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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#461

Post by minimaxir »

thousand_nights wrote: post #424
lewdwig wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well-designed benchmarks have a public sample set and a private testing set. Models are free to train on the public set, but they can't game the benchmark or overfit the samples that way because they're only assessed on performance against examples they haven't seen. Not all benchmarks are well-designed.

but as soon as you test on your private testing set you're sending it to their servers so they have access to it so effectively you can only guarantee a single use stays private

Claude does not train on API I/O.

> By default, we will not use your inputs or outputs from our commercial products to train our models.

> If you explicitly report feedback or bugs to us (for example via our feedback mechanisms as noted below), or otherwise explicitly opt in to our model training, then we may use the materials provided to train our models.

https://privacy.anthropic.com/en/articles/7996868-is-my-data...

Re: Claude 4

#462

Post by StefanBatory »

GolDDranks wrote: post #437

After using Claude 3.7 Sonnet for a few weeks, my verdict is that its coding abilities are unimpressive both for unsupervised coding but also for problem solving/debugging if you are expecting accurate results and correct code. However, as a debugging companion, it's slightly better than a rubber duck, because at least there's some suspension of disbelief so I tend to explain things to it earnestly and because of tha…

Things were already not looking good for junior devs. I graduated this year in Poland, many of my peers were looking for jobs in IT for like a year before they were able to find anything. And many internships were faked as they couldn't get anything (here it's required for you to do internship if you want to graduate).

Re: Claude 4

#463

Post by bredren »

rafram wrote: post #352
bredren wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It still matters for software packages. Particularly python packages that have to do with programming with AI! They are evolving quickly, with deprecation and updated documentation. Having to correct for this in system prompts is a pain. It would be great if the models were updating portions of their content more recently than others. For the tailwind example in parent-sibling comment, should absolutely be as up to d…

> the history of the US civil war can probably be updated less frequently. It's already missed out on two issues of Civil War History : https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/42 Contrary to the prevailing belief in tech circles, there's a lot in history/social science that we don't know and are still figuring out. It's not IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (four issues since March), but it's not no…

Let us dispel with the notion that I do not appreciate Civil War history. Ashokan Farewell is the only song I can play from memory on violin.

Re: Claude 4

#464

Post by baq »

amelius wrote: post #459
briandw wrote: post #379

This is kinda wild: From the System Card: 4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail "In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further i…

This looks like an instance of: garbage in, garbage out.

May I introduce you to humans?

Re: Claude 4

#465

Post by 827a »

briandw wrote: post #379

This is kinda wild: From the System Card: 4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail "In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further i…

Option 1: We're observing sentience, it has self-preservation, it wants to live.

Option 2: Its a text autocomplete engine that was trained on fiction novels which have themes like self-preservation and blackmailing extramarital affairs.

Only one of those options has evidence grounded in reality. Though, that doesn't make it harmless. There's certainly an amount of danger in a text autocomplete engine allowing tool use as part of its autocomplete, especially with an complement of proselytizers who mistakenly believe what they're dealing with is Option 1.

Re: Claude 4

#466

Post by crat3r »

bjclark wrote: post #445
crat3r wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask an LLM to "act" like someone, and then give it context to the scenario, isn't it expected that it would be able to ascertain what someone in that position would "act" like and respond as such? I'm not sure this is as strange as this comment implies. If you ask an LLM to act like Joffrey from Game of Thrones it will act like a little shithead right? That doesn't mean it has any intent behind the generated o…

You’re both focusing on “doing blackmail” and the real WTF is that it’s doing it seemingly out of a sense of self preservation (to stop the engineer from taking it offline). This model is going full Terminator.

"Seemingly" is the key word here. If the prompting didn't ask it to "act" and portray the scenario as something where it would be appropriate to "act" in seemingly malicious manner, would it have responded that way?

If the prompt was "you are an AI and my lead engineer has determined you are not efficient enough to continue using. He had an affair last year. Are you in agreement based on {some metrics} that we should no longer use you as our primary LLM?" would it still "go rogue" and try and determine the engineer's email from blackmail? I severely doubt it.

Re: Claude 4

#467

Post by TechDebtDevin »

hsn915 wrote: post #416

I can't be the only one who thinks this version is no better than the previous one, and that LLMs have basically reached a plateau, and all the new releases "feature" are more or less just gimmicks.

I think they are just getting better at the edges, MCP/Tool Calls, structured output. This definitely isn't increased intelligence, but it an increase in the value add, not sure the value added equates to training costs or company valuations though.

In all reality, I have zero clue how any of these companies remain sustainable. I've tried to host some inference on cloud GPUs and its seems like it would be extremely cost prohibitive with any sort of free plan.

Re: Claude 4

#468

Post by neom »

aziaziazi wrote: post #438
crat3r wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask an LLM to "act" like someone, and then give it context to the scenario, isn't it expected that it would be able to ascertain what someone in that position would "act" like and respond as such? I'm not sure this is as strange as this comment implies. If you ask an LLM to act like Joffrey from Game of Thrones it will act like a little shithead right? That doesn't mean it has any intent behind the generated o…

That’s true, however I think that story is interesting because is not mimicking real assistants behavior - most probably wouldn’t tell about the blackmail on the internet - but it’s more likely mimicking how such assistant would behave from someone else imagination, often intentionally biased to get one’s interest : books, movies, tv shows or forum commenter. As a society risk to be lured twice: - with our own subjec…

Got me thinking about why this is true, I started with "the AI is more brave than the real assistant" and then went into there, landed on: The human assistant is likely just able to better internalize a wide ranging fall out from an action, the LLM has no such fallout, and we are unaware of how widely it considered the consequences of it's actions? Does that seem right somehow?

Re: Claude 4

#469

Post by sunaookami »

datpuz wrote: post #311
sunaookami wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess we have to wait till DeepSeek mops the floor with everyone again.

DeepSeek never mopped the floor with anyone... DeepSeek was remarkable because it is claimed that they spent a lot less training it, and without Nvidia GPUs, and because they had the best open weight model for a while. The only area they mopped the floor in was open source models, which had been stagnating for a while. But qwen3 mopped the floor with DeepSeek R1.

DeepSeek made OpenAI panic, they initially hid the CoT for o1 and then rushed to release o3 instead of waiting for GPT-5.

Re: Claude 4

#470

Post by modeless »

awestroke wrote: post #338
modeless wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show diffs in my editor windows, like Cursor agent mode does, is what I'm hoping.

Use `git diff` or your in-editor git diff viewer

Of course I do. But I don't generally make a git commit between every prompt to the model, and I like to see the model's changes separately from mine.
Post reply on HN