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

181–190 of 620 posts

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

#181

Post by estetlinus »

jjallen wrote: post #76
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.

Also AI could help you pick those skills up again faster, although you wouldn’t need to ever pick those skills up again unless AI ceased to exist. What an interesting paradox-like situation.

I believe some professor warned us about being over reliant on Google/reddit etc: “how would you be productive if internet went down” dilemma.

Well, if internet is down, so is our revenue buddy. Engineering throughput would be the last of our concerns.

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

#182

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

post-it wrote: post #122
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.

I was worried about skill atrophy. I recently started a new job, and from day 1 I've been using Claude. 90+% of the code I've written has been with Claude. One of the earlier tickets I was given was to update the documentation for one of our pipelines. I used Claude entirely, starting with having it generate a very long and thorough document, then opening up new contexts and getting it to fact check until it stopped…

Are you sure you would know if it didn't work? I use Claude extensively myself, so I'm not saying this from a "hater" angle, but I had 2 people last week who believe themselves to be in your shoes send me pull requests which made absolutely no sense in the context of the codebase.

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

#183

Post by therobots927 »

falcor84 wrote: post #14
therobots927 wrote: post #6

Wow this is pretty spectacular. And with the losses anthro and OAI are running, don’t expect this trend to change. You will get incremental output improvements for a dramatically more expensive subscription plan.

Indeed, and if we accept the argument of this tech approaching AGI, we should expect that within x years, the subscription cost may exceed the salary cost of a junior dev. To be clear, I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but it does seem to be going in this direction.

I absolutely do not accept that argument. It’s clear models hit a plateau roughly a year ago and all incremental improvements come at an increasingly higher cost.

And junior devs have never added much value. The first two years of any engineer’s career is essentially an apprenticeship. There’s no value add from have a perpetually junior “employee”.

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

#184

Post by myaccountonhn »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #78
nate8bit wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any recommendations on good open ones? What are you using primarily?

GLM 5.1 via an infra provider. Running a competent coding capable model yourself isn't viable unless your standards are quite low.

What infra providers are there?

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

#185

Post by hgoel »

_blk wrote: post #164
hgoel wrote: post #74

The bump from 4.6 to 4.7 is not very noticeable to me in improved capabilities so far, but the faster consumption of limits is very noticeable. I hit my 5 hour limit within 2 hours yesterday, initially I was trying the batched mode for a refactor but cancelled after seeing it take 30% of the limit within 5 minutes. Had to cancel and try a serial approach, consumed less (took ~50 minutes, xhigh effort, ~60% of the rem…

From what I understand you shouldn't wait more than 5min between prompts without compacting or clearing or you'll pay for reinitializing the cache. With compaction you still pay but it's less input tokens. (Is compaction itself free?)

Ah I can see how my phrasing might be misleading, but these prompts were made within 5 minutes of each other, the timing I mentioned were what Claude spent working.

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

#186

Post by redanddead »

dgellow wrote: post #153
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…

Another aspect I haven’t seen discussed too much is that if your competitor is 10x more productive with AI, and to stay relevant you also use AI and become 10x more productive. Does the business actually grow enough to justify the extra expense? Or are you pretty much in the same state as you were without AI, but you are both paying an AI tax to stay relevant?

The alternative is probably also true. If your F500 competitor is also handicapped by AI somehow, then you're all stagnant, maybe at different levels. Meanwhile Anthropic is scooping up software engineers it supposedly made irrelevant with Mythos and moving into literally 2+ new categories per quarter

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

#187

Post by throwaway613746 »

post-it wrote: post #122
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.

I was worried about skill atrophy. I recently started a new job, and from day 1 I've been using Claude. 90+% of the code I've written has been with Claude. One of the earlier tickets I was given was to update the documentation for one of our pipelines. I used Claude entirely, starting with having it generate a very long and thorough document, then opening up new contexts and getting it to fact check until it stopped…

[dead]

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

#188

Post by solarengineer »

ahartmetz wrote: post #54
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 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.

https://hex.ooo/library/power.html

When future humans rediscover mathematics.

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

#189

Post by tossandthrow »

nothinkjustai wrote: post #151
tossandthrow wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easy to not believe if you only apply an incredibly narrow world view. Open your eyes, and you might become a believer.

What is this, some sort of cult?

No, it is an as snarky response to a person being snarky about usefulness of AI agents.

It does seem like there is a cult of people who categorically see LLMs as being poor at anything without it being founded in anything experience other than their 2023 afternoon to play around with it.

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

#190

Post by senordevnyc »

pitched wrote: post #65
tailscaler2026 wrote: post #26

Subsidies don't last forever.

Running an open like Kimi constantly for an entire month will cost around 100-200$, being roughly equal to a pro-tier subscription. This is not my estimate so I’m more than open to hearing refutations. Kimi isn’t at all Opus-level intelligent but the models are roughly evenly sized from the guesses I’ve seen. So I don’t think it’s the infra being subsidized as much as it’s the training.

I’m using Composer 2, Cursor’s model they built on top of Kimi, and it’s great. Not Opus level, but I’m finding many things don’t need Opus level.
Post reply on HN