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

Claude Sonnet 4.5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 819 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#541

Post by int_19h »

martin-t wrote: post #518
Aflynn50 wrote: post #374

When I see how much the latest models are capable of it makes me feel depressed. As well as potentially ruining my career in the next few years, its turning all the minutiae and specifics of writing clean code, that I've worked hard to learn over the past years, into irrelivent details. All the specifics I thought were so important are just implementation details of the prompt. Maybe I've got a fairly backwards view…

And now wait till you realize it's all built on stolen code written by people like you and me. GOFAI failed because paying intelligent/competent/capable people enough for their time to implement intelligence by writing all the necessary rules and algorithms was uneconomical. GenAI solved it by repurposing already performed work, deriving the rules ("weights") from it automatically, thus massively increasing the value…

It's not that it was uneconomical, it's that 1) we literally don't know all the rules, a lot of it is learned intuition that humans acquire by doing, and 2) as task complexity rises, the number of rules rises faster, so it doesn't scale. The real advantage that genAI brings to the table is that it "learns" in a way that can replicate this intuition and that it keeps scaling so long as you can shovel more compute and more data at it.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#542

Post by hsn915 »

It is time to acknowledge that AI coding does not actually work.

ok, you think it's a promising field and you want to explore it, fine. Go for it.

Just stop pretending that what these models are currently doing is good enough to replace programmers.

I use LLMs a lot, even for explaining documentation.

I used to use them for writing _some_ code, but I have never ever gotten a code sample over 10 lines that was not in need of heavy modifications to make it work correctly.

Some people are pretending to write hundreds of lines of code with LLMs, even entire applications. All I have to say is "lol".

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#543

Post by sciencejerk »

senordevnyc wrote: post #125
cloverich wrote: post #108

Please y'all, when you list supportive or critical complaints based on your actual work, include some specifics of the task and prompt. Like actual prompt, actual bugs, actual feature, etc. I've had great success with both ChatGPT and Claude for years, am around 3x sustained output increase in my professional work, and kicking off and finishing new side projects / features that I used to simply not ever finish. BUT t…

HN is such a negative and cynical place these days that it's just not worth it. I just don't have the patience to hear yet another anti-AI rant, or have someone who is ideologically opposed to AI nitpick its output. Like you, I've found AI to be a huge help for my work, and I'm happy to keep outcompeting the people who are too stubborn to approach it with an open mind.

5I think a lot of white-collar workers are on HN and th3y

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#544

Post by int_19h »

johnfn wrote: post #523
manofmanysmiles wrote: post #521

I haven't shouted into the void for a while. Today is as good a day as any other to do so. I feel extremely disempowered that these coding sessions are effectively black box, and non-reproducible. It feels like I am coding with nothing but hopes and dreams, and the connection between my will and the patterns of energy is so tenuous I almost don't feel like touching a computer again. A lack of determinism comes from m…

If you care about this so much why don't you use one of the open source OpenAI models? They're pretty good and give you the guarantees you want.

None of the open weight models are really as good as SOTA stuff, whatever their evals says. Depending on the task at hand this might not actually manifest if the task is simple enough, but once you hit the threshold it's really obvious.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#545

Post by int_19h »

tux3 wrote: post #100
blurbleblurble wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT-5 is like the guy on the baseball team that's really good at hitting home runs but can't do basic shit in the outfield. It also consistently gets into drama with the other agents e.g. the other day when I told it we were switching to claude code for executing changes, after badmouthing claude's entirely reasonable and measured analysis it went ahead and decided to `git reset --hard` even after I twice pushed back…

That's great given that the goal of OAI is to train artificial superintelligence first, hoping that the previous version of the AI will help us control the bigger AI. If GPT-5 is learning to fight and undo other models, we're in for a bright future. Twice as bright.

The best way is to nuke the servers from orbit, just to be sure. ~

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#546

Post by labrador »

Galaco wrote: post #529

If you pause your subscription, Claude.ai breaks. I paused my subscription, and my account immediately transitioned to free. It has removed my invoice history, and attempts to upgrade again fail with an internal error. Their chatbot is telling me to navigate to UI elements that don't exist, and free users do not have the option of human support. So I'm stuck; my sub is paused, and I cannot either cancel, or unpause a…

Did you use Google Play to pause subscription? Because Claude Pro says there is no pause subscription except on Google Play and then goes on to explain your problem if that's the case.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#547

Post by blibble »

Aflynn50 wrote: post #374

When I see how much the latest models are capable of it makes me feel depressed. As well as potentially ruining my career in the next few years, its turning all the minutiae and specifics of writing clean code, that I've worked hard to learn over the past years, into irrelivent details. All the specifics I thought were so important are just implementation details of the prompt. Maybe I've got a fairly backwards view…

the investment bubble will burst, at which point the cost to run the plagiarism machine will increase by a factor of 100

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#548

Post by gabriel-uribe »

hsn915 wrote: post #542

It is time to acknowledge that AI coding does not actually work. ok, you think it's a promising field and you want to explore it, fine. Go for it. Just stop pretending that what these models are currently doing is good enough to replace programmers. I use LLMs a lot, even for explaining documentation. I used to use them for writing _some_ code, but I have never ever gotten a code sample over 10 lines that was not in…

Very interesting observation.

I haven’t written a function by hand in 18 months.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#549

Post by qafy »

hsn915 wrote: post #542

It is time to acknowledge that AI coding does not actually work. ok, you think it's a promising field and you want to explore it, fine. Go for it. Just stop pretending that what these models are currently doing is good enough to replace programmers. I use LLMs a lot, even for explaining documentation. I used to use them for writing _some_ code, but I have never ever gotten a code sample over 10 lines that was not in…

sounds like poor prompt engineering. Devin and Claude can both do better work than many interns I have mentored in my career, and faster too. We likely have many many years until it will be even close to replacing an experienced developer but we are already at the point it IS replacing junior engineers.

Whether you agree or not, the market has spoken. New grad hiring is WAY down. Fresh CS grads are having an hell of a time finding work compared to 2 years ago.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.5

#550

Post by sneilan1 »

gabriel-uribe wrote: post #548
hsn915 wrote: post #542

It is time to acknowledge that AI coding does not actually work. ok, you think it's a promising field and you want to explore it, fine. Go for it. Just stop pretending that what these models are currently doing is good enough to replace programmers. I use LLMs a lot, even for explaining documentation. I used to use them for writing _some_ code, but I have never ever gotten a code sample over 10 lines that was not in…

Very interesting observation. I haven’t written a function by hand in 18 months.

Same. I haven't written any code by hand in some time. Oh well. I guess I'm just doing it wrong.
Post reply on HN