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

221–230 of 620 posts

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

#221

Post by trinsic2 »

oremj wrote: post #205
ljm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so much atrophy as apathy. I've worked with people who will look at code they don't understand, say "llm says this", and express zero intention of learning something. Might even push back. Be proud of their ignorance. It's like, why even review that PR in the first place if you don't even know what you're working with?

Is this the same subset of people who copy/paste code directly from stack overflow without understanding ? I’m not sure this is a new problem.

Hey. I resemble that remark sometimes!! quit being a hater (sarcasm) :P

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

#222

Post by JambalayaJimbo »

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?

If the business doesn’t grow then you shed costs like employees

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

#223

Post by bluefirebrand »

tossandthrow wrote: post #98
bluefirebrand wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I could definitely maintain the infrastructure without an llm

Not what I asked, but thanks for playing.

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

#224

Post by drivebyhooting »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #214
redanddead wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it in the broader culture that's causing this?

People who got into the job who don’t really like programming

I like programming, but I don’t like the job.

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

#226

Post by zaptrem »

tiffanyh wrote: post #52

I was using Opus 4.7 just yesterday to help implement best practices on a single page website. After just ~4 prompts I blew past my daily limit. Another ~7 more prompts & I blew past my weekly limit. The entire HTMl/CSS/JS was less than 300 lines of code. I was shocked how fast it exhausted my usage limits.

What's your reasoning effort set to? Max now uses way more tokens and isn't suggested for most usecases. Even the new default (xhigh) uses more than the old default (medium).

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

#227

Post by trinsic2 »

ori_b wrote: post #92
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.

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.

Yeah I whole hardheartedly disagree with this. Because I understand the basics of coding I can understand where the model gets stuck and prompt it in other directions.

If you don't know whats going on through the whole process, good luck with the end product.

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

#228

Post by idopmstuff »

estetlinus wrote: post #169
post-it wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, +1. I will never be working on unsolved problems anyhow. Skill atrophy is not happening if you stay curious and responsible.

Some people talk like skill atrophy is inevitable when you use LLMs, which strikes me as pretty absurd given that you are talking about a tool that will answer an infinite number of questions with infinite patience.

I usually learn way more by having Claude do a task and then quizzing it about what it did than by figuring out how to do it myself. When I have to figure out how to do the thing, it takes much more time, so when I'm done I have to move on immediately. When Claude does the task in ten minutes I now have several hours I can dedicate entirely to understanding.

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

#229

Post by pizza234 »

oremj wrote: post #205
ljm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so much atrophy as apathy. I've worked with people who will look at code they don't understand, say "llm says this", and express zero intention of learning something. Might even push back. Be proud of their ignorance. It's like, why even review that PR in the first place if you don't even know what you're working with?

Is this the same subset of people who copy/paste code directly from stack overflow without understanding ? I’m not sure this is a new problem.

In my experience, no - I think the ability to build more complete features with less/little/no effort, rather than isolated functions, is (more) appealing to (more) developers.

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

#230

Post by trinsic2 »

ori_b wrote: post #123
tossandthrow wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the entire selling point - so you are very wrong. You very much decide how you employ LLMs. Nobody are keeping a gun to your head to use them. In a certain way. Sonif you use them in a way that increase you inherent risk, then you are incredibly wrong.

I suggest you read the sales pitches that these products have been making. Again, when I say that this is the selling point, I mean it: This is why management is buying them.

Sales pitches dont mean jack, WTF are you talking about?
Post reply on HN