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

Claude Sonnet 5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#251

Post by arcanemachiner »

wqaatwt wrote: post #196
spacephysics wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this seems purposeful, as there's 2 opposing forces at play: - Have a model that follows the users instructions - Have a model that follows the system prompt instructions more For the 'safety' argument (Re: Fable), they need these models to have basically a 2-tier instruction system, but given LLMs aren't great with actual Logic unless they program it out to test, this runs afoul and we get one or the other.…

A suppose a solution might be going with a customizable harness like pi and merging Anthropic’s system prompt with a personalized custom one to remove all contractions

You still have to manage/fight with the post-training that is baked into the model itself.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#252

Post by energy123 »

lucamark wrote: post #220
doctoboggan wrote: post #29

The cost per task chart is telling me that I should _never_ use Sonnet 5 above medium effort level - Opus always performs better for a given cost. So I guess the takeaway is that if Sonnet 5 medium isn't good enough for you, switch models, not effort levels.

You're referring to the Agentic search, but if you look at the Agentic computer use the cost is basically halved. However, I am also confused about market positioning. Too expensive to perform daily tasks - open souce models are much cheaper - and not frontier model to address complex real world problems. Rarely used Sonnet btw.

You're the second person that has said this but I cannot understand why you are interpreting the "Agentic computer use" graph in this manner.

The graph shows that Opus is cheaper than Sonnet for the same performance. Unless I am suffering a cognitive blindness thing right now.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#253

Post by keeda »

everforward wrote: post #159
Brendinooo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, there's a real opportunity for one of these companies to invest time in a model that's tuned for, to use your term, agent-assisted developement. Trouble is, everyone inside their buildings seems to believe that no one will be working like that in a year or two.

There’s no way to justify their valuations if they get downgraded to a pair programming tool. They need fully agentic stuff to work and replace human engineers to even come close. Offhand, I’m not even certain whether a model like that could justify the constant retraining we’re doing on the agentic models. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to spend millions or billions on training to reduce hallucinations by 0.3% if yo…

Some napkin math -- total global labor compensation is about 50% of the GDP, which puts it in the USD 50 - 60 Trillion range: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-share-of-gdp

This source claims that knowledge workers alone (probably because they are paid much more) account for 35 - 50 Trillion of that: https://github.com/danielmiessler/Substrate/blob/main/Data/K...

If LLMs can boost their productivity even by an average of 5% (studies from ~2024 put it in the ~30% range depending on task) that is ~1.5 - 2.5T in value annually. Even if the AI industry can capture a fraction of that, that is a huuuge monetization opportunity.

Note, at 5% productivity boost, humans are not just in the loop, they are the loop. AGI or large-scale replacement of humans is not even needed, but the financial opportunity is already immense, and it scales with how much human productivity can be improved (i.e. how much work can be offloaded to LLMs.)

Now, I don't think AGI will happen soon (or has already happened, depending on how you define it) but I do think humans will be a much smaller part of the loop and large-scale job displacement will happen once companies figure out how to properly use AI.

At this point, the financial upside for the AI industry is extremely high but will be limited by the social turmoil that will inevitably ensue (which we're already seeing brewing in the data center backlash.)

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#254

Post by kube-system »

secretslol wrote: post #86
satvikpendem wrote: post #26

> Evaluations also show that it has a much lower ability to perform cybersecurity tasks than our current Opus models. Why would they brag about something like this? It's like they know people want to use models to perform cybersecurity tasks yet knowingly deny them the ability. And Opus 4.8 is still cheaper for a higher pass rate (much less open weight models like GLM 5.2) so not sure why I'd use Sonnet except on the…

"Lower ability to perform cybersecurity-related tasks" makes me super concerned it will leave my codebase like Swiss cheese for any American granny with access to Fable 5, when we non-American Brits, or rest-of-worlders, don't have access to it to clean our codebases.

> any American granny with access to Fable 5,

Fable is effectively not available to the general public in the US either

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#255

Post by wyre »

al_borland wrote: post #208
doctoboggan wrote: post #29

The cost per task chart is telling me that I should _never_ use Sonnet 5 above medium effort level - Opus always performs better for a given cost. So I guess the takeaway is that if Sonnet 5 medium isn't good enough for you, switch models, not effort levels.

What is a "task" in real-world terms? If it will be $15/million output tokens, and high/xhigh is somewhere in the $7.50/task range. Does that mean a single task is using 500k tokens. That seems like it would start to add up fast.

I’ve found input tokens is around 5x more than output, so a task could be a couple million thinking tokens and then a few couple 100k output tokens?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#256

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

mwigdahl wrote: post #189
tripleee wrote: post #78

interesting how much worse the sentiment around Anthropic is getting

Seems like a combination of multiple factors: "They took my shit away!" -- 3-day Fable 5 addicts (me) "How dare they tell Trump no?" -- US nationalist / "my country right or wrong" types "Great to see a closed source company fail!" -- open source boosters "Great to see an American company fail!" -- anti-US, and/or pro-China folks "Great to see a successful company fail!" -- anti-capitalists and/or sour-grapes crab bu…

"OpenAI models are better, cheaper, and more reliable" - rational people

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#257

Post by vtail »

bazhand wrote: post #229
a_c wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually use sonnet 4.6 for my day to day coding too. It consumes much less token and good enough. Opus is just too token consuming for it to be useful to me.

Have you tried '/model opusplan' I've had strong results mixing opus for planning with sonnet implementing.

Fascinating! How did you learn about this?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#258

Post by SkitterKherpi »

$5/$25 for Opus 4.8 vs $3/$15 doesnt seem cheaper enough to be too worth it. It depends how much better it is than e.g. Mimo, but I imagine Mimo and co to be too cost efficient in the lower tier to be overtaken by Sonnet for most tasks.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#259

Post by a_c »

bazhand wrote: post #229
a_c wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually use sonnet 4.6 for my day to day coding too. It consumes much less token and good enough. Opus is just too token consuming for it to be useful to me.

Have you tried '/model opusplan' I've had strong results mixing opus for planning with sonnet implementing.

I haven't. Thanks for the heads up will give it a try! I use opus to comment on code design quite often though. It became a pattern that I made a skill for me to ask for second opinions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48733092 Would love to hear your feedback if you don't mind!
Post reply on HN