Live data from Hacker News

Claude 4

anthropic.com

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#781

It feels like these new models are no longer making order of magnitude jumps, but are instead into the long tail of incremental improvements. It seems like we might be close to maxing out what the current iteration of LLMs can accomplish and we're into the diminishing returns phase. If that's the case, then I have a bad feeling for the state of our industry. My experience with LLMs is that their code does _not_ cut i…

Under what metrics are you judging these improvements? If you're talking about improving benchmark scores, as others have pointed out, those are increasing at a regular rate (putting aside the occasional questionable training practices where the benchmark is in the training set). But most individuals seem to be judging "order of magnitude jumps" in terms of whether the model can solve a very specific set of their use…

I think it actually makes sense to trust your vibes more than benchmarks. The act of creating a benchmark is the hard part. If we had a perfect benchmark AI problems would be trivially solvable. Benchmarks are meaningless on their own, they are supposed to be a proxy for actual usefulness.

I'm not sure what is better than, can it do what I want? And for me the ratio of yes to no on that hasn't changed too much.

Re: Claude 4

#782

Claude 3.8 wrote me some code this morning, and I was running into a bug. I switched to 4 and gave it its own code. It pointed out the bug right away and fixed it. So an upgrade for me :-)

Can you share the code?

Re: Claude 4

#783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be! But that's also what people said about all the models before it!

And they might all be right! > This tech could lead to... I don't think he's saying this is the version that will suddenly trigger a Renaissance. Rather, it's one solid step that makes the path ever more promising. Sure, everyone gets a bit overexcited each release until they find the bounds. But the bounds are expanding, and the need for careful prompt engineering is diminishing. Ever since 3.7, Claude has been a re…

Did you not see the live stream? They took a feature request for excalidraw (table support) and Claude 4 worked on it for 90 minutes and the PR was working as expected. I’m not sure if they were using sonnet or opus.

Re: Claude 4

#785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet despite this all the LLMS I've tried struggle to scale beyond much more than a single module. They're vast improvements on that test perhaps, but in real life they still struggle to be coherent over larger projects and scales.

Those are different kind of issues. Improving the quality of actions is what we're seeing here. Then for the larger projects/contexts the leaders will have to battle it out between the improved agents, or actually moving to something like RWKV and processing the whole project in one go.

They may be different kinds of issues but they are the issues that actually matter.

Re: Claude 4

#786
post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It feels like these new models are no longer making order of magnitude jumps, but are instead into the long tail of incremental improvements. It seems like we might be close to maxing out what the current iteration of LLMs can accomplish and we're into the diminishing returns phase." SWE bench from ~30-40% to ~70-80% this year

3% to 40% is a 13x improvement 40% to 80% is a 2x improvement It’s not that the second leap isn’t impressive, it just doesn’t change your perspective on reality in the same way.

80% to 100% would be an even smaller improvement but arguably the most impressive and useful (assuming the benchmark isn't in the training data)

Re: Claude 4

#787
post #207
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't believe AI is ever going to get to that level. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I really don't believe that an LLM is the right tool for a job that requires novel thinking about out of the ordinary problems like all the weird edge cases and poor documentation that comes up when trying to upgrade old software.

Actually, I think the opposite: Upgrading a project that needs dependency updates to new major versions—let’s say Zod 4, or Tailwind 3—requires reading the upgrade guides and documentation, and transferring that into the project. In other words, transforming text. It’s thankless, stupid toil. I’m very confident I will not be doing this much more often in my career.

Except that for breaking changes you frequently need to know why it was done the old way in order to know what behavior it ago have after the update.

Re: Claude 4

#788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed an interesting trend: Most people who are happy with LLM coding say something like "Wow, it's awesome. I asked it to do X and it did it so fast with minimal bugs, and good code", and occasionally show the output. Many provide even more details. Most people who are not happy with LLM coding ... provide almost no details. As someone who's impressed by LLM coding, when I read a post like yours, I tend to ha…

Two problems: 1) Writing a high-performance memory allocator for a game engine in Rust: https://github.com/golddranks/bang/tree/main/libs/arena/src (Still work in progress, so it's in a bit messy state.) Didn't seem to understand the design I had in mind, and/or the requirements and goes on tangents and starts changing the design. In the end, coded the main code myself and used LLM for writing tests with some success…

Thanks for the concrete examples! These seem to be more sophisticated than the cases I use them for. Mostly I'm using them for tedious, simpler routine code (needing to process all files in a directory in a certain way, output them in a similar tree structure, with changes to filenames, logging, etc).

Your Django ORM may be more complicated than the ones I use. I haven't tried it much with Django (still reluctant to use it with production code), but a coworker did use it on our code base and it found good optimizations for some of our inefficient ORM usage. He learned new Django features as a result (new to him, that is).

> I tried to prompt it with a chat style discussion, but it often did bigger edits I would have liked, and failed to share a high-level plan in advance, something I often requested.

With Aider, I often use /ask to do a pure chat (no agents). It gives me a big picture overview and the code changes. If I like it, I simply say "Go ahead". Or I refine with corrections, and when it gets it right, I say "Go ahead". So far it rarely has changed code beyond what I want, and the few times it did turned out to be a good idea.

Also, with Aider, you can limit the context to a fixed set of files. That doesn't solve it changing other things in the file - but as I said, rarely a problem for me.

One thing to keep in mind - it's better to view the LLM not as an extension of yourself, but more like a coworker who is making changes that you're reviewing. If you have a certain vision/design in mind, don't expect it to follow it all the way to low level details - just as a coworker will sometimes deviate.

> My biggest frustrations were not coding problems per se, but just general inability to follow instructions and see implications, and lacking the awareness to step back and ask for confirmations or better directions if there are "hold on, somethings not right" kind of moments.

You have to explicitly tell it to ask questions (and some models ask great questions - not sure about Sonnet 3.7). Read this page:

https://harper.blog/2025/02/16/my-llm-codegen-workflow-atm/

I don't follow much of what's on his post, but the first part where you specify what you want it to do and have it ask you questions has always been useful! He's talking about big changes, but I sometimes have it ask me for minor changes. I just add to my prompts "Ask me something if it seems ambiguous".

Re: Claude 4

#789

> Users requiring raw chains of thought for advanced prompt engineering can contact sales So it seems like all 3 of the LLM providers are now hiding the CoT - which is a shame, because it helped to see when it was going to go down the wrong track, and allowing to quickly refine the prompt to ensure it didn't. In addition to openAI, Google also just recently started summarizing the CoT, replacing it with an, in my opi…

The trend towards opaque is inexorable.

https://noisegroove.substack.com/p/somersaulting-down-the-sl...

Post reply on HN