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

281–290 of 620 posts

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

#281

Post by Wowfunhappy »

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.

> We have gone multi cloud disaster recovery on our infrastructure. Something I would not have done yet, had we not had LLMs.

That’s product atrophy, not skill atrophy.

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

#282

Post by bertil »

My impression is that the quality of the conversation is unexpectedly better: more self-critical, the suggestions are always critical, the default choices constantly best. I might not have as many harnesses as most people here, so I suspect it’s less obvious but I would expect this to make it far more valuable for people who haven’t invested as much.

After a few basic operations (retrospective look at the flow of recent reviews, product discussions) I would expect this to act like a senior member of the team, while 4.6 was good, but far more likely to be a foot-gun.

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

#283

Post by bigbadfeline »

xixixao wrote: post #174
dgellow wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is the “ad tax” reasoning, but ultimately I think the answer is greater efficiency. So there is a real value, even if all competitors use the tools. It’s like saying clothing manufacturers are paying the “loom tax” tax when they could have been weaving by hand…

We already know how to multiply the efficiency of human intelligence to produce better quality than LLMs and nearly match their productivity - open source - in fact coding LLMs wouldn't even exist without it.

Open source libraries and projects together with open source AI is the only way to avoid the existential risks of closed source AI.

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

#284

Post by templar_snow »

copperx wrote: post #139
templar_snow wrote: post #61

Brutal. I've been noticing that 4.7 eats my Max Subscription like crazy even when I do my best to juggle tasks (or tell 4.7 to use subagents with) Sonnet 4.6 Medium and Haiku. Would love to know if anybody's found ideal token-saving approaches.

I haven't seen a noticeable difference BUT I've been always using the context mode plugin.

You mean this? https://github.com/mksglu/context-mode Is it actually good or is this an ad?

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

#285

Post by leonidasv »

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…

>perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git/http/etc" of the LLMs

I fear that this may not be feasible in the long term. The open-model free ride is not guaranteed to continue forever; some labs offer them for free for publicity after receiving millions in VC grants now, but that's not a sustainable business model. Models cost millions/billions in infrastructure to train. It's not like open-source software where people can just volunteer their time for free; here we are talking about spending real money upfront, for something that will get obsolete in months.

Current AI model "production" is more akin to an industrial endeavor than open-source arrangements we saw in the past. Until we see some breakthrough, I'm bearish on "open models will eventually save us from reliance on big companies".

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

#286

Post by mlvljr »

malnourish wrote: post #257
oremj wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think so. I'll spend a ton of time and effort thinking through, revising, and planning out the approach, but I let the agent take the wheel when it comes to transpiling that to code. I don't actually care about the code so long as it's secure and works. I spent years cultivating expertise in C++ and .NET. And I found that time both valuable and enjoyable. But that's because it was a path to solve problems for…

[dead]

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

#288

Post by glerk »

xpe wrote: post #232
glerk wrote: post #148

I'd be ok with paying more if results were good, but it seems like Anthropic is going for the Tinder/casino intermittent reinforcement strategy: optimized to keep you spending tokens instead of achieving results. And yes, Claude models are generally more fun to use than GPT/Codex. They have a personality. They have an intuition for design/aesthetics. Vibe-coding with them feels like playing a video game. But the resu…

> ... but it seems like Anthropic is going for the Tinder/casino intermittent reinforcement strategy: optimized to keep you spending tokens instead of achieving results. This part of the above comment strikes me as uncharitable and overconfident. And, to be blunt, presumptuous. To claim to know a company's strategy as an outsider is messy stuff. My prior: it is 10X to 20X more likely Anthropic has done something othe…

> To claim to know a company's strategy as an outsider is messy stuff.

I said "it seems like". Obviously, I have no idea whether this is an intentional strategy or not and it could as well be a side effect of those things that you mentioned.

Models being "worse" is the perceived effect for the end user (subjectively, it seems like the price to achieve the same results on similar tasks with Opus has been steadily increasing). I am claiming that there is no incentive for Anthropic to address this issue because of their business model (maximize the amount of tokens spent and price per token).

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

#289

Post by sroussey »

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.

Copied and pasted without noting the license that stack overflow has on code published there, no doubt

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

#290

Post by aerhardt »

colechristensen wrote: post #275
aerhardt wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it can write something that's of a fraction of the quality of Kafka. But GP's argument ("limit the space to text") could be taken to imply - and it seems to be a common implication these days - that LLMs have mastered the text medium, or that they will very soon. > it can't write a foundational piece of literature Why not, if this a pure textual medium, the corpus includes all the great stories ever wri…

I don't know what to tell you. It's more than a little absurd to make the qualification of being able to do something to be that the output has to be considered a great work of art for generations.

I agree that the argument starts from a reduction to the absurd.

So at least we can agree that AI hasn't mastered the text medium, without further qualification?

And what about my argument, further qualified, which is that I don't think it could even write as well as a good professional writer - not necessarily a generational one?

Post reply on HN