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

Claude Sonnet 4.6

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#121

Post by layer8 »

eth0up wrote: post #40
madihaa wrote: post #9

[flagged]

I am casually 'researching' this in my own, disorderly way. But I've achieved repeatable results, mostly with gpt for which I analyze its tendency to employ deflective, evasive and deceptive tactics under scrutiny. Very very DARVO. Being just sum guy, and not in the industry, should I share my findings? I find it utterly fascinating, the extent to which it will go, the sophisticated plausible deniability, and the dis…

Sum guy vs. product guy is amusing. :)

Regarding DARVO, given that the models were trained on heaps of online discourse, maybe it’s not so surprising.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#122

Post by retinaros »

energy123 wrote: post #118
andsoitis wrote: post #77

I’m voting with my dollars by having cancelled my ChatGPT subscription and instead subscribing to Claude. Google needs stiff competition and OpenAI isn’t the camp I’m willing to trust. Neither is Grok. I’m glad Anthropic’s work is at the forefront and they appear, at least in my estimation, to have the strongest ethics.

Grok usage is the most mystifying to me. Their model isn't in the top 3 and they have bad ethics. Like why would anyone bother for work tasks.

The X grok feature is one of the best end user feature or large scale genai

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#123

Post by deepdarkforest »

andsoitis wrote: post #77

I’m voting with my dollars by having cancelled my ChatGPT subscription and instead subscribing to Claude. Google needs stiff competition and OpenAI isn’t the camp I’m willing to trust. Neither is Grok. I’m glad Anthropic’s work is at the forefront and they appear, at least in my estimation, to have the strongest ethics.

The funny thing is that Anthropic is the only lab without an open source model

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#124

Post by JoshGlazebrook »

andsoitis wrote: post #77

I’m voting with my dollars by having cancelled my ChatGPT subscription and instead subscribing to Claude. Google needs stiff competition and OpenAI isn’t the camp I’m willing to trust. Neither is Grok. I’m glad Anthropic’s work is at the forefront and they appear, at least in my estimation, to have the strongest ethics.

I did this a couple months ago and haven't looked back. I sometimes miss the "personality" of the gpt model I had chats with, but since I'm essentially 99% of the time just using claude for eng related stuff it wasn't worth having ChatGPT as well.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#125

Post by qwertox »

I'm pretty sure they have been testing it for the last couple of days as Sonnet 4.5, because I've had the oddest conversations with it lately. Odd in a positive, interesting way.

I have this in my personal preferences and now was adhering really well to them:

- prioritize objective facts and critical analysis over validation or encouragement

- you are not a friend, but a neutral information-processing machine

You can paste them into a chat and see how it changes the conversation, ChatGPT also respects it well.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#126

Post by minimaxir »

edverma2 wrote: post #110

It seems that extra-usage is required to use the 1M context window for Sonnet 4.6. This differs from Sonnet 4.5, which allows usage of the 1M context window with a Max plan. ``` /model claude-sonnet-4-6[1m] ⎿ API error: 429 {"type":"error","error": {"type":"rate_limit_error","message":"Extra usage is required for long context requests."},"request_id":"[redacted]"} ```

Anthropic's recent gift of $50 extra usage has demonstrated that it's extremely easy to burn extra usage very quickly. It wouldn't surprise me if this change is more of a business decision than a technical one.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#127

Post by johnwheeler »

JoshGlazebrook wrote: post #124
andsoitis wrote: post #77

I’m voting with my dollars by having cancelled my ChatGPT subscription and instead subscribing to Claude. Google needs stiff competition and OpenAI isn’t the camp I’m willing to trust. Neither is Grok. I’m glad Anthropic’s work is at the forefront and they appear, at least in my estimation, to have the strongest ethics.

I did this a couple months ago and haven't looked back. I sometimes miss the "personality" of the gpt model I had chats with, but since I'm essentially 99% of the time just using claude for eng related stuff it wasn't worth having ChatGPT as well.

Same here

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#128

Post by eth0up »

chrisweekly wrote: post #51
eth0up wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am casually 'researching' this in my own, disorderly way. But I've achieved repeatable results, mostly with gpt for which I analyze its tendency to employ deflective, evasive and deceptive tactics under scrutiny. Very very DARVO. Being just sum guy, and not in the industry, should I share my findings? I find it utterly fascinating, the extent to which it will go, the sophisticated plausible deniability, and the dis…

DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender," and it is a manipulation tactic often used by perpetrators of wrongdoing, such as abusers, to avoid accountability. This strategy involves denying the abuse, attacking the accuser, and claiming to be the victim in the situation.

Exactly. And I have hundreds of examples of just that. Hence my fascination, awe and terror.....

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#129

Post by DennisP »

emp17344 wrote: post #78
madihaa wrote: post #9

[flagged]

This type of anthropomorphization is a mistake. If nothing else, the takeaway from Moltbook should be that LLMs are not alive and do not have any semblance of consciousness.

Consciousness is orthogonal to this. If the AI acts in a way that we would call deceptive, if a human did it, then the AI was deceptive. There's no point in coming up with some other description of the behavior just because it was an AI that did it.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#130

Post by Sajarin »

Retr0id wrote: post #64
quacky_batak wrote: post #52

With such a huge leap, i’m confused why they didn’t call it Sonnet 5? As someone who uses Sonnet 4.5 for 95% tasks due to costs, i’m pretty excited to try 4.6 at the same price

It'd be a bit weird to have the Sonnet numbering ahead of the Opus numbering. The Opus 4.5->4.6 change was a little more incremental (from my perspective at least, I haven't been paying attention to benchmark numbers), so I think the Opus numbering makes sense.

Sonnet numbering has been weirder in the past.

Opus 3.5 was scrapped even though Sonnet 3.5 and Haiku 3.5 were released.

Not to mention Sonnet 3.7 (while Opus was still on version 3)

Shameless source: https://sajarin.com/blog/modeltree/

Post reply on HN