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

1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 565 posts

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#491

Post by godd2 »

sarchertech wrote: post #142
Frannky wrote: post #117

Opus 4.6 is nuts. Everything I throw at it works. Frontend, backend, algorithms—it does not matter. I start with a PRD, ask for a step-by-step plan, and just execute on each step at a time. Sometimes ideas are dumb, but checking and guiding step by step helps it ship working things in hours. It was also the first AI I felt, "Damn, this thing is smarter than me." The other crazy thing is that with today's tech, these…

What kinds of things are you building? This is not my experience at all. Just today I asked Claude using opus 4.6 to build out a test harness for a new dynamic database diff tool. Everything seemed to be fine but it built a test suite for an existing diff tool. It set everything up in the new directory, but it was actually testing code and logic from a preexisting directory despite the plan being correct before I tol…

> After about 4 hours and $75

Huh? The max plan is $200/month. How are you spending $75 in 4 hrs?

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#493

Post by godd2 »

popcorncowboy wrote: post #307
hparadiz wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been building a new task manager in C for Linux. If you're not using AI you are cooked. You just don't realize it yet. https://i.imgur.com/YXLZvy3.png

> If you're not using AI you are cooked. You just don't realize it yet. Truth. But not just “using”. Because here’s where this ship has already landed: humans will not write code, humans will not review code. I see mostly rage against this idea, but it is already here. Resistance is futile. There will be no “hand crafted software” shops. You have at most 3-4 years left if you think this is your job.

People still understand metallurgy and casting even though machines make all the paperclips.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#494

Post by jeremychone »

exceptione wrote: post #490
jeremychone wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- The ..-code-map.json files are per "developer folder," which would create too many conflicts if they were kept in Git. - I have two main globs, which are lists of globs: knowledge_globs and context_globs. Knowledge can be absolute and should be relatively static. context_globs have to be relative to the workspace, since they are the working files. - As a dev, you provide them in the top YAML section of the coder-pr…

> I need to make a video about it. My 2ct, I think writing and reading an article is easier.

point taken.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#495

Post by sarchertech »

minimaxir wrote: post #255
vips7L wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfectly calm mate. Maybe you should try to factually argue against my position? Probably not though. Your account was created 30 minutes ago and likely a bot.

My account was created 14 years ago. You need to calm down. There is a reason discussions about agent use have been on Hacker News every other day, and it's not a grand conspiracy. Even in this submission, people have talked about how they have used Claude Code and its longer context window successfully as a tool for programming, even if they may be technically skilled to do it themselves. However, if you assume that…

I’m not going to defend the tone of the OP, and it is clearly wrong to assume that everyone who is pro AI is a shill or bot.

That being said, I’ve seen hard evidence that pro AI bots do exist on HN.

And at the very large tech company I work at there is a push for everyone to spend more on Claude Code regardless of output. The metric is literally how much you’re spending on Claude Code not how much you’re producing (and in my org we’ve seen no measurable increase in productivity). People are legitimately trying to figure out the easiest way to get it to blow through their allocated credits.

I use AI all the time, I find that Opus 4.6 is great for all kinds of tasks. I don’t think it’s all just hype, but there’s clearly some serious astroturfing going on here, and I understand the urge to be suspicious of everyone.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#496

Post by megous »

aenis wrote: post #252
LoganDark wrote: post #116

Finally, I don't have to constantly reload my Extra Usage balance when I already pay $200/mo for their most expensive plan. I can't believe they even did that. I couldn't use 1M context at all because I already pay $200/mo and it was going to ask me for even more. Next step should be to allow fast mode to draw from the $200/mo usage balance. Again, I pay $200/mo, I should at least be able to send a single message wit…

I find it hard to understand that people consider $200 p/m a lot for what they are getting. Expensive compared to what? A netflix sub? A 1hr of a senior dev is at least $100, depending where one lives. Since Claude saves me hours every day, it pays for itself almost instantly. I think the economic value of the Claude subscription is on the order of $20-40k a month for a pro.

When you say "saves me", do you mean that you can prompt claude for like 1 hour per day, get your typical pre-AI output, and then go about doing whatever you like outside of work for rest of the day?

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#497

Post by kyyol »

withinboredom wrote: post #429
staticassertion wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely have the hang of Claude and I still find that it can make those ridiculous mistakes, like replicating logic into a test rather than testing a function directly, talking to a local pg that was stale/ running, etc. I have a ton of skills and pre-written prompts for testing practices but, over longer contexts, it will forget and do these things, or get confused, etc. You can minimize these problems with TLC…

My favorite is when you need to rebuild/restart outside of claude and it will "fix the bug" and argue with you about whether or not you actually rebuilt and restarted whatever it is you're working on. It would rather call you a liar than realize it didn't do anything.

this is a pretty annoying problem -- i just intentionally solve it by asking claude to always use the right build command after each batch of modifications, etc

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#498

Post by jeremychone »

exceptione wrote: post #489
jeremychone wrote: post #419

Interesting, I’ve never needed 1M, or even 250k+ context. I’m usually under 100k per request. About 80% of my code is AI-generated, with a controlled workflow using dev-chat.md and spec.md. I use Flash for code maps and auto-context, and GPT-4.5 or Opus for coding, all via API with a custom tool. Gemini Pro and Flash have had 1M context for a long time, but even though I use Flash 3 a lot, and it’s awesome, I’ve neve…

> - a code map strategy on a big repo. Per file: summary, when_to_use, public_types, public_functions. This is done per file and saved until the file changes. With a concurrency of 32, I can usually code-map a huge repo in minutes. (Typically Flash, cheap, fast, and with very good results) Thanks, but why use any AI to generate this? I would say: you document your functions-in-code, types are provided from the compil…

Very good point. I had two options:

1) Deterministic

  - Using a tree-sitter/AST-like approach, I could extract types, functions, and perhaps comments, and put them into an index map.

  - Cons:

    - The tricky part of this approach is that what I extract can be pretty large per file, for example, comments.

    - Then, I would probably need an agentic synthesis step for those comments anyway.
2) Agentic

  - Since Flash is dirt cheap, I wanted to experiment and skip #1, and go directly to #2.

  - Because my tool is built for concurrency, when set to 32, it's super fast.

  - The price is relatively low, perhaps $1 or $2 for 50k LOC, and 60 to 90 seconds, about 30 to 45 minutes of AI work.

  - What I get back is relatively consistent by file, size-wise, and it's just one trip per file.
So, this is why I started with #2.

And then, the results in real coding scenarios have been astonishing.

Way above what I expected.

The way those indexes get combined with the user prompt gets the right files 95% of the time, and with surprisingly high quality.

So, I might add deterministic aspects to it, but since I think I will need the agentic step anyway, I have deprioritized it.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#499

Post by alex_sf »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #428
furyofantares wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm directly conveying my actual experience to you. I have tasks that fill up Opus context very quickly (at the 200k context) and which took MUCH longer to fill up Codex since 5.2 (which I think had 400k context at the time). This is direct comparison. I spent months subscribed to both of their $200/mo plans. I would try both and Opus always filled up fast while Codex continued working great. It's also direct experie…

Surely compaction is down to the agent rather than the model, so are you comparing Claude Code to Codex CLI?

It's both.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#500

Post by alecco »

dahart wrote: post #482
alecco wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that.

Then your point eludes me. You complained about the length. If you don’t want it shorter, then what do you want? To me, the fact that the tracking code is visible and separate from the video code is evidence of the complete opposite of your conclusion - it’s evidence the ad business does not get to override either engineering nor what’s left of privacy control. Ad execs would surely prefer that the tracking code is n…

I didn't complain about length per se. I pointed out Google's contradiction. As my previous comment clarified. Jesus.
Post reply on HN