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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#271

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

stevepike wrote: post #87

I'm a bit surprised it gets this question wrong (ChatGPT gets it right, even on instant). All the pre-reasoning models failed this question, but it's seemed solved since o1, and Sonnet 4.5 got it right. https://claude.ai/share/876e160a-7483-4788-8112-0bb4490192af This was sonnet 4.6 with extended thinking.

Interesting, my sonnet 4.6 starts with the following:

The classic puzzle actually uses *eight 8s*, not nine. The unique solution is: 888+88+8+8+8=1000. Count: 3+2+1+1+1=8 eights.

It then proves that there is no solution for nine 8s.

https://claude.ai/share/9a6ee7cb-bcd6-4a09-9dc6-efcf0df6096b (for whatever reason the LaTeX rendering is messed up in the shared chat, but it looks fine for me).

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#272

Post by AstroBen »

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.

Jesus people aren't actually falling for their "we're ethical" marketing, are they?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#273

Post by Aromasin »

mobattah wrote: post #239
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:/…

“Cryptic” exit posts are basically noise. If we are going to evaluate vendors, it should be on observable behavior and track record: model capability on your workloads, reliability, security posture, pricing, and support. Any major lab will have employees with strong opinions on the way out. That is not evidence by itself.

We recently had an employee leave our team, posting an extensive essay on LinkedIn, "exposing" the company and claiming a whole host of wrong-doing that went somewhat viral. The reality is, she just wasn't very good at her job and was fired after failing to improve following a performance plan by management. We all knew she was slacking and despite liking her on a personal level, knew that she wasn't right for what is a relatively high-functioning team. It was shocking to see some of the outright lies in that post, that effectively stemmed from bitterness at being let go.

The 'boy (or girl) who cried wolf' isn't just a story. It's a lesson for both the person, and the village who hears them.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#274

Post by bflesch »

astrange wrote: post #234
bflesch wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't that most likely related to the US government using claude for large-scale screening of citizens and their communications?

I assumed it's because everyone who works at Anthropic is rich and incredibly neurotic.

That's a bad argument, did Anthropic have a liquidity event that made employees "rich"?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#275

Post by holoduke »

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.

What about companies in general? I mean US companies? Aren't they all google like or worse?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#276

Post by andsoitis »

timpera wrote: post #102
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.

Which plan did you choose? I am subscribed to both and would love to stick with Claude only, but Claude's usage limits are so tiny compared to ChatGPT's that it often feels like a rip-off.

Pro. At $17 per month, it is cheaper than ChatGPT's $20.

I've just switched so haven't run into constraints yet.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#277

Post by honeycrispy »

andrewchilds wrote: post #244

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.

Glad it's not just me. I got a surprise the other day when I was notified that I had burned up my monthly budget in just a few days on 4.6

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#278

Post by grav »

andrewchilds wrote: post #244

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.

I fail to understand how two LLMs would be "consuming" a different amount of tokens given the same input? Does it refer to the number of output tokens? Or is it in the context of some "agentic loop" (eg Claude Code)?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#279

Post by jazzyjackson »

konart wrote: post #231
thinkling wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For comparisonI think the current leader in pelican drawing is Gemini 3 Deep Think: https://bsky.app/profile/simonwillison.net/post/3meolxx5s722...

My take (also Gemini 3 Deep Think): https://gemini.google.com/share/12e672dd39b7 Somehow it's much better now.

I’m not familiar with Gemini, isn’t this just a diffusion model output? The Pelican test is for the llm to produce SVG markup.
Post reply on HN