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

Claude Opus 4.1

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–344 of 344 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#341

Post by yencabulator »

senko wrote: post #298
what wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have zero need for a phone number.

There are a lot of fraudsters out there who will happily create thousands of accounts with valid CCs that will fail on first actual charge.[0] I wouldn't be surprised if asking for a phone number lowers the fraud rate enough to compensate for the added friction. [0] Incidentally, this is also why many AI API providers ask for your money upfront (buy credits) unless you're big enough and/or have existing relationship…

Sounds like a trivial fix even for monthly billing, just bill at the start of the month not at the end.

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#342

Post by lsaferite »

Larrikin wrote: post #238
trenchpilgrim wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Zed I switch the AI panel to ask mode and chat with the agent about different approaches and have it draft patches. Then when I think there's a design worth trying, switch to Write mode and have it implement that change + run the tests and diagnostics to verify the code at least compiles, tests pass and follows our style guides. Finally a line by line review + review of the test coverage (in terms of interface sur…

After watching a few videos trying to understand how people were using LLMs and getting useful results I found that even making a simpler version of the fancy planning mode in the LLM IDEs via the instructions.md produced hugely better productivity gains. I started adding an instruction file along the lines of "Always tell me your plan to solve the issue first with short example code, never edit files without explici…

I use Claude Code frequently for doing constrained tasks in the BG while I'm working other issues. I love it's planning mode switch. It is so much better to identity a dead-end before Claude confidently charges off a cliff.

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#343

Post by nawgz »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #295
nawgz wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Different strokes for different folks and surely the average programmer understands what environment they will be most comfortable in. That's a silly claim to me, we're talking about a completely new environment where you prompt an AI to develop code, and therefore an "average programmer" is unlikely to have any meaningful experience or intuition with this flow. That is exactly what GP is talking about - where does…

To me that's the silly argument. How many different tools have you ever used? New build system? New linter? How did you know if you wanted to run those on the command line or in your IDE? And it seems the story you shared sort of proves the point: the web interface worked fine for you and you didn't need to question it until someone was needlessly rude about it.

> How many different tools have you ever used? New build system? New linter? How did you know if you wanted to run those on the command line or in your IDE?

In what way is this analogous? Running scripts is vastly different than AI codemod. I could easily answer how when and why a build system would be plugged in, and linting and formatting are long-established pathways.

On the flipside there are barely even established practices, let alone best ones, for using AI. The point being offered is that AI companies offer shockingly little guidance on how to use their apparently amazing tool.

I personally have never used AI to author code, so I don't really know how the story I provided proves anything to you. I like it to answer questions about why something isn't working to help give me some leads, and it is good at telling you how to use a new framework quickly, but that's a pretty different practice than it authoring code. Seems like you're kinda dodging the question too.

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#344

Post by rvz »

jjani wrote: post #62
rvz wrote: post #55

Notice how Anthropic has never open sourced any of their models. This makes them (Anthropic) worse than OpenAI in terms of openness. Since in this case as we all know. [0] "What will permanently change everything is open source and transparent AI models that are smaller and more powerful than GPT-3 or even GPT-4." [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34865626

On the other hand, they have always exposed their raw chain of thought, so you know exactly what you're paying for, unlike OpenAI who hides it. Similarly they allow an actual thinking budget rather than vague "low, medium, high", again unlike OpenAI. They also allow API access to all their models without draconic send-us-your-personal-data-KYC, once more unlikely OpenAI. They might not fit your personal definition of…

They better do it sooner then.
Post reply on HN