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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#891

Post by brylie »

bredren wrote: post #270
lxgr wrote: 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…

I've had good success with the Context7 model context protocol tool, which allows code agents, like GitHub Copilot, to look up the latest relevant version of library documentation including code snippets: https://context7.com/

Re: Claude 4

#892

Post by waynenilsen »

fintechie wrote: post #884

Is this the first major flop from Anthropic? This thing is unusable. Slow, awful responses. Since Sonnet 3.5 the only real advance in LLM coding has been Gemini 2.5 Pro's context length. Both complement each other quite well so I'll stick to switch between these 2.

I think the vibes are really based on how you use it and what you're working on. For me I had the exact opposite vibe. I use it to generate typescript with Claude code

Re: Claude 4

#893

Post by viraptor »

BoredPositron wrote: post #630
Doohickey-d wrote: post #48

> 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…

Because it's alchemy and everyone believes they have an edge on turning lead into gold.

We won't know without an official answer leaking, but a simple answer could be - people spend too much time trying to analyse those without understanding the details. There was a lot of talk on HN about the thinking steps second guessing and contradicting itself. But in practice that step is both trained by explicitly injecting the "however", "but" and similar words and they do more processing than simply interpreting the thinking part as text we read. If the content is commonly misunderstood, why show it?

Re: Claude 4

#894

Post by cwsx »

kmacdough wrote: post #886

Came here to learn what people think about Claude 4. Seems to be only armchair opinions on previous versions and the state of AI. The industry is not at all surprised that the current architecture of LLMS reached a plateau. Every other machine learning architecture we've ever used has gone through exactly the same cycle and frankly we're all surprised how far this current architecture has gotten us. Deepmind and Open…

I've been using `claude-4-sonnet` for the last few hours - haven't been able to test `opus` yet as it's still overloaded - but I have noticed a massive improvement so far.

I spent most of yesterday working on a tricky refactor (in a large codebase), rotating through `3.7/3.5/gemini/deepseek`, and barely making progress. I want to say I was running into context issues (even with very targeted prompts) but 3.7 loves a good rabbit-hole, so maybe it was that.

I also added a new "ticketing" system (via rules) to help it's task-specific memory, which I didn't really get to test it with 3.7 (before 4.0 came out), so unsure how much of an impact this has.

Using 4.0, the rest of this refactor (est. 4~ hrs w/ 3.7) took `sonnet-4.0` 45 minutes, including updating all of the documentation and tests (which normally with 3.7 requires multiple additional prompts, despite it being outlined in my rules files).

The biggest differences I've noticed:

  - much more accurate/consistent; it actually finishes tasks rather than telling me it's done (and nothing working)

  - less likely to get stuck in a rabbit hole

  - stopped getting stuck when unable to fix something (and trying the same 3 solutions over-and-over)

  - runs for MUCH longer without my intervention

  - when using 3.7:

     - had to prompt once every few minutes, 5 - 10mins MAX if the task was straight forward enough

     - had to cancel the output in 1/4 prompts as it'd get stuck in the same thought-loops

     - needed to restore from a previous checkpoint every few chats/conversations

  - with 4.0:

    - ive had 4 hours of basically one-shotting everything

    - prompts run for 10 mins MIN, and the output actually works

    - is remembering to run tests, fix errors, update docs etc
Obviously this is purely anecdotal - and, considering the temperament of LLMS, maybe I've just been lucky and will be back to cursing at it tomorrow, but imo this is the best feeling model since 3.5 released.

Re: Claude 4

#895

Post by viraptor »

hijodelsol wrote: post #839
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

If you read any work from Ed Zitron [1], they likely cannot remain sustainable. With OpenAI failing to convert into a for-profit, Microsoft being more interested in being a multi-modal provider and competing openly with OpenAI (e.g., open-sourcing Copilot vs. Windsurf, GitHub Agent with Claude as the standard vs. Codex) and Google having their own SOTA models and not relying on their stake in Anthropic, tarrifs compl…

There's still the question of whether they will try to change the architecture before they die. Using RWKV (or something similar) would drop the costs quite a bit, but will require risky investment. On the other hand some experiment with diffusion text already, so it's slowly happening.

Re: Claude 4

#896

Post by timmytokyo »

ineedaj0b wrote: post #426
_peregrine_ wrote: post #396

Already test Opus 4 and Sonnet 4 in our SQL Generation Benchmark ( https://llm-benchmark.tinybird.live/ ) Opus 4 beat all other models. It's good.

i pay for claude premium but actually use grok quite a bit, the 'think' function usually gets me where i want more often than not. odd you don't have any xAI models listed. sure grok is a terrible name but it surprises me more often. i have not tried the $250 chatgpt model yet though, just don't like openAI practices lately.

Not saying you're wrong about "OpenAI practices", but that's kind of a strange thing to complain about right after praising an LLM that was only recently inserting claims of "white genocide" into every other response.

Re: Claude 4

#897

Post by _el1s7 »

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.

Yes.

They just need to put out a simple changelog for these model updates, no need to make a big announcement everytime to make it look like it's a whole new thing. And the version numbers are even worse.

Re: Claude 4

#898

Post by sameermanek »

holoduke wrote: post #875
yahoozoo wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/reality-check/

This man (in the article) clearly hates AI. I also think he does not understand business and is not really able to predict the future.

But he did make good points though. AI was perceived more dangerous when only select few mega corps (usually backing each other) were pushing its capabilities.

But now, every $50B+ company seems to have their own model. Chinese companies have an edge in local models and the big tech seems to be fighting each other like cats and dogs for a tech which has failed to generate any profit while masses are draining the cash out from the companies with free usage and ghiblis.

What is the concrete business model here? Someone at google said "we have no moat" and i guess he was right, this is becoming more and more like a commodity.

Re: Claude 4

#899

Post by phyalow »

rw2 wrote: post #436
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?

Claude code is a poorer version of aider or cline in VScode. I have better results using them than using claude code alone.

Have you upgraded your binary recently. I feel like this was true 1-2 months ago, but not anymore.

Re: Claude 4

#900

Post by rxtexit »

hsn915 wrote: post #561
make3 wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the increases are not as fast, but they're still there. the models are already exceptionally strong, I'm not sure that basic questions can capture differences very well

Hence, "plateau"

"I don't have anything to ask the model, so the model hasn't improved"

Brilliant!

I am pretty much ready to be done talking to human idiots on the internet. It is just so boring after talking to these models.

Post reply on HN