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

501–510 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#501

Post by 4rf »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #176
everforward wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> no way to justify their valuations if they get downgraded to a pair programming tool I think there is. Pair today doesn’t mean they’re locked into that forever.

you always post about valuations but never share your own.

go ahead m8 we are all waiting... the stage is yours. lets see your model.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#502

Post by indoordin0saur »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #245
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #216

I'm struggling to understand why I'd ever use this instead of just using a lower effort level for opus given on many of the benchmarks listed the cost per task rises above opus at anything higher than medium effort. Only thing I can think of is for when someone is out of opus credits. Of course there are API billing use cases but I'd probably still just use opus on low.

More and more I find myself trying to stop Opus from doing something stupid, and at every turn I need to tell it to stop overcomplicating things. I think the models are being optimized for wealth extraction from users and companies, instead of solving problems. I don't know why Opus would try to create an entire library when I told it specifically to do something simple that would take 2-3 lines of Python.

Yeah. Mine really likes to read excess code. I'll ask it questions like "If I move all these three ETL jobs into a subfolder will it break anything?" It'll start with giving me the simple answer but then continue on to consider another question and realize it requires reading my entire other repo that handles all of my cloud's infrastructure. And it'll proceed to read through tens of thousands of lines of terraform.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#503

Post by keeda »

everforward wrote: post #420
keeda wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.) The studies I've seen recently (at least in the software space) put it at something like a 10% increase in coding…

> That seems really large, but it's ~2-3x Walmart's yearly revenue, and OpenAI and Anthropic both have estimated valuations that compare to Walmart's market cap. ...

It's also before cutthroat pricing really kicks in.

Right, that's more of an estimate on the value proposition of the overall AI industry, rather than valuations of the industry or specific players. While I don't think OpenAI and Anthropic will capture all of the potential upside, I do suspect they will do much better than other players despite the competition (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48740472)

> And this is before we consider that they need to do it for cheaper or why would anyone bother.

Typically yes, but there are reasons companies may be willing to pay the same amount or even more, such as "AI doesn't need sleep, holidays, insurance, or benefits" and "AI is easier to procure and replace than humans."

> The studies I've seen recently (at least in the software space) put it at something like a 10% increase in coding speed...

Curious to see which studies you're looking at, the studies I'm thinking of (some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45379452) are from 2024 - 2025, so already old and before agents really took off.

However, your point about meetings and agreements and documenting is much more germane. My theory is that the largest productivity gains -- and subsequent labor displacement -- will come from reducing coordination overhead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48040999

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#504

Post by indoordin0saur »

microtonal wrote: post #31

Claude Sonnet 5 is built to be the most agentic Sonnet model yet. It can make plans, use tools like browsers and terminals, and run autonomously at a level that, just a few months ago, required larger and more expensive models. I have been using Sonnet 4.6 more than Opus, because I'm mostly doing agent-assisted development and not fully agent-driven development. This announcement does not make me positive, I have fou…

Yeah. Opus is nice for tasks that require significant planning and considering broader effects on other parts of the code. But it likes to go off the rails and do too much. Often it gives good-sounding ideas but it has a tendency to distract me by giving me a huge to-do list.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#505

Post by skeptic_ai »

keeda wrote: post #466
e9 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to propose alternative reality where 1.5-2.5T in value doesn't go to a handful of companies. Instead it turns out to be like restaurants where this gets distributed to lots and lots of small, local, mostly interchangeable teams. There will of course be some super star "chefs" leading the industry and setting trends and some "restaurant chain" like big businesses and supply chain for all of this.

FWIW I do think that availability of competitive open weight and other non-frontier models, along with improvements in harnesses that can get good results out of these models, will result in less concentration and a healthier marketplace. However, these frontier labs are also making moves that could let them capture a disproportionate share of the upside. One possibility is a situation analogous to the smartphone man…

Apple you can’t exit the ecosystem.

Samsung the same. And is the best android device.

If tomorrow comes a Nokia os will be dead in the water: it has no apps.

But with a new llm that doesn’t matter. There is nothing sticky about typing Gemini, Claude or codex in a cli.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#506

Post by noisy_boy »

mwigdahl wrote: post #222
user43928 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Won't any input be charged uncached, and the output of the small model charged again as uncached input to the bigger model? I don't know whether that comes out ahead compared to just staying with the better model in the first place.

It's a good question, but for multiturn conversations even cached context adds up quickly. My experience has been that spawning off subagents for defined tasks in a large overall plan generally makes me come out ahead. I'm sure folks' mileage will vary though.

I asked this question and was told that even if it is counter intuitive, medium will be more cost efficient due to caching. Changed to medium, blew my budget and went back to low.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#507

Post by dirtbag__dad »

tyg13 wrote: post #492
easygenes wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a heavy enough user that I have both the OAI and Anth $200 plans. I always use at least 50% of my weekly Opus quota at Extra setting (meaning I use double the limit of the $100 plan, at minimum). Max I rarely touch because it is twice as slow and the incremental capability gain is minimal. Usually if Opus can't sort something well at Extra, the answer isn't to use Max but to hand the issue off to GPT-5.5 at XHigh…

I too have settled into a kind of dual Claude/GPT model setup. I will often use one to review the other's work, or critique the other's plan in some way. Sometimes I'll have Claude implement a feature one way, then have GPT do it the other way, then have them both review each other's implementation. Then synthesize a final plan from the previous implementations+reviews. I might just be having fun with models, but I h…

Yes, same, between the two of them I feel like results are just better because they have different priorities.

At the same time, I’ve invested in tooling that prints and lints architecture I want, so which model is less of an interesting decision, because the results tend to be very close.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#508

Post by paradox460 »

james2doyle wrote: post #70
jklmnopqrstuvw wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my own experience, GLM-5.2 generally cost more tokens and much more slow.

Tokens and speed are a factor but does it require less back and forth to get things right? Being "fast and cheap but wrong" still has a cost that an otherwise "expensive and slow" exchange does not

In my experience it spends a lot more tokens to do things. I wrote a tiny extension for omp that counts the number of "Actually" in the response, and if it exceeds a threshold stops execution and waits for me to tell it what to do. Even then it frequently just ignores basic instructions like "only write boilerplate, I will fill in the functionality"

Imo MiniMax and MiMo are a lot more reliable (and cheap)

Not opus level, but close enough and cheap enough to get the job done

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#509

Post by paradox460 »

spacephysics wrote: post #117
xpct wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been largely disappointed how much the Claude models ignore custom instructions, and sometimes even prompts on the chat interface. It sometimes feels like talking to a wall, or as if there was a third person in the chatroom whose messages I can't see. I can't help but feel this is intentional towards the 'Agentic' workflow.

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.…

We're speed running HAL 9000

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#510

Post by midtake »

5 as in 5 times more likely to tell you that you can't edit your driver INF files because that enables DRM circumvention and is dangerous!
Post reply on HN