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

Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

tokens.billchambers.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 620 posts

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#311

Post by lobf »

stringfood wrote: post #218
estetlinus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, +1. I will never be working on unsolved problems anyhow. Skill atrophy is not happening if you stay curious and responsible.

I have never learned so quickly in my entire life than to post a forum thread in its entirety into a extended think LLM and then be allowed to ask free form questions for 2 hours straight if I want to. Having my questions answered NOW is so important for me to learn. Back in the day by the time I found the answer online I forgot the question

Same. I work in the film industry, but I’ve always been interested in computers and have enjoyed tinkering with them since I was about 5. However, coding has always been this insurmountably complicated thing- every time I make an effort to learn, I’m confronted with concepts that are difficult for me to understand and process.

I’ve been 90% vibe coding for a year or so now, and I’ve learned so much about networking just from spinning up a bunch of docker containers and helping GPT or Claude fix niggling issues.

I essentially have an expert (well, maybe not an expert but an entity far more capable than I am on my own) who’s shoulder I can look over and ask as many questions I want to, and who will explain every step of the process to me if I want.

I’m finally able to create things on my computer that I’ve been dreaming about for years.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#312

Post by bigyabai »

ACCount37 wrote: post #304
bigyabai wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human brain isn't the only way to implement general intelligence - just the one that was the easiest for evolution to put together out of what it had. The human brain is not a pretrained system. It's objectively more flexible than than transformers and capable of self-modulation in ways that no ML architecture can replicate (that I'm aware of).

Human brain's "pre-training" is evolution cramming way too much structure into it. It "learns from scratch" the way it does because it doesn't actually learn from scratch. I've seen plenty of wacky test-time training things used in ML nowadays, which is probably the closest to how the human brain learns. None are stable enough to go into the frontier LLMs, where in-context learning still reigns supreme. In-context le…

> In-context learning is a "good enough" continuous learning approximatation, it seems.

"it seems" is doing a herculean effort holding your argument up, in this statement. Say, how many "R"s are in Strawberry?

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#313

Post by Paradigma11 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #82
tossandthrow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argu that you will have skill atrophy by not using LLMs. We have gone multi cloud disaster recovery on our infrastructure. Something I would not have done yet, had we not had LLMs. I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs.

> I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs Could you do it again without the help of an LLM? If no, then can you really claim to have learned anything?

So, you havent really learned anything from any teacher if you could not do it again without them?

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#314

Post by ianberdin »

Opus 4.6 is the main model on https://playcode.io.

Not a secret, the model is the best on the world. Yet it is crazy expensive and this 35% is huge for us. $10,000 becomes $13,500. Don’t forget, anthropic tokenizer also shows way more than other providers.

We have experimented a lot with GLM 5.1. It is kinda close, but with downsides: no images, max 100K adequate context size and poor text writing. However, a great designer. So there is no replacement. We pray.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#315

Post by OrvalWintermute »

dakiol wrote: post #46

We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…

I'm increasingly thinking the same as our spend on tokens goes up.

If you have HPC or Supercompute already, you have much of the expertise on staff already to expand models locally, and between Apple Silicon and Exo there are some amazingly solutions out there.

Now, if only the rumors about Exo expanding to Nvidia are true..

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#316

Post by ACCount37 »

bigyabai wrote: post #312
ACCount37 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human brain's "pre-training" is evolution cramming way too much structure into it. It "learns from scratch" the way it does because it doesn't actually learn from scratch. I've seen plenty of wacky test-time training things used in ML nowadays, which is probably the closest to how the human brain learns. None are stable enough to go into the frontier LLMs, where in-context learning still reigns supreme. In-context le…

> In-context learning is a "good enough" continuous learning approximatation, it seems. "it seems" is doing a herculean effort holding your argument up, in this statement. Say, how many "R"s are in Strawberry?

If you think that "strawberry" is some kind of own, I don't know what to tell you. It takes deep and profound ignorance of both the technical basics of modern AIs and the current SOTA to do this kind of thing.

LLMs get better release to release. Unfortunately, the quality of humans in LLM capability discussions is consistently abysmal. I wouldn't be seeing the same "LLMs are FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED because I SAY SO" repeated ad nauseam otherwise.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#317

Post by bigyabai »

ACCount37 wrote: post #316
bigyabai wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In-context learning is a "good enough" continuous learning approximatation, it seems. "it seems" is doing a herculean effort holding your argument up, in this statement. Say, how many "R"s are in Strawberry?

If you think that "strawberry" is some kind of own, I don't know what to tell you. It takes deep and profound ignorance of both the technical basics of modern AIs and the current SOTA to do this kind of thing. LLMs get better release to release. Unfortunately, the quality of humans in LLM capability discussions is consistently abysmal. I wouldn't be seeing the same "LLMs are FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED because I SAY SO" rep…

I can ask a nine-year-old human brain to solve that problem with a box of Crayola and a sheet of A4 printer paper.

In-context learning is professedly not "good enough" to approximate continuous learning of even a child.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#318

Post by operatingthetan »

willis936 wrote: post #108
blahblaher wrote: post #58

Conspiracy time: they released a new version just so hey could increase the price so that people wouldn't complain so much along the lines of "see this is a new version model, so we NEED to increase the price") similar to how SaaS companies tack on some shit to the product so that they can increase prices

The result is the same: they lose their brand of producing quality output. However the more clever the maneuver they try to pull off the more clear it is to their customers that they are not earning trust. That's what will matter at the end of this. Poor leadership at Claude.

They are trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Not surprising that is their SOP given that AI in concept is an attempt to do the very same thing.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#319

Post by theptip »

the_gipsy wrote: post #152
kalkin wrote: post #19

AFAICT this uses a token-counting API so that it counts how many tokens are in the prompt, in two ways, so it's measuring the tokenizer change in isolation. Smarter models also sometimes produce shorter outputs and therefore fewer output tokens. That doesn't mean Opus 4.7 necessarily nets out cheaper, it might still be more expensive, but this comparison isn't really very useful.

With AIs, it seems like there never is a comparison that is useful.

You can build evals. Look at Harbor or Inspect. It’s just more work than most are interested in doing right now.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#320

Post by sneak »

ianberdin wrote: post #314

Opus 4.6 is the main model on https://playcode.io . Not a secret, the model is the best on the world. Yet it is crazy expensive and this 35% is huge for us. $10,000 becomes $13,500. Don’t forget, anthropic tokenizer also shows way more than other providers. We have experimented a lot with GLM 5.1. It is kinda close, but with downsides: no images, max 100K adequate context size and poor text writing. However, a great…

How much human developer can you buy for that $13.5k?

They’ve got us by the balls and they know it.

Post reply on HN