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

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#151

Post by [deleted] »

bronco21016 wrote: post #73
neural_thing wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it matter? How much power does it take to run duolingo? How much power did it take to manufacture 300000 Teslas? Everything takes power

I think it does matter how much power it takes but, in the context of power to "benefits humanity" ratio. Things that significantly reduce human suffering or improve human life are probably worth exerting energy on. However, if we frame the question this way, I would imagine there are many more low-hanging fruit before we question the utility of LLMs. For example, should some humans be dumping 5-10 kWh/day into thing…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#153

Post by dingnuts »

ostinslife wrote: post #98
emp17344 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you define "deceive" as something language models cannot do, then sure, it can't do that. It seems like thats putting the cart before the horse. Algorithmic or stochastic; deception is still deception.

deception implies intent. this is confabulation, more widely called "hallucination" until this thread.

confabulation doesn't require knowledge, which as we know, the only knowledge a language model has is the relationships between tokens, and sometimes that rhymes with reality enough to be useful, but it isn't knowledge of facts of any kind.

and never has been.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#155

Post by jtokoph »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #79

For people like me who can't view the link due to corporate firewalling. https://web.archive.org/web/20260217180019/https://www-cdn.a...

Put of curiosity, does the firewall block because the company doesn’t want internal data ever hitting a 3rd party LLM?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#156

Post by gordonhart »

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…

> Due to our concerns about malicious applications of the technology, we are not releasing the trained model. As an experiment in responsible disclosure, we are instead releasing a much smaller model for researchers to experiment with, as well as a technical paper.

I wouldn't call it rewriting history to say they initially considered GPT-2 too dangerous to be released. If they'd applied this approach to subsequent models rather than making them available via ChatGPT and an API, it's conceivable that LLMs would be 3-5 years behind where they currently are in the development cycle.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#157

Post by the_duke »

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.

An Anthropic safety researcher just recently quit with very cryptic messages , saying "the world is in peril"... [1] (which may mean something, or nothing at all)

Codex quite often refuses to do "unsafe/unethical" things that Anthropic models will happily do without question.

Anthropic just raised 30 bn... OpenAI wants to raise 100bn+.

Thinking any of them will actually be restrained by ethics is foolish.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46972496

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#158

Post by ainch »

behnamoh wrote: post #75
madihaa wrote: post #9

[flagged]

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.

Knowing a couple people who work at Anthropic or in their particular flavour of AI Safety, I think you would be surprised how sincere they are about existential AI risk. Many safety researchers funnel into the company, and the Amodei's are linked to Effective Altruism, which also exhibits a strong (and as far as I can tell, sincere) concern about existential AI risk. I personally disagree with their risk analysis, but I don't doubt that these people are serious.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#159

Post by WarmWash »

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.

On some level the cope should be that AI does have consciousness, because an unconscious machine deceiving humans is even scarier if you ask me.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#160

Post by cmrdporcupine »

gallerdude wrote: post #69

The weirdest thing about this AI revolution is how smooth and continuous it is. If you look closely at differences between 4.6 and 4.5, it’s hard to see the subtle details. A year ago today, Sonnet 3.5 (new), was the newest model. A week later, Sonnet 3.7 would be released. Even 3.7 feels like ancient history! But in the gradient of 3.5 to 3.5 (new) to 3.7 to 4 to 4.1 to 4.5, I can’t think of one moment where I saw e…

Honestly, 4.5 Opus was the game changer. From Sonnet 4.5 to that was a massive difference.

But I'm on Codex GPT 5.3 this month, and it's also quite amazing.

Post reply on HN