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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#511

Post by gildenFish »

gordonhart wrote: post #90
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.

Remember when GPT-2 was “too dangerous to release” in 2019? That could have still been the state in 2026 if they didn’t YOLO it and ship ChatGPT to kick off this whole race.

In 2019 the technology was new and there was no 'counter' at that time. The average persons was not thinking about the presence and prevalence of ai in the way we do now.

It was kinda like a having muskets against indigenous tribes in the 14-1500s vs a machine gun against a modern city today. The machine gun is objectively better but has not kept up pace with the increase in defensive capability of a modern city with a modern police force.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#512

Post by ctoth »

nwienert wrote: post #411
DaKevK wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried framing the hypothesis as a question in the dispatch prompt rather than a statement? Something like -- possible cause: X, please verify before proceeding -- instead of stating it as fact. Might break the assumption inheritance without changing the overall structure.

After a month of obliterating work with 4.5, I spent about 5 days absolutely shocked at how dumb 4.6 felt, like not just a bit worse but 50% at best. Idk if it's the specific problems I work on but GP captured it well - 4.5 listened and explored better, 4.6 seems to assume (the wrong thing) constantly, I would be correcting it 3-4 times in a row sometimes. Rage quit a few times in the first day of using it, thank god…

Here's the part where you don't leave us all hanging? What did you figure out!!!

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#513

Post by conception »

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…

I have never been in an organization where everyone was sitting around, wondering what to do next. If the economy was actually as good as certain government officials claimed to be, we would be hiring people left and right to be able to do three times as much work, not firing.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#514

Post by wat10000 »

csmpltn wrote: post #498
wat10000 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We can, but if you want to stop private info from being leaked then your only sure choice is to stop the agent from communicating with the outside world entirely, or not give it any private info to begin with.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#515

Post by MagicMoonlight »

red2awn wrote: post #500

> 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.

I think this is my favourite test. You can just tell it was programmed on smug Reddit comments talking about how Americans drive to places 50 metres away.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#516

Post by [deleted] »

red2awn wrote: post #500

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#517

Post by AgentOrange1234 »

csmpltn wrote: post #498
wat10000 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For a specific bad thing like "rm -rf" that may be plausible, but this will break down when you try to enumerate all the other bad things it could possibly do.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#518

Post by QuercusMax »

BalinKing wrote: post #473
pdabbadabba wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I'm getting the dumb one too. I just got this response: > Walk — it's only 50 meters, which is less than a minute on foot. Driving that distance to a car wash would also be a bit counterproductive, since you'd just be getting the car dirty again on the way there (even if only slightly). Lace up and stroll over!

Sonnet 4.6 gives me the fairly bizarre: > Walk! It would be a bit counterproductive to drive a dirty car 50 meters just to get it washed — and at that distance, walking takes maybe 30–45 seconds. You can simply pull the car out, walk it over (or push it if it's that close), or drive it the short distance once you're ready to wash it. Either way, no need to "drive to the car wash" in the traditional sense. I struggle…

You can walk a dog down the street, what's the difference?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#519

Post by jorl17 »

I ran the same test I ran on Opus 4.6: feeding it my whole personal collection of ~900 poems which spans ~16 years

It is a far cry from Opus 4.6.

Opus 4.6 was (is!) a giant leap, the largest since Gemini 2.5 pro. Didn't hallucinate anything and produced honestly mind-blowing analyses of the collection as a whole. It was a clear leap forward.

Sonnet 4.6 feels like an evolution of whatever the previous models were doing. It is marginally better in the sense that it seemed to make fewer mistakes or with a lower level of severity, but ultimately it made all the usual mistakes (making things up, saying it'll quote a poem and then quoting another, getting time periods mixed up, etc).

My initial experiments with coding leave the same feeling. It is better than previous similar models, but a long distance away from Opus 4.6. And I've really been spoiled by Opus.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#520

Post by mottosso »

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.

Mine as well. :D
Post reply on HN