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

Claude Opus 5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#791

Post by criley2 »

oblio wrote: post #774
alex43578 wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anything you do on your own? You wrote this response in English, but didn't invent your own language. How dilute of a contribution can someone/something have made and still merit credit?

LOL. Tolkien invented multiple languages. There are/were probably 100 000 languages on this planet. That's without including dialects. We use existing languages not because we love to copy, it's because languages are a medium for communication. They're only useful if they're understood by others. If you wanted to prove a point: writing is much, much harder to invent, yet it was invented independently at least 3 times…

I don't think the invention of writing is as awe-inspiring as presented or as difficult/impossible for an LLM to achieve as is commonly believed. The invention of writing was a long series of micro-improvements over common every day things. Let's keep track of count by writing a line in the sand. Let's cut it into a tree. Let's push the line into clay. Let's use two lines touching. These are the kinds of things an LLM can also reason through and achieve.

I reject this idea that an LLM couldn't come up with something novel that isn't in the training data. We know it can come up with sentences that aren't in there. We know it can come up with mathematic proofs that aren't in there. So could it feasibly create something as fundamental as writing or language? Would we even be able to understand what it had done, or would it be so foreign to us that we wouldn't even realize?

Those early writers did have a training set of human knowledge that led them to pushing stones into clay. And our agents may very well have a set of knowledge that leads it to pushing their proverbial stone into their proverbial clay too.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#792

Post by jedimastert »

zmmmmm wrote: post #670

Pointless anecdote: I asked it to make some slides and it decided to write its own slide rendering engine: > On the format — I dropped reveal.js and wrote a small engine inline instead. Reveal would have meant a CDN load, and a deck that half-renders because the lecture theatre wifi is flaky It one-shotted a perfect functional mini version of powerpoint (or Reveal) for a simple presentation I asked it to make.

How many tokens did it burn doing that instead of just vendoring?

Like I said in a separate comment, these tools are written and trained by corporations first and foremost, they'll always have conflicting interests.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#793

Post by aft_al_111 »

So is it better or worse than Fable 5 on large-scale complexed software engineering tasks (distributed systems, operating systems, high performance computing, compilers, etc. - not frontend stuff)?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#794

Post by YuukiRey »

flimflamm wrote: post #763
yesitcan wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is the most important observation in this thread. It’s load-bearing!

I on the other hand think that I have now found the smoking gun!

This is a genuinely impressive result — and an interesting one as well.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#796

Post by muldvarp »

Why should I be amazed at something that promises to destroy my life?

I genuinely don't understand why people who have to work for their living are amazed at this. It will have a vast negative impact on your life unless you already live off of your wealth.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#798

Post by muldvarp »

thedevilslawyer wrote: post #704
portly wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tired boss

Why, I wonder. It's insanely amazing.

Because the ability to create software has little inherent value to me and is only valuable to me because it allows me to earn enough to make this life somewhat bearable.

LLMs that can build a computer vision pipeline are a direct threat to my ability to sustain myself. At the same time, being able to prompt an LLM to build a computer vision pipeline doesn't really positively affect my life at all, because personally I don't care that much about computer vision pipelines (or frankly, any software).

Re: Claude Opus 5

#799

Post by tossandthrow »

muldvarp wrote: post #796

Why should I be amazed at something that promises to destroy my life? I genuinely don't understand why people who have to work for their living are amazed at this. It will have a vast negative impact on your life unless you already live off of your wealth.

Even for people living of wealth, it is not clear what the outcomes are.

If renters of your apartments can not afford to rent them, housing crashes because your city was a looser (Detroit style withdrawals).

Even for stocks we don't know who the winners are. The market as a whole usually does not respond that well on serious turmoil.

So yeah. We are likely seeing some very rough years.

Post reply on HN