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

The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

patrickmccanna.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 248 posts

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#231

Post by handoflixue »

segmondy wrote: post #123

What I find sad is how much Anthropic goes to hide your data, yet they are happy to slurp up all yours and most of you are happy to hand it over. ... then they turn around and compete with you by building your products that eat into your market. Anthropic believes their reasoning tokens is a moat and that it's giving other labs an edge and that's why they are hiding it. If they really believe that is their edge, then…

> then they turn around and compete with you by building your products

To my knowledge, the only products Anthropic produces are Claude, Claude Code, and Claude API, all of which are clearly their own products, and not anything you invented.

Which particular product are you claiming they "slurped up"?

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#232

Post by handoflixue »

knollimar wrote: post #196
anuramat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any hubris in competition

"Our models are so much better than our competition that we would rather deliver a worse product to consumers than let people copy it" is how I read the stance

It seems weird to call it "hubris" when you have proof that multiple competitors have tried to do similar distillations.

Every closed-source project and really the vast majority of commercial exercises involve a large amount of "prevent consumers from copying this" - Coca Cola's formula is trademarked, Windows is copyrighted, etc.

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#233

Post by raxxorraxor »

StizzurpXDD wrote: post #18

This is not just Anthropic. Almost all big AI companies, including OpenAI and Google, hide their model's actual reasoning. This is because revealing the raw reasoning exposes exactly how the AI processes information. These companies spend in huge amounts on R&D to develop a thinking process that is superior to their competition. Exposing those thinking mechanics to competitors would completely defeat the purpose of t…

But that makes the product worse because for any complex problem the road to the solution is important to be reviewable.

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#234

Post by tancop »

foldr wrote: post #229
rustcleaner wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here is why I will never subscribe and, as an American, I hope the Chinese kick our butts. Maybe being second place to China will force American AI to dispose of these morality/safety guardrails.

Any mainstream consumer product based on LLMs is going to put guardrails around them of some kind. China might give you different guardrails, but it's a bit naive to assume that a Chinese company would impose fewer restrictions overall than an American one.

the key word is consumer product. apps can (and should) set their own rules but models need to stay neutral and capable of producing harmful content.

they should never generate it unless asked to by the user but its important that the capability is there and users/app developers can turn off all guardrails if they want to. open source gives you a guarantee that if one version drops without censorship you can keep using it forever even if its replaced by a censored one on the api.

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#236

Post by foldr »

tancop wrote: post #234
foldr wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any mainstream consumer product based on LLMs is going to put guardrails around them of some kind. China might give you different guardrails, but it's a bit naive to assume that a Chinese company would impose fewer restrictions overall than an American one.

the key word is consumer product. apps can (and should) set their own rules but models need to stay neutral and capable of producing harmful content. they should never generate it unless asked to by the user but its important that the capability is there and users/app developers can turn off all guardrails if they want to. open source gives you a guarantee that if one version drops without censorship you can keep usi…

I think you’re overestimating the market for such models. Most people don’t want a model that’s prone to generating extremely offensive output. If you want something “uncensored”, then open source models already exist, as you say. But the model itself has already been extensively tuned to produce desired outputs and not produce undesired outputs, so it doesn’t really make sense to distinguish “uncensored” raw models from “censored” apps or harnesses.

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#237

Post by chorizo »

foldr wrote: post #229
rustcleaner wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here is why I will never subscribe and, as an American, I hope the Chinese kick our butts. Maybe being second place to China will force American AI to dispose of these morality/safety guardrails.

Any mainstream consumer product based on LLMs is going to put guardrails around them of some kind. China might give you different guardrails, but it's a bit naive to assume that a Chinese company would impose fewer restrictions overall than an American one.

I extensively use open source Chinese LLM’s for coding. Reading the reasoning traces, especially when planning and debugging code, is valuable. I will pause the llm when immediately when it’s made incorrect assumptions. Often I see I mention erroneous stuff in the reasoning that doesn’t show in the final response. And I’ll copy/paste phrases directly from the reasoning traces and explain why this is incorrect.

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#238

Post by esailija »

rlpb wrote: post #228
_aavaa_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or like providing the world’s information in machine readable format that the AI companies can convert into model weights without getting permission or compensating the rights holders

I don't pay for my mind to absorb the world's information, either. And when I publish to the Internet, or give a talk, I also typically don't charge. Even when I publish under some kind of copyright restricted licence, that restriction has never (by law) extended to restricting transformative use that you might perform using your mind. This idea that absorbing information requires paying a toll needs to change. It wa…

I mean you probably cannot even do 284882 * 282817374 in your head, let alone billions of matrix multiplications so that argument doesn't make sense. If you used a trillion square feet of paper to do the calculations as extra steps to plagiarize something then it should be treated the same as doing it with a computer.

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#239

Post by palmotea »

foldr wrote: post #229
rustcleaner wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here is why I will never subscribe and, as an American, I hope the Chinese kick our butts. Maybe being second place to China will force American AI to dispose of these morality/safety guardrails.

Any mainstream consumer product based on LLMs is going to put guardrails around them of some kind. China might give you different guardrails, but it's a bit naive to assume that a Chinese company would impose fewer restrictions overall than an American one.

> Any mainstream consumer product based on LLMs is going to put guardrails around them of some kind. China might give you different guardrails, but it's a bit naive to assume that a Chinese company would impose fewer restrictions overall than an American one.

Exactly. The GP must have his head up his butt. The Chinese have far stricter guardrails on their models than America does. I mean, FFS, the country famously has a massive censorship apparatus and regulations to make sure the police can show up on your doorstep if you start talking out of line.

Re: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output

#240

Post by transcriptase »

foldr wrote: post #236
tancop wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the key word is consumer product. apps can (and should) set their own rules but models need to stay neutral and capable of producing harmful content. they should never generate it unless asked to by the user but its important that the capability is there and users/app developers can turn off all guardrails if they want to. open source gives you a guarantee that if one version drops without censorship you can keep usi…

I think you’re overestimating the market for such models. Most people don’t want a model that’s prone to generating extremely offensive output. If you want something “uncensored”, then open source models already exist, as you say. But the model itself has already been extensively tuned to produce desired outputs and not produce undesired outputs, so it doesn’t really make sense to distinguish “uncensored” raw models…

There’s a big difference between uncensored models and those that are specifically set up to only output things a panel of wealthy ivory tower Bay Area progressives would deem to be the “correct” or “inoffensive” take on a given topic.
Post reply on HN