere? My (barely informed) understanding was one of the reasons Gemini 2.5 has been so useful is that it can handle huge amounts of context --- 50-70kloc?

Context window is unchanged for Sonnet. (200k in/64k out): https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models/overv... In practice, the 1M context of Gemini 2.5 isn't that much of a differentiator because larger context has diminishing returns on adherence to later tokens.

The amount of degradation at a given context length isn't constant though so a model with 5x the context can either be completely useless or still better depending on the strength of the models you're comparing. Gemini actually does really great in both regards (context length and quality at length) but I'm not sure what a hard numbers comparison to the latest Claude models would look like.

A good deep dive on the context scaling topic in general https://youtu.be/NHMJ9mqKeMQ

Re: Claude 4

#155

Post by archon1410 »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #18

Sooo... it can play Pokemon. Feels like they had to throw that in after Google IO yesterday. But the real question is now can it beat the game including the Elite Four and the Champion. That was pretty impressive for the new Gemini model.

Claude Plays Pokemon was the original concept and inspiration behind "Gemini Plays Pokemon". Gemini arguably only did better because it had access to a much better agent harness and was being actively developed during the run.

See: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7mqp8uRnnPdbBzJZE/is-gemini-...

Re: Claude 4

#156

Post by [deleted] »

merksittich wrote: post #136

From the system card [0]: Claude Opus 4 - Knowledge Cutoff: Mar 2025 - Core Capabilities: Hybrid reasoning, visual analysis, computer use (agentic), tool use, adv. coding (autonomous), enhanced tool use & agentic workflows. - Thinking Mode: Std & "Extended Thinking Mode" Safety/Agency: ASL-3 (precautionary); higher initiative/agency than prev. models. 0/4 researchers believed that Claude Opus 4 could completely autom…

[deleted]

Re: Claude 4

#157

Post by [deleted] »

jareds wrote: post #13

I'll look at it when this shows up on https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/ I feel like keeping up with all the models is a full time job so I just use this instead and hopefully get 90% of the benefit I would by manually testing out every model.

[deleted]

Re: Claude 4

#158

Post by [deleted] »

energy123 wrote: post #79

> Finally, we've introduced thinking summaries for Claude 4 models that use a smaller model to condense lengthy thought processes. This summarization is only needed about 5% of the time—most thought processes are short enough to display in full. This is not better for the user. No users want this. If you're doing this to prevent competitors training on your thought traces then fine. But if you really believe this is…

[deleted]

Re: Claude 4

#159

Post by justinbaker84 »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #112
sali0 wrote: post #51

I've found myself having brand loyalty to Claude. I don't really trust any of the other models with coding, the only one I even let close to my work is Claude. And this is after trying most of them. Looking forward to trying 4.

Gemini is _very_ good at architecture level thinking and implementation. I tend to find that I use Gemini for the first pass, then switch to Claude for the actual line-by-line details. Claude is also far superior at writing specs than Gemini.

I have been very brand loyal to claude also but the new gemini model is amazing and I have been using it exclusively for all of my coding for the last week.

I am excited to try out this new model. I actually want to stay brand loyal to antropic because I like the people and the values they express.

Re: Claude 4

#160

Post by ashirviskas »

sergiotapia wrote: post #124
sali0 wrote: post #51

I've found myself having brand loyalty to Claude. I don't really trust any of the other models with coding, the only one I even let close to my work is Claude. And this is after trying most of them. Looking forward to trying 4.

Gemini 2.5 Pro replaced Claude 3.7 for me after using nothing but claude for a very long time. It's really fast, and really accurate. I can't wait to try Claude 4, it's always been the most "human" model in my opinion.

Idk I found Gemini 2.5 Breaking code style too often and introducing unneeded complexity on the top of leaving unfinished functions.
Post reply on HN