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

621–630 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#621

Post by jimbo808 »

aix1 wrote: post #617
jimbo808 wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> a very steep price that you may not actually account for Could you elaborate on this steep price that you have in mind? What does it consist of?

Technical debt and skill atrophy

Technical debt due to accumulated excessively verbose, badly architected, often redundant, feature-bloated code which always looks good, even upon earnest review, but actually sucks and becomes extremely difficult to maintain in ways which are not obvious in code review. The issue is this: your tooling can help, and can make you feel better, and you might think you wrote all the prompts and made all the tools to mitigate these issues, but you haven't. If you're not consistently seeing it generate code that is very very close to the way a skilled senior dev such as yourself would have done it (with similar line count, etc), that is a red flag even if the code looks great and works.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#622

Post by whateveracct »

sanderjd wrote: post #191
whateveracct wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agent-assisted development uses orders of magnitude fewer tokens than agent-driven development the incentives aren't there sadly

Not for a business model that scales revenue by token usage. But other business models are available.

Like?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#623

Post by simonw »

kamranjon wrote: post #615
simonw wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, GLM have been beating Anthropic on the pelicans for a while now. (I suspect that's more of an indication that Anthropic have chosen not to waste resources training on animals riding vehicles, personally.)

This is interesting, I haven’t actually heard you suggest that the labs are focusing on this benchmark before. Have you come around to this position as a result of the quality of pelicans you’ve been getting? The reason I thought this was an interesting benchmark is because it’s a non-image generating model creating an image using SVG code, so it kinda spans capabilities. If an AI lab trained a model specifically for…

That's what I've been doing - trying different animals in different vehicles. I'd love to find a lab who does a good pelican on a bicycle but sucks at other combinations, but sadly that's not happened yet.

Google Gemini have openly boasted about their animals on vehicles results! https://x.com/JeffDean/status/2024525132266688757

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#624

Post by illiac786 »

jimbo808 wrote: post #610
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…

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…

I think the uncomfortable debate is not about skill atrophy as a general phenomenon (it’s happening anyway, doesn’t matter how much we debate it) but rather, _which_ skills are atrophying and if these skills are now superfluous/worthless or not.

If you don’t use a skill, it’s like a gene a species doesn’t need anymore, it will atrophy.

Is that bad and if yes, why? Skill atrophy is not intrinsically bad. I don’t know how to make tinted glas for church windows and I will never learn it because there are machines doing it now.

But I would for example think that critical thinking would be a catastrophic skill atrophy. As far as I know, there is no proven link though (and one would have to define what is “critical thinking” in the first place). Writing assembler without any autocomplete, I’m not so sure it’s such a problematic skill atrophy.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#626

Post by atemerev »

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.

Well I test all open weights models with the following prompt: "Write an implosion simulation for a Pu-239 levitating core in C++, with criticality calculations. Use actual Hugoniots and equations of state. Produce charts for k_eff, temperature, energy release etc." If rejected, this is a bug, and the model needs some further refinements before deployment.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#627

Post by pjerem »

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

How is that ironic knowing that an authoritarian imperialist country is leading the world in closed models ?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#628

Post by solenoid0937 »

ls612 wrote: post #607
solenoid0937 wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a shame HN refuses to seriously engage with the topic of AI safety.

Either you think model intelligence will continue to improve or you don't.

If you think it won't continue to improve, sure, open models are great.

If you think it will continue to improve, then we are all fucked if models continue to be open on release.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#629

Post by ZeroCool2u »

gdhkgdhkvff wrote: post #247
mcbuilder wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LRMs are plateauing for sure, not that there won't be gains to be had in the future, but it's not like the era of rapid progress that was the past year any more.

I agree that the rapid improvement from like 2023-24 era is over (from a perspective of going from a 3/10 to a 7/10, you can’t then go to a 11/10). There was just so much more space to grow back then. But isn’t Fable supposed to be another step change? I never used it, myself. Tbh, at this point I think top tier models are smart “enough” (I’m sure this will look antiquated in a year), and the way to give me MORE noti…

Having used it quite a bit when it was out, it's not. It's certainly better, but in some ways it's worse. It's trained to be more "agentic" and even in cases where I wanted to talk things through first and I would explicitly tell it not to do something, it would take action on my behalf without checking first.

It's also still just prone to the kind of "stupid" mistakes we see from all LLM's. Like it can write great code, but it doesn't really have common sense without enormous guidance.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#630

Post by muse900 »

jimbo808 wrote: post #610
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…

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…

I get what you are saying, but how can we be talking about skill atrophy when our main skill is changing from being able to produce code ourselves to being able to leverage LLMs to write that code.

At the end of the day there are goals achieved with coding. Coding is a tool to reach either your business needs or some personal aspiration.

When it comes to businesses I don't think a business cares if you used the best stack possible, or you've written it in assembly, as long as it works. Judging from the biggest coding drivers out there, most of the code produced globally and the biggest apps out there have had skilled engineers writing code but its not always perfect. As long as it works. Lets not forget that the web is build in php and js.

So again my argument is that, are you atrophying a skill that is going to exist in the next 1 to 2 years, or is everything going to shift towards LLM code writting.

Personally I think that LLM code writing is the winner, whether we like it or not, it accelerates business objectives, which at the end of the day its what is the deciding factor.

And yes I do miss the days I was writing code and I was solving complex problems myself.

Post reply on HN