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

Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

tokens.billchambers.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 620 posts

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#91

Post by i_love_retros »

dakiol wrote: post #46

We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…

> we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software

My manager doesn't even want us to use copilot locally. Now we are supposed to only use the GitHub copilot cloud agent. One shot from prompt to PR. With people like that selling vendor lock in for them these companies like GitHub, OpenAI, Anthropic etc don't even need sales and marketing departments!

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#92

Post by ori_b »

tossandthrow wrote: post #69
ahartmetz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software One of two main reasons why I'm wary of LLMs. The other is fear of skill atrophy. These two problems compound. Skill atrophy is less bad if the replacement for the previous skill does not depend on a potentially less-than-friendly party.

You can argu that you will have skill atrophy by not using LLMs. We have gone multi cloud disaster recovery on our infrastructure. Something I would not have done yet, had we not had LLMs. I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs.

Yes, you certainly can argue that, but you'd be wrong. The primary selling point of LLMs is that they solve the problem of needing skill to get things done.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#94

Post by afzalive »

mgambati wrote: post #79
tossandthrow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argu that you will have skill atrophy by not using LLMs. We have gone multi cloud disaster recovery on our infrastructure. Something I would not have done yet, had we not had LLMs. I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs.

I kind feel the same. I’m learning things and doing things in areas that would just skip due to lack of time or fear. But I’m so much more detached of the code, I don’t feel that ‘deep neural connection’ from actual spending days in locked in a refactor or debugging a really complex issue. I don’t know how a feel about it.

As someone who's switched from mobile to web dev professionally for the last 6 months now. If you care about code quality, you'll develop that neural connection after some time.

But if you don't and there's no PR process (side projects), the motivation to form that connection is quite low.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#95

Post by i_love_retros »

tossandthrow wrote: post #69
ahartmetz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software One of two main reasons why I'm wary of LLMs. The other is fear of skill atrophy. These two problems compound. Skill atrophy is less bad if the replacement for the previous skill does not depend on a potentially less-than-friendly party.

You can argu that you will have skill atrophy by not using LLMs. We have gone multi cloud disaster recovery on our infrastructure. Something I would not have done yet, had we not had LLMs. I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs.

>I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs.

I don't believe it. Having something else do the work for you is not learning, no matter how much you tell yourself it is.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#96

Post by andai »

amelius wrote: post #24
ausbah wrote: post #16

is it really unthinkable that another oss/local model will be released by deepseek, alibaba, or even meta that once again give these companies a run for their money

I'm betting on a company like Taalas making a model that is perhaps less capable but 100x as fast, where you could have dozens of agents looking at your problem from all different angles simultaneously, and so still have better results and faster.

Yeah, it's a search problem. When verification is cheap, reducing success rate in exchange for massively reducing cost and runtime is the right approach.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#98

Post by tossandthrow »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #82
tossandthrow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argu that you will have skill atrophy by not using LLMs. We have gone multi cloud disaster recovery on our infrastructure. Something I would not have done yet, had we not had LLMs. I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs.

> I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs Could you do it again without the help of an LLM? If no, then can you really claim to have learned anything?

I could definitely maintain the infrastructure without an llm. Albeit much slower.

And yes. If LLMs disappear, then we need to hire a lot of people to maintain the infrastructure.

Which naturally is a part of the risk modeling.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#99

Post by Fire-Dragon-DoL »

mgambati wrote: post #79
tossandthrow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argu that you will have skill atrophy by not using LLMs. We have gone multi cloud disaster recovery on our infrastructure. Something I would not have done yet, had we not had LLMs. I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs.

I kind feel the same. I’m learning things and doing things in areas that would just skip due to lack of time or fear. But I’m so much more detached of the code, I don’t feel that ‘deep neural connection’ from actual spending days in locked in a refactor or debugging a really complex issue. I don’t know how a feel about it.

I strongly agree on the refactor, but for debugging I have another perspective: I think debugging is changing for the better, so it looks different.

Sure, you don't know the code by heart, but people debugging code translated to assembly already do that.

The big difference is being able to unleash scripts that invalidate enormous amount of hypothesis very fast and that can analyze the data.

Used to do that by hand it took hours, so it would be a last resort approach. Now that's very cheap, so validating many hypothesis is way cheaper!

I feel like my "debugging ability" in terms of value delivered has gone way up. For skill, it's changing. I cannot tell, but the value i am delivering for debugging sessions has gone way up

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#100

Post by einpoklum »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #21
UltraSane wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing Opus 4.6 to 4.7 does make more sense for people who read left to right.

I’m impressed with anyone who can read English right to left.

Right to Left English - read can, who? Anyone with [which] impressed am I.
Post reply on HN