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

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#521

Post by lukev »

chasd00 wrote: post #491
lukev wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right but those things exist to prevent bots. Which this is.

So at this point we're talking about participating in the (very old) arms race between scrapers & content providers.

If enough people want agents, then services should (or will) provide agent-compatible APIs. The video round-trip remains stupid from a whole-system perspective.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#522

Post by hughw »

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…

Retail water[1] costs $881/bbl which is 13x the price of Brent crude.

[1] https://www.walmart.com/ip/Aquafina-Purified-Drinking-Water-...

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#523

Post by vel0city »

shimman wrote: post #508
jasondigitized wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean your description sounds a lot like the early history of large industrialization of electricity. Lots of questionable safety and labor practices, proprietary systems, misinformation, doing absolutely terrible things to the environment to fuel this demand, massive monopolies, etc.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#524

Post by wiredpancake »

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…

[dead]

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#525

Post by XCSme »

It doesn't do so well on my stupid benchmarks, lol: https://aibenchy.com

Gets wrong some tests. It does answer correctly, BUT it doesn't respect the request to respond ONLY with the answer, it keeps adding extra explanations at the end.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#526

Post by wiredpancake »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #515
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.

[dead]

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#527

Post by pardon_me »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #515
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.

The smug, non-informative, confidently wrong tone these LLMs have learned from such comments drives me mad.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#528

Post by polotics »

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"

I disagree. It should I think answer with a simple clarifying question:

Where is the car that you want to wash?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#529

Post by dakolli »

RobertoG wrote: post #506
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…

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 soluti…

Throughout history Empires have bet their entire futures on the predictions of seers, magicians and done so with enthusiasm. When political leaders think their court magicians can give them an edge, they'll throw the baby out with the bathwater to take advantage of it. It seems to me that the Machine Learning engineers and AI companies are the court magicians of our time.

I certainly don't have much faith in the current political structures, they're uneducated on most subjects they're in charge of and taking the magicians at their word, the magicians have just gotten smarter and don't call it magic anymore.

I would actually call it magic though, just actually real. Imagine explaining to political strategists from 100 years ago, the ability to influence politicians remotely, while they sit in a room by themselves a la dictating what target politicians see on their phones and feed them content to steer them in a certain directions.. Its almost like a synthetic remote viewing.. And if that doesn't work, you also have buckets of cash :|

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#530

Post by simondotau »

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"

What part of this is nonsensical?

“I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive?”

The goal is clearly stated in the very first sentence. A valid solution is already given in the second sentence. The third sentence only seems tricky because the answer is so painfully obvious that it feels like a trick.

Post reply on HN