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

Claude Integrations

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 266 posts

Re: Claude Integrations

#121

Post by mattlutze »

user_7832 wrote: post #26
throwup238 wrote: post #16

The leap frogging at this point is getting insane (in a good way, I guess?). The amount of time each state of the art feature gets before it's supplanted is a few weeks at this point. LLMs were always a fun novelty for me until OpenAI DeepResearch which started to actually come up with useful results on more complex programming questions (where I needed to write all the code by hand but had to pull together lots of d…

I agree with your overall message - rapid growth appears to encourage competition and forces companies to put their best foot forward. However, unfortunately, I cannot shower much praise on Claude 3.7. And if you (or anyone) asks why - 3.7 seems much better than 3.5, surely? - Then I’m moderately sure that you use Claude much more for coding than for any kind of conversation. In my opinion, even 3.5 Haiku (which is a…

The expectation that one model be top marks for all things is, imo, asking too much.

Re: Claude Integrations

#122

Post by omneity »

riku_iki wrote: post #116
omneity wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RAG is infinitely more accessible and cheaper than finetuning. But it is true that finetuning is getting severely overlooked in situations where it would outperform alternatives like RAG.

> RAG is infinitely more accessible and cheaper than finetuning. it depends on your data access pattern. If some text goes through LLM input many times, it is more efficient for LLM to be finetuned on it once.

This assumes the team deploying the RAG-based solution has equal ability to either engineer a RAG-based system or to finetune an LLM. Those are different skillsets and even selecting which LLM should be finetuned is a complex question, let alone aligning it, deploying it, optimizing inference etc.

The budget question comes into play as well. Even if text is repetitively fed to the LLM, that might happen over a long enough time compared to finetuning which is a sort of capex that it is financially more accessible.

Now bear in mind, I'm a big proponent of finetuning where applicable and I try to raise awareness to the possibilities it opens. But one cannot deny RAG is a lot more accessible to teams which are likely developers / AI engineers compared to ML engineers/researchers.

Re: Claude Integrations

#123

Post by worldsayshi »

sepositus wrote: post #107
worldsayshi wrote: post #103

Is it just me that would like to see more of confirmations before making opaque changes to remote systems? I might not dare to add an integration if it can potentially add a bunch of stuff to the backing systems without my approval. Confirmations and review should be part of the protocol.

Yeah, this was my first thought. I was watching the video of it creating all of these Jira tickets just thinking in my head: "I hope it just did all that correctly." I think the level of patience with my team would be very low if I started running an LLM that accidentally deleted a bunch of really important tickets.

Yeah. Feels like it's breaking some fundamental UX principle. If an action is going to make any significant change make sure that it fulfills at least one of these:

1. Can be rollbacked/undone

2. Clearly states exactly what it's going to do in a reviewable way

If those aren't fulfilled you're going to end up with users that are afraid of using your app.

Re: Claude Integrations

#124

Post by fredoliveira »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #108
n_ary wrote: post #30

Is this the beginning of the apps for everything era and finally the SaaS for your LLM begins? Initially we had internet but value came when instead of installed apps, webapps arrived to become SaaS. Now if LLMs can use specific remote MCP which is another SaaS for your LLM, the remote MCP powered service can charge a subscription to do wonderful things and voila! Let the new golden age of SaaS for LLMs begin and the…

I'd love a _tip jar_ MCP, where the LLM vendor can automatically tip my website for using its content/feature/service in a query's response. Even if the amount is absolutely minuscule, in aggregate, this might make up for ad revenue losses.

Not that exactly, but I just saw this on twitter a few minutes ago from Stripe: https://x.com/jeff_weinstein/status/1918029261430255626

Re: Claude Integrations

#125

Post by bloomca »

atonse wrote: post #54

I think with MCPs and related tech, if Apple just internally went back to the drawing board and integrated the concept of MCPs directly into iOS (via the "Apple Intelligence" umbrella) and seamlessly integrated it into the App Store and apps, they will win the mobile race for this. Being Apple, they would have to come up with something novel like they did with push (where you have _one_ OS process running that delega…

That's just App Intents. I don't think they lack data at this point, they just struggle how to use that data on the OS level

Re: Claude Integrations

#126

Post by nilslice »

the_clarence wrote: post #113

Been playing with MCP in the last few days and it's basically a more streamlined way to define tools/function calls. That + the agent SDK of openAI makes creating agentic flow so easy. On the other hand you're kinda forced to run these tools / MCP servers in their own process which makes no sense to me.

you might like mcp.run, a tool management platform we're working on... totally agree running a process per tool, with all kinds of permissions is nonsensical - and the move to "remote MCP" is a good one!

but, we're taking it a step (or two) further, enabling you to dynamically build up a MCP server from other servers managed in your account with us.

try it out, or let me get you a demo! this goes for any casual comment readers too ;)

https://cal.com/team/dylibso/mcp.run-demo

Re: Claude Integrations

#127

Post by riku_iki »

omneity wrote: post #122
riku_iki wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RAG is infinitely more accessible and cheaper than finetuning. it depends on your data access pattern. If some text goes through LLM input many times, it is more efficient for LLM to be finetuned on it once.

This assumes the team deploying the RAG-based solution has equal ability to either engineer a RAG-based system or to finetune an LLM. Those are different skillsets and even selecting which LLM should be finetuned is a complex question, let alone aligning it, deploying it, optimizing inference etc. The budget question comes into play as well. Even if text is repetitively fed to the LLM, that might happen over a long e…

> But one cannot deny RAG is a lot more accessible to teams which are likely developers / AI engineers compared to ML engineers/researchers.

It looks like major vendors provide simple API for fine-tuning, so you don't need ML engineers/researchers: https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/fine-tuning

Setting RAG infra is likely more complicated than that.

Re: Claude Integrations

#128

Post by achierius »

heyheyhouhou wrote: post #120
clvx wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more excited I can run now a custom site, hook an MCP for it, and have all the cool intelligence I had to pay for SaaS without having to integrate to them plus govern my data, it's a massive win. I just see AI assistant coding replicating current SaaS services that I can run internally. If my shop was a specific stack, I could aim to have all my supporting apps in that specific stack using AI assistant coding, si…

We should all thank the chinese companies for releasing so many incredible open weight models. I hope they keep doing it, I dont want to rely on OpenAI, Anthropic or Google for all my future computer interactions.

Don't forget Meta, without them we probably wouldn't have half the publicly available models we do today.

Re: Claude Integrations

#129

Post by deanc »

I find it absolutely astonishing that Atlassian hasn’t yet provided an LLM for confluence instances and instead a third party is required. The sheer scale of documentation and information I’ve seen at some organisations I’ve worked with is overwhelming. This would be a killer feature. I do not recommend confluence to my clients simply because the search is so appalling .

Keyword search is such a naive approach to information discovery and information sharing - and renders confluence in big orgs useless. Being able to discuss and ask questions is a more natural way of unpacking problems.

Re: Claude Integrations

#130

Post by [deleted] »

deanc wrote: post #129

I find it absolutely astonishing that Atlassian hasn’t yet provided an LLM for confluence instances and instead a third party is required. The sheer scale of documentation and information I’ve seen at some organisations I’ve worked with is overwhelming. This would be a killer feature. I do not recommend confluence to my clients simply because the search is so appalling . Keyword search is such a naive approach to inf…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN