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

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#271

Post by tavavex »

siva7 wrote: post #201

Epic, about 2/3 of all comments here are jokes. Not because the model is a joke - it's impressive. Not because HN turned to Reddit. It seems to me some of most brilliant minds in IT are just getting tired.

It's also that this is really new, so most people don't have anything serious or objective to say about it. This post was made an hour ago, so right now everyone is either joking, talking about the claims in the article, or running their early tests. We'll need time to see what the people think about this.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#272

Post by jedberg »

lnrd wrote: post #267
siva7 wrote: post #201

Epic, about 2/3 of all comments here are jokes. Not because the model is a joke - it's impressive. Not because HN turned to Reddit. It seems to me some of most brilliant minds in IT are just getting tired.

It's too much energy to keep up with things that become obsolete and get replaced in matters of weeks/months. My current plan is to ignore all of this new information for a while, then whenever the race ends and some winning new workflow/technology will actually become the norm I'll spend the time needed to learn it. Are we moving to some new paradigm same way we did when we invented compilers? Amazing, let me know w…

I had a similar rule about programming languages. I would not adopt a new one until it had been in use for at least a few years and grew in popularity.

I haven't even gotten around to learning Golang or Rust yet (mostly because the passed the threshold of popularity after I had kids).

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#273

Post by konart »

jedberg wrote: post #233
rogerrogerr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amateur. Opus 4.6 this afternoon built me a startup that identifies developers who aren’t embracing AI fully, liquifies them and sells the produce for $5/gallon. Software Engineering is over!

"Soylent Green is made of people!" (Apologies for the spoiler of the 52 year old movie)

We're sorry we upset you, Carol.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#274

Post by jedberg »

jghn wrote: post #270
jedberg wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Us olds sometimes miss Slashdot, where we could both joke about tech and discuss it seriously in the same place. But also because in 2000 we were all cynical Gen Xers :)

Some of us still *are* cynical Gen Xers, you insensitive clod!

Of course we are, I just meant back then almost all of us were. The boomers didn't really use social media back then, so it was just us latchkey kids running amok!

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#275

Post by jorl17 »

itay-maman wrote: post #251
jorl17 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I first started coding with LLMs, I could show a bug to an LLM and it would start to bugfix it, and very quickly would fall down a path of "I've got it! This is it! No wait, the print command here isn't working because an electron beam was pointed at the computer". Nowadays, I have often seen LLMs (Opus 4.5) give up on their original ideas and assumptions. Sometimes I tell them what I think the problem is, and t…

agree on that and the speed is fantastic with them, and also that the dynamics of questioning the current session's assumptions has gotten way better. yet - given an existing codebase (even not huge) they often won't suggest "we need to restructure this part differently to solve this bug". Instead they tend to push forward.

You are right, agreed.

Having realized that, perhaps you are right that we may need a different architecture. Time will tell!

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#276

Post by Karrot_Kream »

jedberg wrote: post #268
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure which circles you run in but in mine HN has long lost its cache of "brilliant minds in IT". I've mostly stopped commenting here but am a bit of a message board addict so I haven't completely left. My network largely thinks of HN as "a great link aggregator with a terrible comments section". Now obviously this is just my bubble but we include some fairy storied careers at both Big Tech and hip startups. From…

> From my view the community here is just mean reverting to any other tech internet comments section. As someone deeply familiar with tech internet comments sections, I would have to disagree with you here. Dang et al have done a pretty stellar job of preventing HN from devolving like most other forums do. Sure you have your complainers and zealots, but I still find surprising insights here there I don't find anywher…

Mean reverting is a time based process I fear. I think dang, tomhow, et al are fantastic mods but they can ultimately only stem the inevitable. HN may be a few years behind the other open tech forums but it's a time shifted version of the same process with the same destination, just IMO.

I've stopped engaging much here because I need a higher ROI from my time. Endless squabbling, flamewars, and jokes just isn't enough signal for me. FWIW I've loved reading your comments over the years and think you've done a great job of living up to what I've loved in this community.

I don't think this is an HN problem at all. The dynamics of attention on open forums are what they are.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#277

Post by wasmainiac »

siva7 wrote: post #201

Epic, about 2/3 of all comments here are jokes. Not because the model is a joke - it's impressive. Not because HN turned to Reddit. It seems to me some of most brilliant minds in IT are just getting tired.

Jeez, read the writing on the wall.

Don’t pander us, we’ll all got families to feed and things to do. We don’t have time for tech trillionairs puttin coals under our feed for a quick buck.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#278

Post by nomel »

dmk wrote: post #46

The benchmarks are cool and all but 1M context on an Opus-class model is the real headline here imo. Has anyone actually pushed it to the limit yet? Long context has historically been one of those "works great in the demo" situations.

Has a "N million context window" spec ever been meaningful? Very old, very terrible, models "supported" 1M context window, but would lose track after two small paragraphs of context into a conversation (looking at you early Gemini).

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#279

Post by WarmWash »

mrandish wrote: post #242
cootsnuck wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not see any reporting or evidence at all that Anthropic or OpenAI is able to make money on inference yet. > Turns out there was a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of inference optimization that hadn't been plucked yet. That does not mean the frontier labs are pricing their APIs to cover their costs yet. It can both be true that it has gotten cheaper for them to provide inference and that they still are subsid…

> I have not see any reporting or evidence at all that Anthropic or OpenAI is able to make money on inference yet. Anthropic planning an IPO this year is a broad meta-indicator that internally they believe they'll be able to reach break-even sometime next year on delivering a competitive model. Of course, their belief could turn out to be wrong but it doesn't make much sense to do an IPO if you don't think you're clo…

IPO'ing is often what you do to give your golden investors an exit hatch to dump their shares on the notoriously idiotic and hype driven public.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#280

Post by andy_ppp »

stkai wrote: post #232
simonw wrote: post #40

The bicycle frame is a bit wonky but the pelican itself is great: https://gist.github.com/simonw/a6806ce41b4c721e240a4548ecdbe...

Would love to find out they're overfitting for pelican drawings.

Yes, Racoon on a unicycle? Magpie on a pedalo?
Post reply on HN