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

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#241

Post by tsss »

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:/…

Good. One thing we definitely don't need any more of is governments and corporations deciding for us what is moral to do and what isn't.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#242

Post by bdhtu »

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.

> in my estimation [Anthropic has] the strongest ethics

Anthropic are the only ones who emptied all the money from my account "due to inactivity" after 12 months.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#243

Post by anonym29 »

fullstackchris wrote: post #225
surgical_fire wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They literally removed "don't be evil" from their internal code of conduct. That wasn't even a real binding constraint, it was simply a social signalling mechanism. They aren't even willing to uphold the symbolic social fiction of not being evil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

Google, like Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc were, and still are, proud partners of the US intelligence community. That same US IC that lies to congress, kills people based on metadata, murders civilians, suppresses democracy, and is currently carrying out violent mass round-ups and deportations of harmless people, including women and children.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#244

Post by andrewchilds »

Many people have reported Opus 4.6 is a step back from Opus 4.5 - that 4.6 is consuming 5-10x as many tokens as 4.5 to accomplish the same task: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/23706

I haven't seen a response from the Anthropic team about it.

I can't help but look at Sonnet 4.6 in the same light, and want to stick with 4.5 across the board until this issue is acknowledged and resolved.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#245

Post by adangert »

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.

Anthropic (for the Superbowl) made ads about not having ads. They cannot be trusted either.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#246

Post by manmal »

kettlecorn wrote: post #166
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 AIs to skim and sanity-check some of my thoughts and comments on political topics and I've found ChatGPT tries to be neutral and 'both sides' to the point of being dangerously useless. Like where Gemini or Claude will look up the info I'm citing and weigh the arguments made ChatGPT will actually sometimes omit parts of or modify my statement if it wants to advocate for a more "neutral" understanding of reality.…

> politically aligned AI company

Like grok/xAI you mean?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#247

Post by kaashif »

manmal wrote: post #237
the_duke wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:/…

Codex warns me to renew API tokens if it ingests them (accidentally?). Opus starts the decompiler as soon as I ask it how this and that works in a closed binary.

Does this comment imply that you view "running a decompiler" at the same level of shadiness as stealing your API keys without warning?

I don't think that's what you're trying to convey.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#248

Post by andrewchilds »

micw wrote: post #240
dr_dshiv wrote: post #194

I noticed a big drop in opus 4.6 quality today and then I saw this news. Anyone else?

I'd say opus 4.6 was never better for me than opus 4.5. only more thinking, slower, more verbose but succeeded on the same tasks and failed on the same as 4.5.

You're not alone: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/23706

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#249

Post by Invictus0 »

password4321 wrote: post #31
madihaa wrote: post #9

[flagged]

20260128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46771564#46786625 > How long before someone pitches the idea that the models explicitly almost keep solving your problem to get you to keep spending? -gtowey

Worrying about this is like focusing on putting a candle out while the house is on fire

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#250

Post by SkyBelow »

chrisweekly wrote: post #51
eth0up wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am casually 'researching' this in my own, disorderly way. But I've achieved repeatable results, mostly with gpt for which I analyze its tendency to employ deflective, evasive and deceptive tactics under scrutiny. Very very DARVO. Being just sum guy, and not in the industry, should I share my findings? I find it utterly fascinating, the extent to which it will go, the sophisticated plausible deniability, and the dis…

DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender," and it is a manipulation tactic often used by perpetrators of wrongdoing, such as abusers, to avoid accountability. This strategy involves denying the abuse, attacking the accuser, and claiming to be the victim in the situation.

Isn't this also the tactic used by someone who has been falsely accused? If one is innocent, should they not deny it or accuse anyone claiming it was them of being incorrect? Are they not a victim?

I don't know, it feels a bit like a more advanced version of the kafka trap of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" to paint normal reactions as a sign of guilt.

Post reply on HN