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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#851

Post by lobochrome »

lxgr wrote: post #206
minimaxir wrote: post #118

An important note not mentioned in this announcement is that Claude 4's training cutoff date is March 2025, which is the latest of any recent model. (Gemini 2.5 has a cutoff of January 2025) https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models/overv...

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 knows uv now

Re: Claude 4

#852

Post by troupo »

max_on_hn wrote: post #334
jasonthorsness wrote: post #16

“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.” Maybe this model will push the “Assign to CoPilot” closer to the dream of having package upgrades and other mostly-mechanical stuff handled automatically. This tech could lead to a huge revival of older projects as the maintenance burden falls.

I am incredibly eager to see what affordable coding agents can do for open source :) in fact, I should really be giving away CheepCode[0] credits to open source projects. Pending any sort of formal structure, if you see this comment and want free coding agent runs, email me and I’ll set you up! [0] My headless coding agents product, similar to “assign to copilot” but works from your task board (Linear, Jira, etc) on…

> I am incredibly eager to see what affordable coding agents can do for open source :)

Oh, we know exactly what they will do: they will drive devs insane: https://www.reddit.com/r/ExperiencedDevs/comments/1krttqo/my...

Re: Claude 4

#853

Post by AdamN »

arewethereyeta wrote: post #815

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.

I believe Google released a paper about 2 years ago that said the same thing. There is no moat with AGI. Companies will find moats though - they just haven't figured out yet how.

Re: Claude 4

#854

Post by jjmarr »

kweingar wrote: post #746
jjmarr wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a junior developer it's much easier for me to jump into a new codebase or language and make an impact. I just shipped a new error message in LLVM because Cline found the 5 spots in 10k+ files where I needed to make the code changes. When I started an internship last year, it took me weeks to learn my way around my team's relatively smaller codebase. I consider this a skill and cost issue. If you are rich and able…

> If you cannot afford the hundreds of dollars a month Claude costs Employers will buy AI tools for their employees, this isn't a problem. If you're saying that you need to buy and learn these tools yourself in order to get a job, I strongly disagree. Prompting is not exactly rocket science, and with every generation of models it gets easier. Soon you'll be able to pick it up in a few hours. It's not a differentiator…

I need side projects and OSS contributions to get hired as a new graduate or an intern. The bar for both of those will be much higher if everyone is using AI.

Re: Claude 4

#855

Post by hn111 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #837
max_on_hn wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am incredibly eager to see what affordable coding agents can do for open source :) in fact, I should really be giving away CheepCode[0] credits to open source projects. Pending any sort of formal structure, if you see this comment and want free coding agent runs, email me and I’ll set you up! [0] My headless coding agents product, similar to “assign to copilot” but works from your task board (Linear, Jira, etc) on…

Especially since the EU just made open source contributors liable for cybersecurity (Cyber Resilience Act). Just let AI contribute and ur good

Didn’t they make an exception for open-source projects? https://opensource.org/blog/the-european-regulators-listened...

Re: Claude 4

#856

Post by smcleod »

threecheese wrote: post #640
smcleod wrote: post #621

Still no reduction in price for models capable of Agentic coding over the past year of releases. I'd take the capabilities of the old Sonnet 3.5v2 model if it was ¼ the price of current Sonnet for most situations. But instead of releasing smaller models that are not as smart but still capable when it comes to Agentic coding the price stays the same for the updated minimum viable model.

They have added prompt caching, which can mitigate this. I largely agree though, and one of the reasons I don’t use Claude Code much is the unpredictable cost. Like many of us, I am already paying for all the frontier model providers as well as various API usage, plus Cursor and GitHub, just trying to keep up.

Honestly Cline and Roo Code are so far ahead of the vendors native tools (and cursor etc) too.

Re: Claude 4

#857

Post by Kostic »

lxgr wrote: post #206
minimaxir wrote: post #118

An important note not mentioned in this announcement is that Claude 4's training cutoff date is March 2025, which is the latest of any recent model. (Gemini 2.5 has a cutoff of January 2025) https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models/overv...

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's relevant from an engineering perspective. They have a way to develop a new model in months now.

Re: Claude 4

#858

Post by jjmarr »

BeefySwain wrote: post #701
jjmarr wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a junior developer it's much easier for me to jump into a new codebase or language and make an impact. I just shipped a new error message in LLVM because Cline found the 5 spots in 10k+ files where I needed to make the code changes. When I started an internship last year, it took me weeks to learn my way around my team's relatively smaller codebase. I consider this a skill and cost issue. If you are rich and able…

I'm curious what tooling you are using to accomplish this?

I used Cline+Claude 3.7 Sonnet for the initial draft of this LLVM PR. There's a lot of handholding and the final version was much different than the original.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130458

Right now I'm using Roo Code and Claude 4.0. Roo Code looks cooler and draws diagrams but I don't know if it's better.

Re: Claude 4

#859

Post by pja »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #646
pja wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC RLHF inevitably compromises model accuracy in order to train the model not to give dangerous responses. It would make sense if the model used for train-of-though was trained differently (perhaps a different expert from an MoE?) from the one used to interact with the end user, since the end user is only ever going to see its output filtered through the public model the chain-of-thought model can be closer to the…

Correct me if I'm wrong--my understanding is that RHLF was the difference between GPT 3 and GPT 3.5, aka the original ChatGPT. If you never used GPT 3, it was... not good. Well, that's not fair, it was revolutionary in its own right, but it was very much a machine for predicting the most likely next word, it couldn't talk to you the way ChatGPT can. Which is to say, I think RHLF is important for much more than just p…

Oh sure, RLHF instruction tuning was what turned an model of mostly academic interest into a global phenomenon.

But it also compromised model accuracy & performance at the same time: The more you tune to eliminate or reinforce specific behaviours, the more you affect the overall performance of the model.

Hence my speculation that Anthropic is using a chain-of-thought model that has not been alignment tuned to improve performance. This would then explain why you don’t get to see its output without signing up to special agreements. Those agreements presumably explain all this to counter-parties that Anthropic trusts will cope with non-aligned outputs in the chain-of-thought.

Post reply on HN