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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#351

Post by SatvikBeri »

wongarsu wrote: post #341
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.

Keep in mind that the people who experience issues will always be the loudest. I've overall enjoyed 4.6. On many easy things it thinks less than 4.5, leading to snappier feedback. And 4.6 seems much more comfortable calling tools: it's much more proactive about looking at the git history to understand the history of a bug or feature, or about looking at online documentation for APIs and packages. A recent claude code…

I've also seen Opus 4.6 as a pure upgrade. In particular, it's noticeably better at debugging complex issues and navigating our internal/custom framework.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#352

Post by vunderba »

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:/…

> Codex quite often refuses to do "unsafe/unethical" things that Anthropic models will happily do without question.

I can't really take this very seriously without seeing the list of these ostensible "unethical" things that Anthropic models will allow over other providers.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#353

Post by perelin »

wongarsu wrote: post #341
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.

Keep in mind that the people who experience issues will always be the loudest. I've overall enjoyed 4.6. On many easy things it thinks less than 4.5, leading to snappier feedback. And 4.6 seems much more comfortable calling tools: it's much more proactive about looking at the git history to understand the history of a bug or feature, or about looking at online documentation for APIs and packages. A recent claude code…

Mirrors my experience as well. Especially the pro-activeness in tool calling sticks out. It goes web searching to augment knowledge gaps on its own way more often.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#355

Post by spyckie2 »

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 was the first to spam reddit with fake users and posts, flooding and controlling their subreddit to be a giant sycophant.

They nuked the internet by themselves. Basically they are the willing and happy instigators of the dead internet as long as they profit from it.

They are by no means ethical, they are a for-profit company.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#356

Post by crazygringo »

madihaa wrote: post #9

[flagged]

What is this even in response to? There's nothing about "playing dead" in this announcement.

Nor does what you're describing even make sense. An LLM has no desires or goals except to output the next token that its weights are trained to do. The idea of "playing dead" during training in order to "activate later" is incoherent. It is its training.

You're inventing some kind of "deceptive personality attribute" that is fiction, not reality. It's just not how models work.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#357

Post by baq »

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.

Sonnet 4.5 was not worth using at all for coding for a few months now, so not sure what we're comparing here. If Sonnet 4.6 is anywhere near the performance they claim, it's actually a viable alternative.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#358

Post by vunderba »

colordrops wrote: post #208
deepdarkforest wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that Anthropic is the only lab without an open source model

Are any of the models they've released useful or threats to their main models?

I use Gemma3 27b [1] daily for document analysis and image classification. While I wouldn't call it a threat it's a very useful multimodal model that'll run even on modest machines.

[1] - https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-3-27b-it

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#360

Post by KGC3D »

I don't really understand why they would release something "worse" than Opus 4.6. If it's comparable, then what is the reason to even use Opus 4.6? Sure, it's cheaper, but if so, then just make Opus 4.6 cheaper?
Post reply on HN