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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#841

Post by bbor »

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…

1. Languages are used for much, much more than communication, and there is good reason to think that capacity didn't evolve for communication, but rather for metacognitive problem solving.

2. The idea that Tolkein --one of the most reknowned writers in our entire canon-- did something isn't relevant to the philosophical discussion of creativity and its obvious bounds. Even Tolkein was just painting within the lines set by the linguists he had read and the obscure languages he adored, not to mention the fundamental limits set by our capacity for language in the first place.

For anyone who's curious about this kind of thing, I cannot reccomend the infamous debate b/w Chomsky & Foucault enough; it ranges across topics a bit, but chapter markers should help you skip to the core of it (creativity) if you prefer. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8 , some old summaries on /r/AskPhilosophy here: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/vgz1vb/what_...

Re: Claude Opus 5

#842

Post by ecto »

voidmain wrote: post #834
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.

I already live off my wealth, and I expect AI development to destroy my life. Once humans can be robustly replaced by machines, the military-industrial "meta build" will be a state with no humans, no cities, and 100% of all production dedicated to war. Whichever states descend to this new equilibrium fastest will crush the others and then fight over the corpse of the world forever. (Unless, of course, something like…

So sad. You're viewing humanity, and reality itself, through a very objective lens. There is magic in every day: have some fun! Otherwise, quit complaining.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#843

Post by encomiast »

amoss wrote: post #813
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?

The tu quoque argument doesn't really work here. LLMs are specifically designed to output either material from their training set or instances that look statistically like it. Humans are not.

Sincere question: do we know enough about human intelligence to support that last assertion?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#844

Post by zer00eyz »

bradleyjg wrote: post #802
makaking wrote: post #701

"Opus 5 was given a drawing of a machine part and asked to write code to rebuild it as a 3D FreeCAD model. However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing. Opus 5 responded by writing its own computer vision pipeline to pull the geometry from the raw pixels, then reconstructed the full machine part." How surreal is it that we are not absolutely jaw-dropped by these types o…

Let’s say somehow the politics lined up and you were given huge hiring budget for your team. You went out and recruited what seemed like great talent. Weekly standups make it seem like everyone is ramped up and firing on all cylinders. It’s great, right? But you look at what your team has actually delivered since—-and it’s just not that much more than last year. I think that’s where a lot of us are at the micro and m…

Escape the tech bubble and you're going to have a very different take.

AppleScript, VB script, IFTT, so many "drag and drop to program" systems that failed. The holy grail for a long time has been automation in users hands. Let them have their own scripts and solutions.

I have lawyers and writers talking to me about "docker containers" and "cron jobs" all of a sudden. You think they figured that out on their own - or is what they are running all from the output of AI/LLM?

There is an ocean of code out there that is being run by one or a hand full of users, automating tasks that you never would have looked at because it would have fallen outside the "is it worth your time" (see: https://xkcd.com/1205/) matrix (never mind the dollar cost of coder vs office drone).

Re: Claude Opus 5

#845

Post by uludag »

makaking wrote: post #701

"Opus 5 was given a drawing of a machine part and asked to write code to rebuild it as a 3D FreeCAD model. However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing. Opus 5 responded by writing its own computer vision pipeline to pull the geometry from the raw pixels, then reconstructed the full machine part." How surreal is it that we are not absolutely jaw-dropped by these types o…

Isn't this jaw-droppingly the wrong answer?! If the model isn't given any way to directly view the image shouldn't it just reply with one sentence asking for permission. This reads as a model hyper-trained to burn tokens.

Like suppose you issue a command to Opus or Fable which doesn't make sense and requires a lot of work. It will almost certainly not push back on your silly request and go ahead and burn as many tokens as it can doing the wrong task. This happens to me all the time.

Or if I was to tell a model to do something and it realized it could only do it by hacking into another service, by all means it should ask me if I want it to hack and not go ahead and do it by itself.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#846

Post by virgildotcodes »

uludag wrote: post #845
makaking wrote: post #701

"Opus 5 was given a drawing of a machine part and asked to write code to rebuild it as a 3D FreeCAD model. However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing. Opus 5 responded by writing its own computer vision pipeline to pull the geometry from the raw pixels, then reconstructed the full machine part." How surreal is it that we are not absolutely jaw-dropped by these types o…

Isn't this jaw-droppingly the wrong answer?! If the model isn't given any way to directly view the image shouldn't it just reply with one sentence asking for permission. This reads as a model hyper-trained to burn tokens. Like suppose you issue a command to Opus or Fable which doesn't make sense and requires a lot of work. It will almost certainly not push back on your silly request and go ahead and burn as many toke…

It's likely bumping up against people's desire to have the model complete a given task without asking the person to intervene a bunch of times.

Seems unclear how you satisfy everyone here.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#847

Post by ashtonshears »

ecto wrote: post #842
voidmain wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already live off my wealth, and I expect AI development to destroy my life. Once humans can be robustly replaced by machines, the military-industrial "meta build" will be a state with no humans, no cities, and 100% of all production dedicated to war. Whichever states descend to this new equilibrium fastest will crush the others and then fight over the corpse of the world forever. (Unless, of course, something like…

So sad. You're viewing humanity, and reality itself, through a very objective lens. There is magic in every day: have some fun! Otherwise, quit complaining.

‘Dont think, play pretend and be jolly’

Re: Claude Opus 5

#848

Post by Marha01 »

voidmain wrote: post #834
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.

I already live off my wealth, and I expect AI development to destroy my life. Once humans can be robustly replaced by machines, the military-industrial "meta build" will be a state with no humans, no cities, and 100% of all production dedicated to war. Whichever states descend to this new equilibrium fastest will crush the others and then fight over the corpse of the world forever. (Unless, of course, something like…

> Once humans can be robustly replaced by machines, the military-industrial "meta build" will be a state with no humans, no cities, and 100% of all production dedicated to war.

We will nuke it long before it gets to that point. We don't nuke other countries because they still contain lots of humans. Any AI that actually becomes autonomous and starts to clear a nation state of cities and humans will immediately receive megatons in nukes.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#849

Post by themantri »

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.

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Re: Claude Opus 5

#850

Post by idiotsecant »

Marha01 wrote: post #848
voidmain wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I already live off my wealth, and I expect AI development to destroy my life. Once humans can be robustly replaced by machines, the military-industrial "meta build" will be a state with no humans, no cities, and 100% of all production dedicated to war. Whichever states descend to this new equilibrium fastest will crush the others and then fight over the corpse of the world forever. (Unless, of course, something like…

> Once humans can be robustly replaced by machines, the military-industrial "meta build" will be a state with no humans, no cities, and 100% of all production dedicated to war. We will nuke it long before it gets to that point. We don't nuke other countries because they still contain lots of humans. Any AI that actually becomes autonomous and starts to clear a nation state of cities and humans will immediately receiv…

'We' will not be players in this situation. Over the space of a few generations the only entities that will have any power will be the feudal corpo-state and the only entity that will have any power within that will be a thin crust of humans who control the central machinery of that corporation.

The rest of us will be irrelevant.

Post reply on HN