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

601–610 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#601

Post by bfjvibybd6cuvu6 »

wesleywt wrote: post #585
pmarreck wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skills atrophying in terms of what? Remembering specific API's that you always had to look up anyway? You don't lose developer intuition, analytical thinking or technical inclination, and those are the things that matter, anyway. I recently did a fleetwide upgrade to Zig 0.16. Do I remember every single change from 0.15? No. Do I have to? Also no. Both because I can look it up if I need to, but also because the LLM a…

How do you deal with the lack of cognitive engagement? I think it is the primary driver of developing and maintaining skills as well as generating new ideas. Letting an agent do it for you will just get you average but well formatted code. Not something new.

I haven't cared about cognitive engagement in over a decade. Neither has my CEO.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#602

Post by n3storm »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #579
pmarreck wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think they're a net gain if you're a skilled senior I'm a skilled senior (I'm 54 and been coding since I was about 8; I've been 100% AI-generated code for at least 6 months now and have produced a combination of speed and quality that has astonished me; my velocity is apparent at https://github.com/pmarreck/ ) and this has been a massive net gain, so your claim is now officially in sheer defiance of reality…

Have you really found claude to much more more capable than eg deepseek? Anthropic has little to no chance of producing a competitive business model in the long term.

I don't. Using claude code, claude.md etc with deepseek v4 is almost undistinguishable.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#604

Post by scrollop »

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.

"I think the models are being optimized for wealth extraction from users and companies, instead of solving problems."

YES! They introduced the new tokenizer to increase token generation by upto 33%.

On top of this, Anthropic are generating almost twice as much revenue per paid user than openai - whilst their subscriptions have lower usage limits than openai's:

https://youtu.be/gK-7TKC7kvY?si=kx0qPE1rw-UCI-Jn&t=650

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#605

Post by solenoid0937 »

acuozzo wrote: post #547
arcatech wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered getting better at coding so you can build stuff yourself instead of waiting for models you might not be able to get access to anymore?

What if you're using it for Mathematics (e.g., making progress on unsolved problems) instead of writing software? Would you consider that a valid use-case?

Who cares about what some random HN user thinks of as a "valid use case?" Engineers that are anti-AI in 2026 are simply NGMI. They have had plenty of opportunities to update their priors and seem incapable of it. No point in wasting your time with them.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#606

Post by lemonteaau »

jimbo808 wrote: post #514
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.

They're actively trying to use lobbying power to make open weight models illegal. So I'm just not going to use their services at all anymore. I don't think they're a net gain if you're a skilled senior, and the hidden cost in terms of technical debt and skill atrophy is just being swept under the rug. I'll be okay without their bullshit generator.

The irony is that an authoritarian country is leading the world in open models

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#607

Post by ls612 »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #597
ls612 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://github.com/p-e-w/heretic

Anyone recommending alliteration ironically proves the argument against open weights from an AI safety perspective. After a certain level of capability you're proposing handing loaded nukes to everyone. There is an end of the road to the "open models are good" argument and that end is when they start turning into cyber super weapons.

The boot must taste so good for you to lick it so ravenously.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#608

Post by boc »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #579
pmarreck wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think they're a net gain if you're a skilled senior I'm a skilled senior (I'm 54 and been coding since I was about 8; I've been 100% AI-generated code for at least 6 months now and have produced a combination of speed and quality that has astonished me; my velocity is apparent at https://github.com/pmarreck/ ) and this has been a massive net gain, so your claim is now officially in sheer defiance of reality…

Have you really found claude to much more more capable than eg deepseek? Anthropic has little to no chance of producing a competitive business model in the long term.

> Anthropic has little to no chance of producing a competitive business model in the long term.

Extraordinary thing to say about the fastest growing company in the history of capitalism. They will soon have access to public markets, essentially unlimited capital, and can build insanely large models that they don't have to make public... ever. They can just use those models to run their business, train better models, eat competitors, etc.

But maybe it's Anthropic that isn't thinking ahead enough - you clearly think you can see around corners with your proclamation. So why do you think they have "little to no chance" of surviving long term?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#609

Post by [deleted] »

lemonteaau wrote: post #606
jimbo808 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're actively trying to use lobbying power to make open weight models illegal. So I'm just not going to use their services at all anymore. I don't think they're a net gain if you're a skilled senior, and the hidden cost in terms of technical debt and skill atrophy is just being swept under the rug. I'll be okay without their bullshit generator.

The irony is that an authoritarian country is leading the world in open models

[deleted]

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#610

Post by jimbo808 »

pmarreck wrote: post #557
jimbo808 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're actively trying to use lobbying power to make open weight models illegal. So I'm just not going to use their services at all anymore. I don't think they're a net gain if you're a skilled senior, and the hidden cost in terms of technical debt and skill atrophy is just being swept under the rug. I'll be okay without their bullshit generator.

> I don't think they're a net gain if you're a skilled senior I'm a skilled senior (I'm 54 and been coding since I was about 8; I've been 100% AI-generated code for at least 6 months now and have produced a combination of speed and quality that has astonished me; my velocity is apparent at https://github.com/pmarreck/ ) and this has been a massive net gain, so your claim is now officially in sheer defiance of reality…

I think I might have written a comment similar to yours maybe 6 months or a year ago. I'm not quite sure to respond to these sorts of replies. I have used LLMs/Claude Code quite extensively professionally and was a very early adopter, have built tooling around LLM/agentic development, and genuinely embraced it. They aren't useless, but the short term gains you think you're getting come at a very steep price that you may not actually account for consciously for quite some time, if ever.
Post reply on HN