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

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#221

Post by jMyles »

toddmorey wrote: post #182
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Codex quite often refuses to do "unsafe/unethical" things that Anthropic models will happily do without question. That's why I have a functioning brain, to discern between ethical and unethical, among other things.

You are not the one folks are worried about. US Department of War wants unfettered access to AI models, without any restraints / safety mitigations. Do you provide that for all governments? Just one? Where does the line go?

> Where does the line go?

a) Uncensored and simple technology for all humans; that's our birthright and what makes us special and interesting creatures. It's dangerous and requires a vibrant society of ongoing ethical discussion.

b) No governments at all in the internet age. Nobody has any particular authority to initiate violence.

That's where the line goes. We're still probably a few centuries away, but all the more reason to hone in our course now.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#222

Post by ljm »

the_duke wrote: post #157
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:/…

I'm building a new hardware drum machine that is powered by voltage based on fluctuations in the stock market, and I'm getting a clean triangle wave from the predictive markets.

Bring on the cryptocore.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#223

Post by maest »

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.

Unfortunately, people naively assume all markets behave like this, even when the market, in reality, is not set up for full competition (due to monopolies, monopsonies, informational asymmetry, etc).

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#224

Post by bigyabai »

jack_pp wrote: post #164
deepdarkforest wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And you believe the other open source models are a signal for ethics? Don't have a dog in this fight, haven't done enough research to proclaim any LLM provider as ethical but I pretty much know the reason Meta has an open source model isn't because they're good guys.

> Don't have a dog in this fight,

That's probably why you don't get it, then. Facebook was the primary contributor behind Pytorch, which basically set the stage for early GPT implementations.

For all the issues you might have with Meta's social media, Facebook AI Research Labs have an excellent reputation in the industry and contributed greatly to where we are now. Same goes for Google Brain/DeepMind despite their Google's advertisement monopoly; things aren't ethically black-and-white.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#225

Post by fullstackchris »

surgical_fire wrote: post #167
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 use Claude at work, Codex for personal development. Claude is marginally better. Both are moderately useful depending on the context. I don't trust any of them (I also have no trust in Google nor in X). Those are all evil companies and the world would be better if they disappeared.

google is "evil" ok buddy

i mean what clown show are we living in at this point - claims like this simply running rampant with 0 support or references

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#226

Post by falcor84 »

emp17344 wrote: post #139
DennisP wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that's how ML works - as long as the output can be differentiated, we can utilize gradient descent to optimize the difference away. Eventually, the difference will be imperceptible.

And of course that brings me back to my favorite xkcd - https://xkcd.com/810/

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#227

Post by malfist »

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.

This sounds suspiciously like they #WalkAway fake grassroots stuff.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#228

Post by micw »

tempestn wrote: post #50
estomagordo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because Opus 4.5 was released like a month ago and state of the art, and now the significantly faster and cheaper version is already comparable.

"Faster" is also a good point. I'm using different models via GitHub copilot and find the better, more accurate models way to slow.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#229

Post by anonym29 »

m4rtink wrote: post #181
deepdarkforest wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can those be even called open source if you can't rebuild if from the source yourself?

Open weights fulfill a lot of functional the properties of open source, even if not all of them. Consider the classic CIA triad - confidentiality, integrity, and availability. You can achieve all of these to a much greater degree with locally-run open weight models than you can with cloud inference providers.

We may not have the full logic introspection capabilities, the ease of modification (though you can still do some, like fine-tuning), and reproducibility that full source code offers, but open weight models bear more than a passing resemblance to the spirit of open source, even though they're not completely true to form.

Post reply on HN