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

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#132

Post by ceroxylon »

crummy wrote: post #49
estomagordo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it wild that a LLM is as capable as a previously released LLM?

Opus is supposed to be the expensive-but-quality one, while Sonnet is the cheaper one. So if you don't want to pay the significant premium for Opus, it seems like you can just wait a few weeks till Sonnet catches up

Strangely enough, my first test with Sonnet 4.6 via the API for a relatively simple request was more expensive ($0.11) than my average request to Opus 4.6 (~$0.07), because it used way more tokens than what I would consider necessary for the prompt.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#133

Post by mfiguiere »

In Claude Code 2.1.45:

  1. Default (recommended)   Opus 4.6 · Most capable for complex work
   2. Opus (1M context)        Opus 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $10/$37.50 per Mtok
   3. Sonnet                   Sonnet 4.6 · Best for everyday tasks
   4. Sonnet (1M context)      Sonnet 4.6 with 1M context · Billed as extra usage · $6/$22.50 per Mtok

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#135

Post by simlevesque »

behrlich wrote: post #115
simlevesque wrote: post #95

does anyone know how to use it in Claude Code cli right now ? This doesnt work: `/model claude-sonnet-4-6-20260217` edit: "/model claude-sonnet-4-6" works with Claude Code v2.1.44

Max user: Also can't see 4.6 and can't set it in claude code. I see it in the model selector in the browser. Edit: I am now in - just needed to wait.

"/model claude-sonnet-4-6" works

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#136

Post by jefftk »

gordonhart wrote: post #90
gallerdude wrote: post #55

I always grew up hearing “competition is good for the consumer.” But I never really internalized how good fierce battles for market share are. The amount of competition in a space is directly proportional to how good the results are for consumers.

Remember when GPT-2 was “too dangerous to release” in 2019? That could have still been the state in 2026 if they didn’t YOLO it and ship ChatGPT to kick off this whole race.

That's rewriting history. What they said at the time:

> Nearly a year ago we wrote in the OpenAI Charter : “we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research,” and we see this current work as potentially representing the early beginnings of such concerns, which we expect may grow over time. This decision, as well as our discussion of it, is an experiment: while we are not sure that it is the right decision today, we believe that the AI community will eventually need to tackle the issue of publication norms in a thoughtful way in certain research areas. -- https://openai.com/index/better-language-models/

Then over the next few months they released increasingly large models, with the full model public in November 2019 https://openai.com/index/gpt-2-1-5b-release/ , well before ChatGPT.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#139

Post by emp17344 »

DennisP wrote: post #129
emp17344 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but Moltbook demonstrates that AI models do not engage in truly coordinated behavior. They simply do not behave the way real humans do on social media sites - the actual behavior can be differentiated.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#140

Post by thomassmith65 »

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.

If a chatbot that can carry on an intelligent conversation about itself doesn't have a 'semblance of consciousness' then the word 'semblance' is meaningless.
Post reply on HN