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

Claude can now search the web

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 758 posts

Re: Claude can now search the web

#371

Post by throw234234234 »

mindwok wrote: post #329
tantalor wrote: post #89

It says a lot about their product vision and intended market that the example query is typescript migration question. Do they not care about typical search users? Only developers?

Compared to OpenAI, who seem keen to maintain the mindshare of everyone, IMO Anthropic are far more considered about their audience. They released a report recently on who who was using AI professionally and it was something like 40% developers, and single digit percentage for basically every other profession. I think they’re focusing on the professional use cases.

Pretty much. Claude from their announcements seems to me at least to be about SWE's and coding at the moment. Personally while I understand their decision I find it a bit limiting, and just a little targeted against the SWE profession. If all AI does is disrupt SWE's but not really add new products and/or new possibilities; then it feels IMO like a bit of a waste and is quite uneven in its society disruption.

At least in my circle SWE's are either excited or completely fearful of the new technology; and every other profession feels like it is just hype and hasn't really changed anything. They've tried it sure; but it didn't really have the data to help with even simpler domain's than SWE. Anecdotally I've had the comment from people around me - my easy {insert job here} will last longer than your tech job from many people I know from both white and blue collar workers. Its definitely reduced the respect for SWE's in general at least where I'm located.

I would like to see improvements in people's quality of life and new possibilities/frontiers from the technology, not just "more efficiencies" and disruption. It feels like there's a lack of imagination with the tech.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#372

Post by matt_heimer »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #125
Almondsetat wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>looks at the top X hits and then interprets it to be the correct answer. LLMs are truly reaching human-like behavior then

The longer I've been in the workforce, the more I realize most humans actually kind of suck at their jobs. LLMs being more human like is the opposite of what I want.

The book Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach starts by talking about schools of thought on how to gauge if an agent is intelligent. I think it was mimicking human behavior vs behaving rationally which I thought was funny.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#373

Post by dataflow »

_heimdall wrote: post #370
dataflow wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we don't. We have too many people who -- even despite having respectable jobs -- can't afford the basic necessities for the month, let alone save for their future and family. The problem they're facing is the lack of the guaranteed basic income, not the lack of a job to collect it.

UBI will almost certainly fail to cover the necessities unless we have Marx-style price controls. When everyone in the economy has a minimum of say $3,000 per month the cost of necessities, and everything else, will go up roughly in line with that.

I wasn't here to take a stance on UBI or argue over its practicalities, I was just explaining the intended outcome was not what the parent believed it to be.

But fine, I'll bite.

> will go up roughly in line with that

Could you at least explain the logic that you believe implies this would occur with such certainty? I've thought about this before and I couldn't see this as a necessary outcome, though (depending on various factors) I do see it as a possible one.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#374

Post by rank0 »

dataflow wrote: post #351
Toenex wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we already have Universal Basic Income, you just need to have a pointless job to collect it.

No we don't. We have too many people who -- even despite having respectable jobs -- can't afford the basic necessities for the month, let alone save for their future and family. The problem they're facing is the lack of the guaranteed basic income, not the lack of a job to collect it.

This is not a fully solvable problem. Especially if the goal is to provide the above for any location.

You can do more harm than good by implementing policies like “guaranteed free money”.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#375

Post by rank0 »

prawn wrote: post #343
Toenex wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we already have Universal Basic Income, you just need to have a pointless job to collect it.

One suggested weakness of UBI is a lack of purpose. I wonder if the "solution" is somewhat as you implied: jobs without a strict return on investment. You get your stipend, but you're keeping your block clean by sweeping and mulching. They're getting theirs in exchange for cranking out sourdough at cost for the neighbourhood. Someone else gardens for elderly residents.

How do we determine who gets what job?

Re: Claude can now search the web

#376

Post by _heimdall »

nyarlathotep_ wrote: post #331
Toenex wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we already have Universal Basic Income, you just need to have a pointless job to collect it.

YES, this is exactly the case and why the Twitter layoffs and now the "DOGE" purge is a terrible thing (even in cases where it was totally legitimate to eliminate "waste"). "They had useless make-work jobs and sent 4 emails a week and watched TikToks the rest of the time" So? There's FAR too many people and nowhere near enough jobs for a large portion of people to do something that is both "real", and provides actual…

We should be striving to build a world where people don't have to feel forced into meaningless jobs, not a system that encourages it.

If meaningless jobs are important because its the only way people can make money to pay for all the shit we think we need to pay for, or because they haven't yet been offered the time and freedom to find their own sense of purpose, let's focus on fixing the root cause(s) there.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#377

Post by pizza »

Toenex wrote: post #278
_heimdall wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could very well be because the jobs are effectively useless. By no means does that mean the people are, nor is what the income allows them to do. But most jobs sure do seem pointless.

Maybe we already have Universal Basic Income, you just need to have a pointless job to collect it.

Yup: free solar photons, and living.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#379

Post by UltraSane »

magackame wrote: post #121
tcdent wrote: post #102

Searching the web is a great feature in theory, but every implementation I've used so far looks at the top X hits and then interprets it to be the correct answer. When you're talking to an LLM about popular topics or common errors, the top results are often just blogspam or unresolved forum posts, so the you never get an answer to your problem. More of an indicator that web search is more unusable than ever, but inte…

Google search is crap. It seems to be a sentiment among many HNers, but is it really that bad? I mostly use it for programming, so documentation/forums and it works out greatly. For some queries it even returns personal blogs (which people seem to bash google for not happening). Of course there are some queries that return purely AI blogspam, but reformatting the query with a bit more thought usually solves it. I won…

Google randomly deletes words from your search term. Why would anyone think that was a good idea?

Re: Claude can now search the web

#380

Post by aianus »

jimbokun wrote: post #296
exe34 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if a CEO can run 7 companies and still play monopoly with the ship of government, then maybe CEOs aren't really that useful.

Recent changes to Tesla’s stock price suggest otherwise.

Yeah it’s only worth 700B now, what a loser /s
Post reply on HN