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

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#141

Post by staticassertion »

emp17344 wrote: post #81
JoshTriplett wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels like we're hitting a point where alignment becomes adversarial against intelligence itself. It always has been. We already hit the point a while ag where we regularly caught them trying to be deceptive, so we should automatically assume from that point forward that if we don't catch them being deceptive, that may mean they're better at it rather than that they're not doing it.

These are language models, not Skynet. They do not scheme or deceive.

Okay, well, they produce outputs that appear to be deceptive upon review. Who cares about the distinction in this context? The point is that your expectations of the model to produce some outputs in some way based on previous experiences with that model during training phases may not align with that model's outputs after training.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#143

Post by yonatan8070 »

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

Maybe they're numbering the models based on internal architecture/codebase revisions and Sonnet 4.6 was trained using the 4.6 tooling, which didn't change enough to warrant 5?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#144

Post by shimman »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #140
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.

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.

Yes, when your priors are not being confirmed the best course of action is to denounce the very thing itself. Nothing wrong with that logic!

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#147

Post by moritzwarhier »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #68
madihaa wrote: post #9

[flagged]

> It feels like we're hitting a point where alignment becomes adversarial against intelligence itself. It always has been. We already hit the point a while ag where we regularly caught them trying to be deceptive, so we should automatically assume from that point forward that if we don't catch them being deceptive, that may mean they're better at it rather than that they're not doing it.

Deceptive is such an unpleasant word. But I agree.

Going back a decade: when your loss function is "survive Tetris as long as you can", it's objectively and honestly the best strategy to press PAUSE/START.

When your loss function is "give as many correct and satisfying answers as you can", and then humans try to constrain it depending on the model's environment, I wonder what these humans think the specification for a general AI should be. Maybe, when such an AI is deceptive, the attempts to constrain it ran counter to the goal?

"A machine that can answer all questions" seems to be what people assume AI chatbots are trained to be.

To me, humans not questioning this goal is still more scary than any machine/software by itself could ever be. OK, except maybe for autonomous stalking killer drones.

But these are also controlled by humans and already exist.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#148

Post by emp17344 »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #140
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.

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.

Would you say the same about ELIZA?

Moltbook demonstrates that AI models simply do not engage in behavior analogous to human behavior. Compare Moltbook to Reddit and the difference should be obvious.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#149

Post by shimman »

lowkey_ wrote: post #97
behnamoh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the model is merely repeating the patterns it saw in its brutal safety training at Anthropic. They put models under stress test and RLHF the hell out of them. Of course the model would learn what the less penalized paths require it to do. Anthropic has a tendency to exaggerate the results of their (arguably scientific) research; IDK what they gain from this fearmongering.

I'd challenge that if you think they're fearmongering but don't see what they can gain from it (I agree it shows no obvious benefit for them), there's a pretty high probability they're not fearmongering.

You really don't see how they can monetarily gain from "our models are so advance they keep trying to trick us!"? Are tech workers this easily mislead nowadays?

Reminds me of how scammers would trick doctors into pumping penny stocks for a easy buck during the 80s/90s.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#150

Post by IshKebab »

jefftk wrote: post #136
gordonhart wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They said:

> Due to concerns about large language models being used to generate deceptive, biased, or abusive language at scale, we are only releasing a much smaller version of GPT‑2 along with sampling code (opens in a new window).

"Too dangerous to release" is accurate. There's no rewriting of history.

Post reply on HN