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

Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

djnn.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 349 posts

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#221

Post by CuriouslyC »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #182
CuriouslyC wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hot mess that is Claude Code (if you multi-orchestrate with it, it'll start to grind even very powerful systems to a halt, 15+ seconds of unresponsiveness, all because CC constantly serializes/deserializes a JSON data file that grows quite large every time you do stuff), their horrible service uptime compared to all their competitors, their month long performance degradation their users had to scream at them to g…

> The hot mess that is Claude Code And yet it's one of the fastest growing products of all time and is currently the state of the art for AI coding assistants. Yeah it's not perfect but nothing is

I give the model a lot of credit for being very good at a fairly narrow slice of work (basic vibe coding/office stuff) that also happens to be extremely common. I'm harder on Claude Code because of its success and the fact that the company that makes it is worth so much.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#222

Post by stOneskull »

Aurornis wrote: post #157
notpublic wrote: post #78

"A report was recently published by an AI-research company called Anthropic. They are the ones who notably created Claude, an AI-assistant for coding. Personally, I don’t use it but that is besides the point." Not sure if the author has tried any other AI-assistants for coding. People who haven't tried coding AI assistant underestimates its capabilities (though unfortunately, those who use them overestimate what they…

> Personally, I don’t use it but that is besides the point. This popped out to me, too. This pattern shows up a lot on HN where commenters proudly declare that they don’t use something but then write as if they know it better than anyone else. The pattern is common in AI threads where someone proudly declares that they don’t use any of the tools but then wants to position themselves as an expert on the tools, like th…

> that is besides the point.

i guess it's on both sides of the point.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#223

Post by CuriouslyC »

fifhtbtbf wrote: post #201
CuriouslyC wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hot mess that is Claude Code (if you multi-orchestrate with it, it'll start to grind even very powerful systems to a halt, 15+ seconds of unresponsiveness, all because CC constantly serializes/deserializes a JSON data file that grows quite large every time you do stuff), their horrible service uptime compared to all their competitors, their month long performance degradation their users had to scream at them to g…

I have the opposite perception: they’re the only company in the space that seems to have a clue what responsible software engineering is. Gemini Code and Cursor both did such a poor job sandboxing their agents that the exploits sound like punchlines, while Microsoft doesn’t even try with Copilot Agentic. Countless Cursor bugs have been fixed with obviously vibe-coded fake solutions (you can see if you poke into code…

I suggest spending some time with Codex. Claude likes to hack objectives, it's really messy and it'll run off sometimes without a clear idea of what you want or how a project works. That is all fine when you're a non-technical person vibe coding a demo, but it really kills the product when you're working on hard tasks in a large codebase.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#224

Post by ACCount37 »

monocasa wrote: post #220
PunchyHamster wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defending is much, much harder than attacking for humans, I'd extrapolate that to AI/AGIs. Defender needs to get everything right, attacker needs to get one thing right.

Alternatively, one component of a superintelligence that makes it super might be a tiered mind that's capable of processing far more input streams simultaneously to get around the core human inadequacy here, that we can only really focus on one thing at a time. The same way we can build "muscle memory" to delegate simple autonomous tasks, a super intelligence might be able to dynamically delegate to human level (or g…

I automatically assume this to be the case, but I guess a lot of people don't. They imagine ASI as something like "an extremely smart human", not "an entire civilization worth of intelligence, attention and effort".

One of the most intuitive pathway to ASI is that AGI eventually gets incredibly good at improving AGI. And a system like this would be able to craft and direct stripped down AI subsystems.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#225

Post by metacritic12 »

prinny_ wrote: post #20

The lack of evidence before attributing the attack(s) to a Chinese sponsored group makes me correlate this report with recent statements from companies in the AI space about how China is about to surpass US in the AI race. Ultimately statements and reports like these seem more like an attempt to make the US government step in and be the big investor that keeps the money flowing rather than anything else.

Anthropic has also been the biggest anti-China LLM in a long while, so it's possible they're using an opportunistic hack (potentially involving actual Chinese IP addresses) as another way to push their agenda.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#226

Post by pbrum »

metacritic12 wrote: post #225
prinny_ wrote: post #20

The lack of evidence before attributing the attack(s) to a Chinese sponsored group makes me correlate this report with recent statements from companies in the AI space about how China is about to surpass US in the AI race. Ultimately statements and reports like these seem more like an attempt to make the US government step in and be the big investor that keeps the money flowing rather than anything else.

Anthropic has also been the biggest anti-China LLM in a long while, so it's possible they're using an opportunistic hack (potentially involving actual Chinese IP addresses) as another way to push their agenda.

This is key

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#228

Post by scuff3d »

bdangubic wrote: post #219
scuff3d wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bubble is gonna burst soon and these companies are desperate to convince the government they are either too big to fail or too critical to national defense to fail.

Feels like most current humans will die (some of boredom) while waiting on this bubble to burst… US in general and HN in particular are averaging 10.78 bubble-popping predictions per hour :)

It was the same thing with the dotcom bubble. People were talking about it 3 or 4 years before it actually happened.

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#229

Post by NewsaHackO »

antonvs wrote: post #187
y-curious wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know anything about him, but if he is running a department at Meta, he as at the very least a political genius and a teenage data labeller

Presumably this is all referring to Alexander Wang, who's 28 now. The data-labeling company he co-founded, Scale AI, was acquired by Meta at a valuation of nearly $30 billion. But I suppose the criticism is that he doesn't have deep AI model research credentials. Which raises the age-old question of how much technical expertise is really needed in executive management.

Hopefully he isn’t referring to Alex Wang, as it would invalidate anything else he said in his comment

Re: Anthropic’s paper smells like bullshit

#230

Post by [deleted] »

oarsinsync wrote: post #215
brookst wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So all attacks anywhere are state sponsored?

> > State sponsorship can include the state looking the other way. > So all attacks anywhere are state sponsored? There's a difference between a deliberate decision to look away, and unawareness through lack of oversight. You steal candy from a store. There's a difference between the security guard seeing you and deliberately looking away, compared to just not seeing you at all.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN