Live data from Hacker News

Claude 4

anthropic.com

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#821

Been playing around with it in Cursor and have to say I'm pretty dang impressed. Did notice a few times that it got stuck in a loop of trying to repeatedly make its implementation better. I suppose that is ok for some use cases but it started overthinking. I then gently prompted it by saying "you're way overthinking this. Just do a simple change like ..." I guess there's still a purpose for developers

You are now fine tuning their models, and you pay them money to do it.

Re: Claude 4

#822

Is there any way to access the models without: - Linking the chats with my personal account - Having Anthropic train the model with my data? Like, having the knowledge of the model with the privacy of local LLMs?

Amazon bedrock ?

Re: Claude 4

#823

Is there any way to access the models without: - Linking the chats with my personal account - Having Anthropic train the model with my data? Like, having the knowledge of the model with the privacy of local LLMs?

>Having Anthropic train the model with my data?

No.

Re: Claude 4

#824
Me:

    is 'Claude does not have the ability to run the code it generates yet' a split infinitive? it's clumsy, no? i'd say 'Claude does not yet have the ability to run the code it generates'
Claude:

    You're absolutely right on both counts! 

    "Claude does not have the ability to run the code it generates yet" isn't technically a split infinitive (that would be something like "to quickly run"), but it is definitely clumsy. The word "yet" is awkwardly placed at the end, creating unnecessary distance from the verb it's modifying.

    Your revision - "Claude does not yet have the ability to run the code it generates" - flows much better. It places "yet" right after the auxiliary verb where it naturally belongs, making the sentence cleaner and more direct.

    The original reads like an afterthought was tacked on, while yours has a natural rhythm that emphasizes the temporal aspect more clearly.
;-)

Re: Claude 4

#825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Re: Prompting to ask. Thanks, I'll try that. And I'm gonna try version 4 as soon as I can.

Re: Claude 4

#826
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With web search being available in all major user-facing LLM products now (and I believe in some APIs as well, sometimes unintentionally), I feel like the exact month of cutoff is becoming less and less relevant, at least in my personal experience. The models I'm regularly using are usually smart enough to figure out that they should be pulling in new information for a given topic.

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…

Cursor have a nice ”docs” feature for this, that have saved me from battles with constant version reversing actions from our dear LLM overlords.

Re: Claude 4

#827
Well done to Anthropic for having the courage to release an N+1 model. OpenAI seems so afraid of disappointing with GPT 5 that it will just release models with a number asymptotically approaching 5 forever, generating unnecessary confusion about which is the best in their lineup of models. It’s branding worse than Windows versions.

Re: Claude 4

#828

I've been using Claude Opus 4 the past couple of hours. I absolutely HATE the new personality it's got. Like ChatGPT at its worst. Awful. Completely over the top "this is brilliant" or "this completely destroys the argument!" or "this is catastrophically bad for them". I hope they fix this very quickly.

ask it to assume Eastern European personality in which 'it's fine' is the highest praise you'll ever get.

Re: Claude 4

#829

I feel like these AI companies are in a gold rush while somebody else is selling the shovels. I've never jumped ship for the same service, from a vendor to another... so often. Looks like a race to the bottom where the snake eats itself.

There’s a reason NVIDIA’s stock price exploded over the past two years.

Re: Claude 4

#830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a weirdly cherry-picked example. The gaming approach was also the premise of DeepMind's AI efforts in 2016, which was nine years ago. Regardless of what you think about the utility of text (code), video, audio, and image generation, surely you think that their progress on the protein-folding problem and weather prediction have been useful to society? What counts as a killer app to you? Can you name one?

Well the example came from their own press-release, so who cherry-picked it? Why should I name the next killer app ? Isnt that something that we just recognise the moment it shows up, like we did with www and e-commerce? Its not something a comittee staffed by a bunch of MBAs defines ahead of the time, as is currently the case with the use-cases that are being pushed into our faces every day. I would applaud and cheer if their efforts were focused on scientific problems that you mentioned. Unfortunately for us, this is not what the bean-counters heading all major tech corps see as useful. Do you honestly think any one of them has the benefit of society at heart? No, they want to make money by selling you bullshit products like e-mail summarising and such. Perhaps in the process also to get rid of software developers altogether as well. Then once we as the society lose the ability to do anything on our own, relying on these bullshit machines they gain not only in terms of being able to entshittify their products and squeeze that extra buck, but also opens a "world of possibilities" (for the rich) in terms of societal control. But sure, at least you will still have your, what is it now, two-day delivery from Amazon and a handholding tool to help you speak, write and do anything meaningful as a human being.
Post reply on HN