Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#611

Post by waffletower »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #452
surajkumar5050 wrote: post #396

I think two things are getting conflated in this discussion. First: marginal inference cost vs total business profitability. It’s very plausible (and increasingly likely) that OpenAI/Anthropic are profitable on a per-token marginal basis, especially given how cheap equivalent open-weight inference has become. Third-party providers are effectively price-discovering the floor for inference. Second: model lifecycle econ…

> It’s very plausible (and increasingly likely) that OpenAI/Anthropic are profitable on a per-token marginal basis There any many places that will not use models running on hardware provided by OpenAI / Anthropic. That is the case true of my (the Australian) government at all levels. They will only use models running in Australia. Consequently AWS (and I presume others) will run models supplied by the AI companies fo…

In the case of Anthropic -- they host on AWS all the while their models are accessible via AWS APIs as well, the infrastructure between the two is likely to be considerably shared. Particularly as caching configuration and API limitations are near identical between Anthropic and Bedrock APIs invoking Anthropic models. It is likely a mutually beneficial arrangement which does not necessarily hinder Anthropic revenue.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#612

Post by viraptor »

ribosometronome wrote: post #606
viraptor wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to really test this, search/replace the names with your own random ones and see if it lists those. Otherwise, LLMs have most of the books memorised anyway: https://arstechnica.com/features/2025/06/study-metas-llama-3...

Couldn't you just ask the LLM which 50 (or 49) spells appear in the first four Harry Potter books without the data for comparison?

It's not going to be as consistent. It may get bored of listing them (you know how you can ask for many examples and get 10 in response?), or omit some minor ones for other reasons.

By replacing the names with something unique, you'll get much more certainty.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#613

Post by selcuka »

throwuxiytayq wrote: post #456
rcxdude wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A place I worked at used it as part of an interview question (it wasn't some pass/fail thing to get it 100% correct, and was partly a jumping off point to a different question). This was in a city where nearly everyone uses bicycles as everyday transportation. It was surprising how many supposedly mechanical-focused people who rode a bike everyday, even rode a bike to the interview, would draw a bike that would not w…

This is why at my company in interviews we ask people to draw a CPU diagram. You'd be surprised how many supposedly-senior computer programmers would draw a processor that would not work.

Poe's Law [1]:

> Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#614

Post by derwiki »

legitster wrote: post #72

I'm still not sure I understand Anthropic's general strategy right now. They are doing these broad marketing programs trying to take on ChatGPT for "normies". And yet their bread and butter is still clearly coding. Meanwhile, Claude's general use cases are... fine. For generic research topics, I find that ChatGPT and Gemini run circles around it: in the depth of research, the type of tasks it can handle, and the qual…

It feels very similar to how Lyft positioned themselves against Uber. (And we know how that played out)

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#616

Post by planckscnst »

MadnessASAP wrote: post #592
georgeven wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Everyone in my circle said the opposite.

My experience is that Codex follows directions better but Claude writes better code. ChatGPT-5.2-Codex follows directions to ensure a task [bead]( https://github.com/steveyegge/beads ) is opened before starting a task and to keep it updated almost to a fault. Claude-Opus-4.5 with the exact same directions, forgets about it within a round or two. Similarly, I had a project that required very specific behaviour from a…

That's so strange. I found GPT to be abysmal at following instructions to the point of unusability for any direction-heavy role. I have a common workflow that involves an orchestrator that pretty much does nothing but follow some simple directions [1]. GPT flat-out cannot do this most basic task.

[1]: https://github.com/Vibecodelicious/llm-conductor/blob/main/O...

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#617

Post by trescenzi »

tgtweak wrote: post #85
jsheard wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CC has >6000 open issues, despite their bot auto-culling them after 60 days of inactivity. It was ~5800 when I looked just a few days ago so they seem to be accelerating towards some kind of bug singularity.

plot twist, it's all claude code instances submitting bug reports on behalf of end users.

I literally hit a claude code bug today, tried to use claude desktop to debug it which didn't help and it offered to open a bug report for me. So yes 100%. Some of the titles also make it pretty clear they are auto submitted. This is my favorite which was around the top when I was creating my bug report 3 hours ago and is now 3 pages back lol.

> Unable to process - no bug report provided. Please share the issue details you'd like me to convert into a GitHub issue title

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/23459

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#618

Post by clbrmbr »

fragmede wrote: post #591
tedsanders wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't vary our model quality with time of day or load (beyond negligible non-determinism). It's the same weights all day long with no quantization or other gimmicks. They can get slower under heavy load, though. (I'm from OpenAI.)

I believe you when you say you're not changing the model file loaded onto the H100s or whatever, but there's something going on, beyond just being slower, when the GPUs are heavily loaded.

I do wonder about reasoning effort.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#619

Post by Grimblewald »

ribosometronome wrote: post #606
viraptor wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to really test this, search/replace the names with your own random ones and see if it lists those. Otherwise, LLMs have most of the books memorised anyway: https://arstechnica.com/features/2025/06/study-metas-llama-3...

Couldn't you just ask the LLM which 50 (or 49) spells appear in the first four Harry Potter books without the data for comparison?

might not work well, but by navigating to a very harry potter dominant part of latent space by preconditioning on the books you make it more likely to get good results. An example would be taking a base model and prompting "what follows is the book 'X'" it may or may not regurgitate the book correctly. Give it a chunk of the first chapter and let it regurgitate from there and you tend to get fairly faithful recovery, especially for things on gutenberg.

So it might be there, by predcondiditioning latent space to the area of harry potter world, you make it so much more probable that the full spell list is regurgitated from online resources that were also read, while asking naive might get it sometimes, and sometimes not.

the books act like a hypnotic trigger, and may not represent a generalized skill. Hence why replacing with random words would help clarify. if you still get the origional spells, regurgitation confirmed, if it finds the spells, it could be doing what we think. An even better test would be to replace all spell references AND jumble chapters around. This way it cant even "know" where to "look" for the spell names from training.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#620

Post by derwiki »

kuboble wrote: post #526
simianwords wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but they have the advantage of already being a big company. Anthropic is new and there's no reason for people to use it

The tool is absolutely fantastic coding assistant. That's why I use it. The amount of non-critical bugs all over the place is at least a magnitude larger than of any software I was using daily ever. Plenty of built in /commands don't work. Sometimes it accepts keystrokes with 1 second delays. It often scrolls hundreds of lines in console after each key stroke Every now and then it crashes completely and is unrecovera…

I think this might be a harbinger of what we should expect for software quality in the next decade
Post reply on HN