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

Claude Sonnet 5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#481

Post by DrewADesign »

ricardobayes wrote: post #308
keeda wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some napkin math -- total global labor compensation is about 50% of the GDP, which puts it in the USD 50 - 60 Trillion range: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-share-of-gdp This source claims that knowledge workers alone (probably because they are paid much more) account for 35 - 50 Trillion of that: https://github.com/danielmiessler/Substrate/blob/main/Data/K... If LLMs can boost their productivity even by an…

I am deeply surprised by the silence of philosophers, sociologists, liberal arts majors, economists. Where are the think tanks who contemplate and debate the societal aspects? The tech is advancing full steam but the "other side" doesn't feel anywhere nearly ready.

Sometimes the great algorithmic gods give us a glimpse of our own bubble.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#483

Post by balder1991 »

everforward wrote: post #424
overgard wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really good point. I think if there wasn't the insane amount of money involved and these were treated as tools instead, they would probably be MORE productive. I think a person working hand in hand with an AI instead of delegating is the sweet spot of making things fast while also not losing understanding or control of the system. You are absolutely right that these companies can't justify their valuations i…

> I'm thinking the future of this tech will likely be better tooling with better IDE integrations rather than "Claude plz make me a SaaS kthx" I think this sort of thinking is a trap, because it presumes that all software has the same constraints. There's a spectrum of requirements between "chuck this over the wall at Claude, it only has to work once" and "this is a literal rocket ship, formally verify the whole thin…

It’s what’s called in software engineering as “casual software” as a differentiator of “business software” and “critical software”. Not all types needs a high bar of quality, and most of the software engineering thought practices are tailored for business applications that will be made available to multiple users.

As you said, building a script that only you use personally or a very simple thing that just accomplishes one task and it’s easy to test require almost no engineering, and an LLM can often build those with very little downsides.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#484

Post by DrewADesign »

bdamm wrote: post #350
ricardobayes wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am deeply surprised by the silence of philosophers, sociologists, liberal arts majors, economists. Where are the think tanks who contemplate and debate the societal aspects? The tech is advancing full steam but the "other side" doesn't feel anywhere nearly ready.

Because the "other side" is busy trying to anthropomorphise AI into solving the trolly problem, while being mostly clueless about the actual problems. They'll show up after the fact and whinge endlessly about how they should have been involved.

I guess the real problems are things like people not being allowed to post AI-generated images in digital drawing, painting, and photography communities, because I see a lot of boosters ceaselessly whining about that abject “discrimination”, despite having plenty of places where people post all kinds of that garbage all the time.

Or maybe every cultural group has its own set of whiners and we always think the ones we disagree with are the loudest.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#485

Post by cindyllm »

DrewADesign wrote: post #481
ricardobayes wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am deeply surprised by the silence of philosophers, sociologists, liberal arts majors, economists. Where are the think tanks who contemplate and debate the societal aspects? The tech is advancing full steam but the "other side" doesn't feel anywhere nearly ready.

Sometimes the great algorithmic gods give us a glimpse of our own bubble.

[dead]

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#486

Post by addozhang »

microtonal wrote: post #31

Claude Sonnet 5 is built to be the most agentic Sonnet model yet. It can make plans, use tools like browsers and terminals, and run autonomously at a level that, just a few months ago, required larger and more expensive models. I have been using Sonnet 4.6 more than Opus, because I'm mostly doing agent-assisted development and not fully agent-driven development. This announcement does not make me positive, I have fou…

I feel pretty much the same way, and the scenarios are similar too. Using Sonnet has a bigger advantage when it comes to response time.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#488

Post by 2muchtime »

XCSme wrote: post #395
XCSme wrote: post #388

I just tested it on my benchmarks[0], it's GLM-5.2 level, at 2x cost, but also 2x faster. Weak spots (categories it fails): - Trivia — 0/3 - basically not much built-in knowledge - Combined tool-calling tasks — score 45/100, sometimes makes invalid tool calls - Puzzle Solving — score 77, flubs carwash-like tests [0]: https://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-sonnet-4-6-med...

As always, note: faster than GLM-5.2 doesn't mean too much, as GLM-5.2 is served by different providers, so the inference speed can vary drastically between providers or over time.

Opencode Go/Zen claim to use infrastructure based in the EU, USA and Singapore that have a 0 retention policy.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#489

Post by 3ffs »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #245
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #216

I'm struggling to understand why I'd ever use this instead of just using a lower effort level for opus given on many of the benchmarks listed the cost per task rises above opus at anything higher than medium effort. Only thing I can think of is for when someone is out of opus credits. Of course there are API billing use cases but I'd probably still just use opus on low.

More and more I find myself trying to stop Opus from doing something stupid, and at every turn I need to tell it to stop overcomplicating things. I think the models are being optimized for wealth extraction from users and companies, instead of solving problems. I don't know why Opus would try to create an entire library when I told it specifically to do something simple that would take 2-3 lines of Python.

[flagged]

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#490

Post by ricardonunez »

a_c wrote: post #226
microtonal wrote: post #31

Claude Sonnet 5 is built to be the most agentic Sonnet model yet. It can make plans, use tools like browsers and terminals, and run autonomously at a level that, just a few months ago, required larger and more expensive models. I have been using Sonnet 4.6 more than Opus, because I'm mostly doing agent-assisted development and not fully agent-driven development. This announcement does not make me positive, I have fou…

I actually use sonnet 4.6 for my day to day coding too. It consumes much less token and good enough. Opus is just too token consuming for it to be useful to me.

I am in the same position. Do you think they are going to remove it and deprecate it as some point?
Post reply on HN