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

641–650 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#641

Post by aix1 »

defrost wrote: post #638
aix1 wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cost is skill atrophy I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure I buy it in the context of this thread (a response to someone who is 54 and has been coding since they were eight). I am in a similar boat, having been coding full-time for fourty years. The way I use the current tools is that I own all architectural and design decisions but let Claude Code fill in the blanks. I reckon the quality of the output is…

I have a greater concern about societal skill atrophy. I also am not about to forget how to for(;;), that said, as a result of some years invested in aligning old pre WGS84 mapping with modern GPS and improving digital mapping, there are fewer people per capita with the skills to navigate via paper maps in the absence of GPS. Old farts coding since age 8 (in which I include myself with a decade+ over a sprightly youn…

I am not worried about the loss of skills per se. Over the centuries the average person has become less skilled at, for example, butchering animals. Is that bad for society? I don't know.

What I am worried about is us becoming dependent on tools that we as individuals neither own nor fully control, and gradually losing our ability to function without those tools. This, I think, is a huge societal risk.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#642

Post by theshrike79 »

casey2 wrote: post #572
kelnos wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why even bother posting, especially as a reply to a completely unrelated comment? This is just not substantive or useful to the conversation. (And I say this as someone who agrees with you that it's garbage that these companies are trying to legislate their way into an oligopoly.)

If you give Anthropic money they will make your life worse in another aspect, it's relevant to all their models. The best principle is to not give money to people who want to harm you. Anthropic has gone past fearmongering and well into terrorism. I think people on Hacker News should not recommend working with terrorist orgs.

Should we work with companies that give the "Department of War" full access to their tools (OpenAI) or Chinese companies with completely opaque ownership and dev structures?

Or the largest ad company in the world (Google)?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#643

Post by theshrike79 »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #571
matheusmoreira wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always use Opus 4.8 at max effort for everything. The $20 subscription didn't have enough tokens, but the $100 one had too many of them. So now I just max out Opus in order to maintain 100% weekly utilization.

I'm a senior skilled developer and I find Anthropic $20 + Open AI $20 + OpenCode Go $10 offers more value than $100 on any particular service. Juggling between all different models/agents is quite simple with Zed. A caution about OpenCode Go though, the entire company seems to be run by AI so there's lot of billing related issues with zero support. I subscribe new every month as I lost money due to double payment wit…

I've been running about the same stack for well over a year now, Anthropic cheapest + OpenAI cheapest + z.ai coder (black friday offer).

The Z.AI is a bit wonky, so now I'm moving to Openrouter for Qwen+Kimi+Deepseek?GLM

My summer project is to figure out a proper agentic system where a "big" model does the planning, but automatically uses a cheaper one for the grunt work. Having Opus to config edits is just stupid :)

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#644

Post by Revanche1367 »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #566
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 am another skilled senior, have been coding since I was 7, although you have a few more years of experience on me, and am commenting here just for the goldilocks moment, as I have read and reflected on both of your comments and find my reality is somewhere in the middle. On personal projects, where I am in charge of all the hats (product development, UI, UX, backend, security, server admin, etc) -- absolutely crazy…

And you’ll never know because even if you could turn back time and do it from scratch, you’re likely to opt again not to do it all manually because the cognitive load is going to keep tempting you to reach for the agent again.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#645

Post by darkwater »

muse900 wrote: post #630
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…

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…

> 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.

This is your opinion and I even share it, but there are many people here for whom writing the code was/is the whole deal. You would not have languages and heck - even editors! - holy wars otherwise.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#646

Post by beernet »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #236
beernet wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claude Code is still a meme Claude Code generates more revenue than OpenAI...It appears to be a nice meme.

Like I said, Anthropic's marketing is killing it, they've got people freely(?) shilling for them on public forums so even if they have shit developer relations and community relations and a model that's mostly worse while being more expensive, they can ride a wave of misinformation.

> they have shit developer relations

Not true

> model that's mostly worse while being more expensive

Not true

> they can ride a wave of misinformation.

Not true

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#647

Post by gertlabs »

In our coding evaluations, we found Sonnet 5 is more capable than Sonnet 4.6 (which was an underrated model itself), but is now faster and slightly cheaper.

Sonnet 5's performance is comparable to GLM 5.2 in both one-shot coding and agentic ability. However, it's about ~20% less verbose than GLM 5.2 in average code submission sizes, and uses fewer reasoning tokens, which reduces the cost gap and suggests it writes cleaner code. In practice, Sonnet 5 ends up being 40% more expensive and ~2x faster than GLM 5.2 in our evaluations (not 300% more expensive as the per-token pricing would suggest). Granted, GLM 5.2 is an extremely reasoning heavy model.

Overall, it's a solid release that gives Anthropic some standing in the price-conscious inference market.

Data at https://gertlabs.com/rankings

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#648

Post by torginus »

mingusrude wrote: post #631
jimbo808 wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 promp…

> ...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. I can only judge from my own experience but with or without LLMs, these are the codebases that I have worked with during most of my career. To me, much of the question is whether LLMs produce worse…

LLMs can produce bad code in ways no human ever would. I remember working on headscratcher problem of walking a tree while gradually building up state, and since LLMs are supposed to be good at algorithms, I asked Claude.

It came up with a correct LC-hard tier solution that involved dynamic programming, and was essentially an unreadable dense mess that was impossible to reason through as a human.

It worked, but it was so bad, that I sat down and realized after a bit that with maintaining a small cache, and being very particular about how the nodes are traversed, I reduced the solution to like a 10 line modified DFS, that I could understand.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#650

Post by Thanemate »

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…

The skilled seniors better stop downplaying what actually led them to be skilled in the first place, and realize that the conditions to develop that skill has been gone and almost deemed unproductive in today's workplace.

Not disagreeing that LLM's are a force multiplier, but I highly doubt whatever value will end up finding multiplying in the next generation of seniors, at this rate. It's surreal to me that I have to point out that recognition AND recalling are both necessary components of skill acquisition, because humans largely knew this since the dawn of education.

Post reply on HN