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

371–380 of 620 posts

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

#371

Post by smt88 »

danny_codes wrote: post #267
andai wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, USA winning on AI is a national security issue. The bubble is unpoppable. And shafting your customers too hard is bad for business, so I expect only moderate shafting. (Kind of surprised at what I've been seeing lately.)

It’s considered national security concern by this administration. Will the next be a clown show like this one? Unclear

The administration doesn't decide spending. Congress does. There's no chance we get an anti-AI majority until a major AI catastrophe turns the public against it.

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

#372

Post by [deleted] »

dgellow wrote: post #339
tossandthrow wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? One shoting has a very specific meaning, and agentic workflows are not it? What is the implied meaning I should understand from them using one shot? They might refer to the lack of humans in the loop.

You give a prompt, you get a PR. If it is ready to merge with the first attempt, that’s a one shot. The agentic loop is a detail in their context

[deleted]

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

#373

Post by _blk »

gck1 wrote: post #365
_blk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand you shouldn't wait more than 5min between prompts without compacting or clearing or you'll pay for reinitializing the cache. With compaction you still pay but it's less input tokens. (Is compaction itself free?)

Cache ttl on max subscriptions is 1h, FYI.

That'd be awesome but it doesn't reflect what I see. Do you have a source for that? What I see is if take a quick break the session loses ~5% right at the start of the next prompt processing. (I'm currently on max 5x)

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

#374

Post by macwhisperer »

_blk wrote: post #176
pitched wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a 30B model, you want at least 20GB of VRAM and a 24GB MBP can’t quite allocate that much of it to VRAM. So you’d want at least a 32GB MBP.

Is there any model that practically compares to Sonnet 4.6 in code and vision and runs on home-grade (12G-24G) cards?

im currently running a custom Gemma4 26b MoE model on my 24gb m2... super fast and it beat deepseek, chatgpt, and gemini in 3 different puzzles/code challenges I tested it on. the issue now is the low context... I can only do 2048 tokens with my vram... the gap is slowly closing on the frontier models

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

#375

Post by sourya4 »

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…

yep!! had similar thoughts on the the "linux/postgres/git/http/etc" of the LLMs

made a HN post of my X article on the lock-in factor and how we should embrace the modular unix philosophy as a way out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47774312

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

#376

Post by UncleMeat »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #313
bluefirebrand wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Yes that's exactly right.

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

#377

Post by bdangubic »

thih9 wrote: post #305
bdangubic wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to speak Russian like I was born in Russia. I stopped talking Russian … every day I am curious ans responsible but I can hardly say 10 words in Russian today. if you don’t use it (not just be curious and responsible) you will lose it - period.

Programming language is not just syntax, keywords and standard libraries, but also: processes, best practices and design principles. The latter group I guess is more difficult to learn and harder to forget.

I respectfully completely disagree. not only will you just as easily lose thr processed, best practices and design principles but they will be changing over time (what was best practice when I got my first gig in 1997 is not a best practice today (even just 4-5 years ago not to go all the back to the 90’s)). all that is super easy to both forget and lose unless you live it daily

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

#378

Post by surgical_fire »

dgellow wrote: post #348
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your competitor is 10x more productive with AI This doesn't happen. Literally zero evidence of this.

The actual rate isn’t relevant for the discussion

What if the rate is negative?

Would it matter?

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

#379

Post by ethanj8011 »

_blk wrote: post #373
gck1 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cache ttl on max subscriptions is 1h, FYI.

That'd be awesome but it doesn't reflect what I see. Do you have a source for that? What I see is if take a quick break the session loses ~5% right at the start of the next prompt processing. (I'm currently on max 5x)

It's true as far as I can tell, just by my own checking using `/status`. You can also tell by when the "clear" reminder hint shows up. Also if you look at the leaked claude code you can see that almost everything in the main thread is cached with 1H TTL (I believe subagents use 5 minute TTL)

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

#380

Post by gck1 »

_blk wrote: post #373
gck1 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cache ttl on max subscriptions is 1h, FYI.

That'd be awesome but it doesn't reflect what I see. Do you have a source for that? What I see is if take a quick break the session loses ~5% right at the start of the next prompt processing. (I'm currently on max 5x)

Not at my workstation right now, but simply ask claude to analyze jsonl transcript of any session, there are two cache keys there, one is 5m, another 1h. Only 1h gets set. There are also some entries there that will tell you if request was a cache hit or miss, or if cache rewrite happened. I've had claude test another claude and on max 5x subscription, cache miss only happened if message was sent after 1h, or if session was resumed using /resume or --resume (this is a bug that exists since January - all session resumes will cause a full cache rewrite).

However, cache being hit doesn't necessarily mean Anthropic won't just subtract usage from you as if it wasn't hit. It's Anthropic we're talking about. They can do whatever they want with your usage and then blame you for it.

Post reply on HN