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

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#881

Post by _blk »

andy_ppp wrote: post #873
mlcrypto wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I genuinely don't understand why people who have to work for their living are amazed at this." Also said after seeing the printing press, automobile, calculator, etc for the first time

My god, the printing press was invented in 1440 when most people were living in abject poverty - it took until after WW2 for humans to demand a more shared amount of money between rich and poor. If you think technology delivers improvements in living standards rather than all working people demanding better conditions you’re living in an absolute fantasy and do not understand history at all. I honestly can’t believe…

Not to be overly intensive but people "demand" rectification between rich and poor because they don't see that they have all the tools they need or they want a shortcut to smart/hard work and risk - the US, EU and many other parts of the world where societal discrimination is virtually none compared to previous generations give you what you need. I agree with you in the sense that, life never feels just, grass is always greener on the other side, etc.. Bit it's those that rise to a challenge and stop demanding, make a plan and start doing that change their fate. That's always been history. Check out all societies that demanded riches from "the rich" and ended up communist.. Didn't help most of them for sure. Massive redistribution of riches like high taxes never works long term and sets the wrong signals.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#882

Post by irishcoffee »

Slartie wrote: post #801
tossandthrow wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, most wealth is ultimately dependent on some kind of ability to scrape off tiny bits of practical accomplishments of value achieved by large numbers of people. In some cases, such as your housing example, this is a very direct dependency. In other cases the dependency is indirect and less visible. The smarter ones among the rich have realized this and are open for something like a universal basic income precisely…

UBI will never happen. I don’t understand why it’s even brought up anymore. Social security isn’t even solvent, health care is a disaster, and people still trumpet UBI like all of the enormous glaring funding holes don’t exist.

It’s embarrassing at this point. Give it up.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#883

Post by lanstin »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #878
virgildotcodes wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Give the model judgement

And good taste.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#884

Post by smokeeaasd »

The internally-reported benchmarks (Frontier-Bench, AutomationBench) and the customer quotes (Cursor, Devin, Lovable) all have a commercial stake in the outcome

worth waiting for independent evals before drawing conclusions.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#885

Post by spwa4 »

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…

Incidentally ARC-AGI is pretty fun to run as a human: https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/3

Re: Claude Opus 5

#886

Post by sebastiangula »

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…

Maybe we’re desensitized because all that progress hasn’t made our lives any more meaningful, happier, or even easier.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#887

Post by sieabahlpark »

haizhung wrote: post #852
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…

> I can't understand why anyone expects things like civil rights, property, the rule of law, nuclear deterrence, democracy, etc to survive when human beings no longer need each other. What’s your source on this? When humans have no obligations they usually turn around to be super nice to each other. Humans are social animals and they really really want everyone they know to do well.

[dead]

Re: Claude Opus 5

#888

Post by lanstin »

teiferer wrote: post #721
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…

> responded by writing its own computer vision pipeline Was it "its own" or something that was part of its training material? Don't get me wrong, I find this all amazing too and makes my work 10x easier and quicker. But it's not like it's inventing this stuff from scratch / first principles. It has seen this kind of tech before by consuming all publicly available source code and books etc. (And that's ok, but let's b…

Glue layers are fun and easy to write - and often worth doing.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#889

Post by wavemode »

redbell wrote: post #594

My excitement about Anthropic had fabled-out dramatically when they suspended my pro account about two weeks ago within just 12 hours of fair use. I was really mind-blown when I tried Fable 5 for the first time to help me improve a game I was working on but shortly, they decided that I had a suspicious activity and suspended my account without a clear reason. I submitted a an appeal describing that I am 100% sure I h…

Are you outside the US? And/or are you using VPN? Those are the two things that come to my mind that can cause overzealous security monitoring to flag someone.

Another explanation could be the content itself. Does your game have anything at all to do with computer hacking or sexual content? Is there graphic violent language? People commonly report being unable to use AI to work on such things due to guardrails.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#890

Post by lanstin »

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.

We aren’t specifically designed for anything, perhaps outside of the necessary consequences of having our mental capabilities and existing in an evolutionary context, so we can reason about tigers or integers and can persuade others to like us and have sex and help with our kids.

But our material natures are such that we have a profound need for external training sets - we don’t develop linguistic abilities unless we are exposed to a lot of speech. We can’t hear or produce phonemes in general that we are not exposed to during the training years.

Literacy, libraries and printing are so powerful because they extend the lifetime and size of our training material; if we each had to invent culture from our individual powers and skills, we would be living worse than anyone for fifty thousand years has lived.

Post reply on HN