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

431–440 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#431

Post by crtified »

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…

Likewise, a lot of what we learn at school or university is superceded by new knowledge or technology (who needs arithmetic, when we all have a calculator in our pocket??), but having an intimate knowledge of those building blocks is still key to having a deeper and more valuable aptitude in your field.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#432

Post by AbuAssar »

I used to treat writing code as a form of art, with attention to details and best practices, and using design patterns whenever possible.

but it seems this will come to an end eventually as these agents become more stronger and capable each day, and will be better and faster than human coders.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#433

Post by throwaway314155 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #430
epolanski wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That minutiae was always borderline irrelevant, the skill was always making somebody money, possibly with software. The reality is that more software will be pushed than before, and more of it will need to be overseen by a professional.

The real question is what kind of pay that work will demand. It's will be great to still be employed as a senior dev. It will be a little less great with a $110k salary, 5 day commute, and mediocre benefits being the norm.

I think you'll find that the ability to ask the right questions is still as highly valuable as the previous version of things.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#434

Post by epolanski »

seaal wrote: post #63

They really had to release an updated model, I can only imagine how many people cancelled their plans and switched over to Codex over the past month. I'm glad they at least gave me the full $100 refund.

Going from pro to Max was a giant let down.

Then they even started sending me marketing emails which was the straw that broke the camel's back, I use to cancel subscriptions of companies spamming my email.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#435

Post by flyinglizard »

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…

But systems level thinking, taste, technical creativity and all other “soft” skills have never been more relevant. I can do some pretty awesome things with my aider. I can implement things which I thought were cool and useful but couldn’t be bothered to without AI.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#436

Post by fnordsensei »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #366
fnordsensei wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the purpose of it, as I understand it; it’s a token phrase generated to cajole it down a particular path.[1] An alignment mechanism. The complement appears to be, “actually, that’s not right.”, a correction mechanism. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45137802

Hmmh. I believe your explanation, but I don't think that's the full story. It's also a sycophancy mechanism to maximize engagement from real users and reward hack AI labelers.

That doesn’t seem plausible to me. Not that LLMs can’t be sycophantic, but I don’t think this phrase in particular is part of it.

It’s a canned phrase in a place where an LLM could be much more creative to much greater efficacy.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#437

Post by ewoodrich »

Philpax wrote: post #243
sigmoid10 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is obviously much more than just taking an LLM an letting it run for 30 hours. You have to build a whole environment together with external tool integration and context management and then tune the prompts and perhaps even set up a multi-agent system. I believe that if someone puts a ton of work into this you can have an LLM run for that long and still produce sellable outputs, but let's not pretend like this is…

Well, yes, that's Claude Code. And OpenAI Codex. And Google Gemini CLI. Your average dev can just use those.

But then that goes back to the original question, considering my own experiences observing the amount of damage CC or Codex can do in a working code base with a couple tiny initial mistakes or confusion about intent while being left unattended for ten minutes, let alone 30 hours....

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#438

Post by landl0rd »

enraged_camel wrote: post #332
stefs wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can I trust it to do the complicated task well when it fails to do the simple thing?

It's not about simple vs. complex. It's about the types of tasks the AI has been trained on: pattern-matching, thinking, reasoning, research. Tasks like linting and formatting a block of code are pretty simple, but also very specialized. You're much better off using formatters/linters than an AI.

I want the bot to do the drudge work, not me. I want the bot to fix lint errors the linter can't safely autofix, not me.

You're talking about designing a kitchen where robots do the cooking and humans do ingredient prep and dishwashing. We prefer kitchens where we do the cooking and use tools or machines to prep and wash dishes.

I don't want it to be an "architect" or "designer". I want it to write the annoying boilerplate. I don't want it to do the coding and me to do the debugging, I want to code while it debugs. Anything else and you are the bot's assistant, not vice-versa.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#440

Post by landl0rd »

minimaxir wrote: post #424
landl0rd wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kylie Robison recently moved to Wired and is a solid "AI journalist".

Although she is indeed solid as an AI journalist, unfortunately she was recently let go for unknown reasons: https://www.kyliebytes.com/thank-god-i-got-fired/

Shoot that's what I get for staying off twitter and email for a week. Glad newsletters provide a little bit of a cushion these days but hopefully someone snaps her up.
Post reply on HN