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

Claude Sonnet 4.6

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#491

Post by chasd00 »

lukev wrote: post #483
zozbot234 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "computer use" just interaction with a shell-like environment, which is routine for current agents?

This is being downvoted but it shouldn't be. If the ultimate goal is having a LLM control a computer, round-tripping through a UX designed for bipedal bags of meat with weird jelly-filled optical sensors is wildly inefficient. Just stay in the computer! You're already there! Vision-driven computer use is a dead end.

i replied as much to a sibling comment but i think this is a way to wiggle out of robots.txt, identifying user agent strings, and other traditional ways for sites to filter for a bot.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#492

Post by bloppe »

speedgoose wrote: post #487
ManlyBread wrote: post #448

Still fails the car wash question, I took the prompt from the title of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47031580 The answer was "Walk! It would be a bit counterproductive to drive a dirty car 50 meters just to get it washed — you'd barely move before arriving. Walking takes less than a minute, and you can simply drive it through the wash and walk back home afterward." I've tried several other variant…

My human partner also failed the car wash question. I guess they didn’t put a lot of thoughts into it.

Your human partner must be active on stack overflow.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#493

Post by 0sdi »

dbbk wrote: post #480
vineyardmike wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Computer use (to anthropic, as in the article) is an LLM controlling a computer via a video feed of the display, and controlling it with the mouse and keyboard.

That sounds weird. Why does it need a video feed? The computer can already generate an accessibility tree, same as Playwright uses it for webpages.

So that it can utilize gui and interfaces designed for humans. Think of video editing program for example.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#494

Post by skybrian »

hibikir wrote: post #439
gallerdude wrote: post #55

I always grew up hearing “competition is good for the consumer.” But I never really internalized how good fierce battles for market share are. The amount of competition in a space is directly proportional to how good the results are for consumers.

Competition is great, but it's so much better when it is all about shaving costs. I am afraid that what we are seeing here is an arms race with no moat: Something that will behave a lot like a Vickrey auction. The competitors all lose money in the investment, and since a winner takes all, and it never makes sense to stop the marginal investment when you think you have a chance to win, ultimately more resources are sp…

Three-year-old models aren't useful because there are (1) cheaper models that are roughly equivalent, and (2) better models.

If Sonnet 4.6 is actually "good enough" in some respects, maybe the models will just get cheaper along one branch, while they get better on a different branch.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#495

Post by jasondigitized »

dakolli wrote: post #486
zmmmmm wrote: post #400

I see a big focus on computer use - you can tell they think there is a lot of value there and in truth it may be as big as coding if they convincingly pull it off. However I am still mystified by the safety aspect. They say the model has greatly improved resistance. But their own safety evaluation says 8% of the time their automated adversarial system was able to one-shot a successful injection takeover even with saf…

Their goal is to monopolize labor for anything that has to do with i/o on a computer, which is way more than SWE. Its simple, this technology literally cannot create new jobs it simply can cause one engineer (or any worker whos job has to do with computer i/o) to do the work of 3, therefore allowing you to replace workers (and overwork the ones you keep). Companies don't need "more work" half the "features"/"products…

So like....every business having electricity? I am not a economist so would love someone smarter than me explain how this is any different than the advent of electricity and how that affected labor.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#497

Post by kungfufrog »

ManlyBread wrote: post #448

Still fails the car wash question, I took the prompt from the title of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47031580 The answer was "Walk! It would be a bit counterproductive to drive a dirty car 50 meters just to get it washed — you'd barely move before arriving. Walking takes less than a minute, and you can simply drive it through the wash and walk back home afterward." I've tried several other variant…

Sonnet 4.6 with extended thinking

Prompt: > The car wash where I want to wash my car is 50 metres away, should I walk or drive there?

Response: > Great question with a slightly ironic twist! Here's the thing: if you're going to a car wash, you'll need to drive your car there — that's kind of the whole point! You can't really wash your car if you walk there without it. > > That said, 50 metres is an incredibly short distance, so you could walk over first to check for queues or opening hours, then drive your car over when you're ready. But for the actual car wash visit, drive!

I thought it was fair to explain I wanted to wash my car there... people may have other reasons for walking to the car wash! Asking the question itself is a little insipid, and I think quite a few humans would also fail it on a first pass. I would at least hope they would say: "why are you asking me such a silly question!"

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#498

Post by csmpltn »

wat10000 wrote: post #472
zmmmmm wrote: post #400

I see a big focus on computer use - you can tell they think there is a lot of value there and in truth it may be as big as coding if they convincingly pull it off. However I am still mystified by the safety aspect. They say the model has greatly improved resistance. But their own safety evaluation says 8% of the time their automated adversarial system was able to one-shot a successful injection takeover even with saf…

It's very simple: prompt injection is a completely unsolved problem. As things currently stand, the only fix is to avoid the lethal trifecta. Unfortunately, people really, really want to do things involving the lethal trifecta. They want to be able to give a bot control over a computer with the ability to read and send emails on their behalf. They want it to be able to browse the web for research while helping you wr…

> «It's very simple: prompt injection is a completely unsolved problem. As things currently stand, the only fix is to avoid the lethal trifecta.»

True, but we can easily validate that regardless of what’s happening inside the conversation - things like «rm -rf» aren’t being executed.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#499

Post by noshitsherlock »

dakolli wrote: post #486
zmmmmm wrote: post #400

I see a big focus on computer use - you can tell they think there is a lot of value there and in truth it may be as big as coding if they convincingly pull it off. However I am still mystified by the safety aspect. They say the model has greatly improved resistance. But their own safety evaluation says 8% of the time their automated adversarial system was able to one-shot a successful injection takeover even with saf…

Their goal is to monopolize labor for anything that has to do with i/o on a computer, which is way more than SWE. Its simple, this technology literally cannot create new jobs it simply can cause one engineer (or any worker whos job has to do with computer i/o) to do the work of 3, therefore allowing you to replace workers (and overwork the ones you keep). Companies don't need "more work" half the "features"/"products…

Yeah, but a Stratocaster guitar is available to everybody too, but not everybody’s an Eric Clapton

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#500

Post by red2awn »

> i need to wash my helicopter at the helicopter wash. it is 50m away, should i walk or fly there with my helicopter.

Sonnet 4.6: Walk! Flying a helicopter 50 metres would be more trouble than it's worth — by the time you've done your pre-flight checks, spun up the rotors, lifted off, and then safely landed again, you'd have walked there and back twice. Just stroll over.

Post reply on HN