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

Claude Sonnet 4.5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#381

Post by alecco »

iagooar wrote: post #258

Anecdotal evidence. I have a fairly large web application with ~200k LoC. Gave the same prompt to Sonnet 4.5 (Claude Code) and GPT-5-Codex (Codex CLI). "implement a fuzzy search for conversations and reports either when selecting "Go to Conversation" or "Go to Report" and typing the title or when the user types in the title in the main input field, and none of the standard elements match, a search starts with a 2s de…

Try adding ultrathink to the prompt, hit enter, and play this song in the background:

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1mgwohq/ultrathin...

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#384

Post by [deleted] »

simonw wrote: post #204

I had access to a preview over the weekend, I published some notes here: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Sep/29/claude-sonnet-4-5/ It's very good - I think probably a tiny bit better than GPT-5-Codex, based on vibes more than a comprehensive comparison (there are plenty of benchmarks out there that attempt to be more methodical than vibes). It particularly shines when you try it on https://claude.ai/ using its brand n…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#385

Post by throwaway0123_5 »

mh- wrote: post #306
gapeslape wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“30 hours of unattended work” is totally vague and it doesn’t mean anything on its own. It - at the very least - highly depends on the amount of tokens you were able to process. Just to illustrate, say you are running on a slow machine that outputs 1 token per hour. At that speed you would produce approximately one sentence.

Has their comment has been edited? A few words later it says it resulted in 11,000 LoC. > [..] left it unattended for 30 hours, and it built a Slack clone using 11,000 lines of code [..]

Their point still stands though? They said the 1 tok/hr example was illustrative only. 11,000 LoC could be generated line-by-line in one shot, taking not much more than 11,000 * avg_tokens_per_line tokens. Or the model could be embedded in an agent and spend a million tokens contemplating every line.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#386

Post by typpilol »

levocardia wrote: post #345
zurfer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also getting a perfect score on AIME (math) is pretty cool. Tongue in cheek: if we progress linearly from here software engineering as defined by SWE bench is solved in 23 months.

Pretty sure there is a subset of SWE bench problems that are either ill-posed or not possible with the intended setup; I think I remember seeing another company excluding a fraction of them for that reason. So maxing out SWEBench might only be ~95%. I'm most interested to see the METR time horizon results - that is the real test for whether we are "on-trend"

That's why they made the swe verified. Verified excludes those

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#387

Post by Sammi »

doctoboggan wrote: post #95
vrosas wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you having a conversation with your LLM about other agents?

I do it as well. I have a Claude code instance running in my backend repo, and one running in my frontend repo. If there is required coordination, I have the backend agent write a report for the front end agent about the new backend capabilities, or have the front end agent write a report requesting a new endpoint that would simplify the code. Lots of other people also follow the architect and builder pattern, where…

Sure. But at no point do you need to talk about the existence of other agents. You talk about making a plan, and you talk about implementing the plan. There's no need to talk about where the plan came from.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#389

Post by typpilol »

lukev wrote: post #123
marginalia_nu wrote: post #112

Is there some accessible explainer for what these numbers that keep going up actually mean? What happens at 100% accuracy or win rate?

It means that the benchmark isn't useful anymore and we need to build a harder one. edit: as far as what the numbers mean, they are arbitrary. They are only useful insofar as you can run two models (or two versions of the same model) on the same benchmark, and compare the numbers. But on an absolute scale the numbers don't mean anything.

I thought the percentage was how many problems it successfully solved

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#390

Post by elAhmo »

Aflynn50 wrote: post #374

When I see how much the latest models are capable of it makes me feel depressed. As well as potentially ruining my career in the next few years, its turning all the minutiae and specifics of writing clean code, that I've worked hard to learn over the past years, into irrelivent details. All the specifics I thought were so important are just implementation details of the prompt. Maybe I've got a fairly backwards view…

Don't be so grim! This will just give you access to not worry about writing clean code as much as you did in the past - you can focus on other parts of the development lifecycle.

The skill of writing good quality code is still going to be beneficial, maybe less emphasized on writing side, but critical of shipping good code, even when someone (something) else wrote it.

Post reply on HN