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

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#241

Post by martinsnow »

fhd2 wrote: post #196
martinsnow wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like investors have bought into the idea that llms has to improve no matter what. I see it in the company I'm currently at. No matter what we have to work with whatever bullshit these models can output. I am however looking at more responsible companies for new employment.

I'd argue a lot of the current AI hype is fuelled by hopium that models will improve significantly and hallucinations will be solved. I'm a (minor) investor, and I see this a lot: People integrate LLMs for some use case, lately increasingly agentic (i.e. in a loop), and then when I scrutinise the results, the excuse is that models will improve, and _then_ they'll have a viable product. I currently don't bet on that.…

Our problem is that non coding stakeholders produce garbage tiers frontend prototypes and expect us to include whatever garbage they created in our production pipeline! Wtf is going on? That's why I'm polishing my resume and getting out of this mess. We're controlled by managers who don't know Wtf they're doing.

Re: Claude 4

#242

Post by ChadMoran »

modeless wrote: post #5

Ooh, VS Code integration for Claude Code sounds nice. I do feel like Claude Code works better than the native Cursor agent mode. Edit: How do you install it? Running `/ide` says "Make sure your IDE has the Claude Code extension", where do you get that?

I've been looking for that as well.

Re: Claude 4

#243

Post by j_maffe »

hansmayer wrote: post #62
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.

Right, but on the other hand... how is it even useful? Let's say it can beat the game, so what? So it can (kind of) summarise or write my emails - which is something I neither want nor need, they produce mountains of sloppy code, which I would have to end up fixing, and finally they can play a game? Where is the killer app? The gaming approach was exactly the premise of the original AI efforts in the 1960s, that teac…

> Where is the killer app?

My man, ChatGPT is the sixth most visited website in the world right now.

Re: Claude 4

#244

Post by jacob019 »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #61

Is this really worthy of a claude 4 label? Was there a new pre-training run? Cause this feels like 3.8... only swe went up significantly, and that as we all understand by now is done by cramming on specific post training data and doesn't generalize to intelligence. The agentic tooluse didn't improve and this says to me that it's not really smarter.

Hey, at least they incremented the version number. I'll take it.

Re: Claude 4

#245

Post by chiffre01 »

I always like the benchmark these by vibe coding Dreamcast demos with KallistiOS. It's a good test of how deep the training was.

Re: Claude 4

#246

Post by mikepurvis »

tmpz22 wrote: post #96
ModernMech wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of my benchmark for whether or not these models are useful. I've got a project that needs some extensive refactoring to get working again. Mostly upgrading packages, but also it will require updating the code to some new language semantics that didn't exist when it was written. So far, current AI models can make essentially zero progress on this task. I'll keep trying until they can!

And IMO it has a long way to go. There is a lot of nuance when orchestrating dependencies that can cause subtle errors in an application that are not easily remedied. For example a lot of llms (I've seen it in Gemini 2.5, and Claude 3.7) will code non-existent methods in dynamic languages. While these runtime errors are often auto-fixable, sometimes they aren't, and breaking out of an agentic workflow to deep dive th…

"... and breaking out of an agentic workflow to deep dive the problem is quite frustrating"

Maybe that's the problem that needs solving then? The threshold doesn't have to be "bot capable of doing entire task end to end", like it could also be "bot does 90% of task, the worst and most boring part, human steps in at the end to help with the one bit that is more tricky".

Or better yet, the bot is able to recognize its own limitations and proactively surface these instances, be like hey human I'm not sure what to do in this case; based on the docs I think it should be A or B, but I also feel like C should be possible yet I can't get any of them to work, what do you think?

As humans, it's perfectly normal to put up a WIP PR and then solicit this type of feedback from our colleagues; why would a bot be any different?

Re: Claude 4

#247

Post by michaelbrave »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #200
saubeidl wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like LLM progress in general has kinda stalled and we're only getting small incremental improvements from here. I think we've reached peak LLM - if AGI is a thing, it won't be through this architecture.

Even if LLMs never reach AGI, they're good enough to where a lot of very useful tooling can be built on top of/around them. I think of it more as the introduction of computing or the internet. That said, whether or not being a provider of these services is a profitable endeavor is still unknown. There's a lot of subsidizing going on and some of the lower value uses might fall to the wayside as companies eventually ne…

this was my take as well. Though after a while I've started thinking about it closer to the introduction of electricity which in a lot of ways would be considered the second stage of the industrial revolution, the internet and AI might be considered the second stage of the computing revolution (or so I expect history books to label it as). But just like electricity, it doesn't seem to be very profitable for the providers of electricity, but highly profitable for everything that uses it.

Re: Claude 4

#248

Post by amarcheschi »

goatlover wrote: post #186
saubeidl wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like LLM progress in general has kinda stalled and we're only getting small incremental improvements from here. I think we've reached peak LLM - if AGI is a thing, it won't be through this architecture.

Which brings up the question of why AGI is a thing at all. Shouldn't LLMs just be tools to make humans more productive?

Think of the poor vcs who are selling agi as the second coming of christ

Re: Claude 4

#249

Post by maeil »

danielbln wrote: post #181
barnabee wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any benefit in those VC funded wrappers over open source VS Code (or better, VSCodium) extensions like Roo/Cline. They survive through VC funding, marketing, and inertia, I suppose.

Cline is VC funded.

Please give us a source as this does not seem publically verifiable.

Re: Claude 4

#250

Post by gokhan »

Interesting alignment notes from Opus 4: https://x.com/sleepinyourhat/status/1925593359374328272

"Be careful about telling Opus to ‘be bold’ or ‘take initiative’ when you’ve given it access to real-world-facing tools...If it thinks you’re doing something egregiously immoral, for example, like faking data in a pharmaceutical trial, it will use command-line tools to contact the press, contact regulators, try to lock you out of the relevant systems, or all of the above."

Post reply on HN