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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#501

Post by antfarm »

simianparrot wrote: post #339

How do people keep track of all these versions and releases of all these models and their pros/cons? Seems like a fulltime hobby to me. I'd rather just improve my own skills with all that time and energy

For me it's simple. I did my research, settled on Anthropic and Claude and got the Pro plan at ~$20/month. That way I only have to keep track of what Anthropic are offering, and that isn't even necessary as the tools I use for AI-supported development (Claude Code for VS Code extension, Xcode Intelligence and Claude Desktop) offer me to use the newsest models as soon as they are released.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#502

Post by ge96 »

dpe82 wrote: post #10

It's wild that Sonnet 4.6 is roughly as capable as Opus 4.5 - at least according to Anthropic's benchmarks. It will be interesting to see if that's the case in real, practical, everyday use. The speed at which this stuff is improving is really remarkable; it feels like the breakneck pace of compute performance improvements of the 1990s.

I sent Opus a photo of NYC at night satellite view and it was describing "blue skies and cliffs/shore line"... mistral did it better, specific use case but yeah. OpenAI was just like "you can't submit a photo by URL". Was going to try Gemini but kept bringing up vertexai. This is with Langchain

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#503

Post by red2awn »

worldsavior wrote: post #105
Bishonen88 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40% cheaper: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing

How does it work exactly? How this model is cheaper and has the same perf as Opus 4.5?

Distilling from a teacher (Opus 4.5) and scaling RL more.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#504

Post by estomagordo »

crummy wrote: post #49
estomagordo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it wild that a LLM is as capable as a previously released LLM?

Opus is supposed to be the expensive-but-quality one, while Sonnet is the cheaper one. So if you don't want to pay the significant premium for Opus, it seems like you can just wait a few weeks till Sonnet catches up

Okay, thanks. Hard to keep all these names apart.

I'm even surprised people pay more money for some models than others.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#505

Post by noshitsherlock »

noshitsherlock wrote: post #499
dakolli wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I can buy the CD From the Cradle for pennies, but it would cost me hundreds of dollars to see Eric Clapton live

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#506

Post by RobertoG »

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…

The price of oil at the price of water (ecology apart) should be a good thing.

Automation should be, obviously, a good thing, because more is produced with less labor. What it says of ourselves and our politics that so many people (me included) are afraid of it?

In a sane world, we would realize that, in a post-work world, the owner of the robots have all the power, so the robots should be owned in common. The solution is political.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#507

Post by emil-lp »

jatari wrote: post #469
simondotau wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remarkable, since the goal is clearly stated and the language isn’t tricky.

Well it is a trick question due to it being non-sensical. The AI is interpreting it in the only way that makes sense, the car is already at the car wash, should you take a 2nd car to the car wash 50 meters away or walk. It should just respond "this question doesn't make any sense, can you rephrase it or add additional information"

How is the question nonsensical? It's a perfectly valid question.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#508

Post by shimman »

jasondigitized wrote: post #495
dakolli wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The difference is that electricity wasn't being controlled by oligarchs that want to shape society so they become more rich while pillaging the planet and hurting/killing real human beings.

I'd be more trusting of LLM companies if they were all workplace democracies, not really a big fan of the centrally planned monarchies that seem to be most US corporations.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#509

Post by ramon156 »

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…

> Since the car wash is only 50 meters away, you could simply push the car there

https://claude.ai/share/32de37c4-46f2-4763-a2e1-8de7ecbcf0b4

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#510

Post by lukeinator42 »

extr wrote: post #453
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 answer was (for which it did zero thinking and answered near-instantaneously): "Drive. You're going there to use water and machinery that require the car to be present. The question answers itself." I tried it 3 more times with extended thinking explicitly off: "Drive. You're going to a car wash." "Drive. You're washing the car, not yourself." "Drive. You're washing the car — it needs to be there." Guess they're s…

Same, I haven't been able to get gemini or claude to tell me to walk a single time and I've even tried changing the distance in the prompt, etc.
Post reply on HN