Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree the LLM sucks posts should be accompanied with the prompt.
I agree, but at the same time it feels like victim blaming.
Nah, it's a variant of the XY Problem: https://xyproblem.info
1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
501–510 of 565 posts
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#502[flagged]
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 (a…
That's a better argument. That said, by definition, many distinct people with different affiliations and incentives can't astroturf, as what would be the point?
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#504It’s interesting because my career went from doing higher level language (Python) to lower language (C++ and C). Opus and the like is amazing at Python, honestly sometimes better than me but it does do some really stupid architectural decisions occasionally. But when it comes to embedded stuff, it’s still like a junior engineer. Unsure if that will ever change but I wonder if it’s just the quality and availability of…
How was the career transition from MechE? Looking to do the same myself.
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s just clear this up …….. are you commenting with experience using the latest Claude, or are you commenting from personal beliefs. It’s fine for you to take a stand, but please understand your position is simply factually wrong if you think you can outprogram Claude for a range of common tasks. Being anti AI is fine, but if you deny facts of how far LLM programming has come then you lack credibility. The most eff…
I absolutely can out program Claude. I can factually guarantee that. You’re factually wrong in your belief that you think a statistical model that scientifically takes the average of programming is better than those of us that actually know what we’re doing. Programming is not hard. You’re just lazy.
Programming is one of those things where everyone thinks they are above average, like driving.
If most people are average, then just use the bot to spit out average code. Or better yet, if you are above average, use it to spit out average code and then you need above average code, then write it.
Most programming is boilerplate. Its not faster to type boilerplate than t is to have the robot do it. I promise.
Programming is hard. If it wasn't you wouldn't be getting paid what you do.
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#506Interesting, 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…
This is fascinating. I feel like this is converging into the concept of a traditional "IDE". So much of your setup reminds me of IDEs indexing, doing static analysis, building ASTs, etc. before a developer starts writing code.
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
A person has a supervision budget. They can supervise one agent in a hands-on way or many mostly-hands-off agents. Even though theres some thrashing assistants still get farther as a team than a single micromanaged agent. At least that’s my experience.
Just curious, what kind of work are you doing where agentic workflows are consistently able to make notable progress semi-autonomously in parallel? Hearing people are doing this, supposedly productively/successfully, kind of blows my mind given my near-daily in-depth LLM usage on complex codebases spanning the full stack from backend to frontend. It's rare for me to have a conversation where the LLM (usually Opus 4.6…
I work on 1M LOC 15 yr old repo. Like you it's across the full stack. Bugs in certain pieces of complex business logic would have catastrophic consequences for my employer. Basically I peel poorly-specific work items off my queue into its own worktree and session at high reasoning/effort and provide a well-specified prompt.
These things eat into my supervision budget:
* LLM loses the plot and I have to nudge (like you) * Thinking hard to better specify prompts (like you) * Reviewing all changes (I do not vibe code except for spikes or other low-risk areas) * Manual thing I have to do (for things I have not yet automated with a agent-authored scripts) * Meetings * etc
So, yes, my supervision budget is a bottleneck. I can only run 5-8 agents at a time because I have only so much time in the day.
Compare that vs a single agent at high reasoning/effort: I am sitting waiting for it to think. Waiting for it to find the code area I'm talking about takes time. Compiling, running tests, fixing compile errors. A million other things.
Any time I find myself sitting and waiting, this is a signal to me to switch to a different session.
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 (a…
That's a better argument. That said, by definition, many distinct people with different affiliations and incentives can't astroturf, as what would be the point?
Bots from a single company can amplify (retweet, upvote, comment in support of) comments and stories from many different individuals to steer the conversation to some extent.
I know that pro LLM bots exist. Here’s an example https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dirtytoken7
If you look at the timestamps you’ll see instances of it posting faster than a human could.
I know that there are numerous companies with hundreds of billions of valuation predicated on AI being better than just a useful addition to the programmers toolbox.
There are even more companies making millions off of the current hype.
People in these companies now have access to tools that can generate spam that’s nearly indistinguishable from ham. Of course some of them are using that capability.
Of course existence of astroturfing by itself doesn’t imply that that astroturfing is effective.
For that I’d point to other evidence. My personal experience with LLMs doesn’t match the hype. The experience of every single close programmer friend whose technical ability I trust, doesn’t match the hype. The output of my organization doesn’t match the hype. I can’t find any publicly verifiable numbers that match the hype. No new operating systems, no new browsers, no vibe coded hit games, the number of games released on Steam hasn’t gone up drastically, the number of apps on the Apple App Store has, but not if you filter out apps that are just wrappers for LLM APIs. Multiple studies show no impact on GDP, publicly traded software companies are showing large impacts to their bottom line etc…
Then you have things like my company pushing people to spend hundreds of thousands (per person) on Claude with zero productivity requirements. This is weird. I think the most likely explanation is an artificially inflated hype cycle.
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I start most of my sessions now with “read the diff between this branch and main”. Seems like it grounds and focuses it.
Slight tangent: you want to read the diff between your branch and the merge-base with origin/main. Otherwise you get lots of spurious spam in your diff, if main moved since you branched off.
In jj this is jj diff -f ‘fork_point(trunk() | @)’. I have an alias for it.
Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6
#510[dead]