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

1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 565 posts

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#541

Post by Filligree »

brookst wrote: post #514
qualifck wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean yes? That's like, the whole idea behind having a team. The art guy doesn't want to think about code, the coder doesn't want to think about finances, the accountant doesn't want to worry about customer support. It would be kind of a structural failure if you weren't outsourcing at least some of your thinking.

I’m with you, perhaps I just misread some kind of condescension into the “outsourcing your thinking” comment. We all have limited context windows, the world’s always worked that way, just seemed odd to (mis)read someone saying there’s something wrong with focusing on when you add the greatest value and trusting others to do the same.

It is condescending when antis say AI users do it. It isn’t when a director or team leader does it.

But it’s the same process, which should tell you what’s really going on here. It’s about status, not functionality, and you don’t gain status without controlling other humans.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#542

Post by jeremychone »

ra7 wrote: post #506
jeremychone wrote: post #419

Interesting, 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.

Yes, there is a parallel here. Now, some of those "indexing" steps can be performed by an LLM.

And that does not prevent mixing and matching the two, as some comments in this thread suggest.

Anyway, it's a great time for production coding.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#543

Post by jeremychone »

lukeundtrug wrote: post #487
jeremychone wrote: post #419

Interesting, 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…

I built myself an AST based solution for that during the last 6 months roughly. I always wondered whether grep and agent-based discovery will be the end of it and thought it just has to be better with a more deterministic approach. In the end it's hard to measure but personally I feel that my agent rarely misses any context for a given task, so I'm pretty happy with it. I used a different approach than tree-sitter be…

I looked at your solution and extension README, and it's very interesting and well thought out.

The fact that you've been using it for six months and that it performs well says a lot. At the end of the day, that's what counts.

I like your idea of piggybacking on top of the LSP services, and I can imagine that this was quite a bit of work. Doing it as an MCP server makes it usable across different tools.

I also really like the name "Context Master."

In my case, it's much more niche since it's for the tool I built. Though it's open source, the key difference is that the "indexing" is only agentic at this point.

I can see value in mixing the two. LSP integration scares me because of the amount of work involved, and tree-sitter seems like a good path.

In that case, in the code map, for each item, there could be both the LLM response info and some deterministic info, for example, from tree-sitter.

That being said, the current approach works so well that I think I am going to keep using and fine-tuning it for a while, and bring in deterministic context only when or if I need it.

Anyway, what you built looks great. If it works, that's great.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#544

Post by jhatemyjob »

staticassertion wrote: post #385
jhatemyjob wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar experience. I use these AI tools on a daily basis. I have tons of examples like yours. In one recent instance I explicitly told it in the prompt to not use memcpy, and it used memcpy anyway, and generated a 30-line diff after thinking for 20 minutes. In that amount of time I created a 10-line diff that didn't use memcpy. I think it's the big investors' extremely powerful incentives manifesting in the form of…

Most devs aren't very good. That's the reality, it's what we've all known for a long time. AI is trained on their code, and so these "subpar" devs are blown away when they see the AI generate boring, subpar code. The second you throw a novel constraint into the mix things fall apart. But most devs don't even know about novel constraints let alone work with them. So they don't see these limitations. Ask an LLM to not…

The people glazing these tools can't design systems. I have this founder friend who I've known for decades, he knows how to code but he isn't really interested in it; he's more interested in the business side and mostly sees programming as a way to make money. Before ChatGPT he would raise money and hire engineers ASAP. When not a founder he would try to get into management roles etc etc. About a year ago he told me he doesn't really write code anymore, and he showed me part of his codebase for this new company he's building. To my horror I saw a 500-line bash script that he claimed he did not understand and just used prompts to edit it.

It didn't need to be a bash script. It could have been written in any scripting language. I presume it started off as a bash script because that's probably what it started out as when he was exploring the idea. And since it was already bash I guess he decided to just keep going with it. But it was just one of those things where I was like, these autocomplete services would never stop and tell you "maybe this 500-line script should be rewritten in python", it will just continue to affirm you, and pile onto the tech debt.

I used to freak out and think my days were numbered when people claimed they stopped writing code. But now I realize that they don't like writing code, don't care about getting better at it, don't know what good code looks like, and would hire an engineer if they could. With that framing, whenever I see someone say "Opus 4.6 is nuts. Everything I throw at it works. Frontend, backend, algorithms—it does not matter." I know for a fact that "everything" in that persons mind is very limited in scope.

Also, I just realized that there was an em-dash in that comment. So there's that. Wasn't even written by a person.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#545

Post by alexey-pelykh »

MikeNotThePope wrote: post #20
dimitri-vs wrote: post #3

The big change here is: > Standard pricing now applies across the full 1M window for both models, with no long-context premium. Media limits expand to 600 images or PDF pages. For Claude Code users this is huge - assuming coherence remains strong past 200k tok.

Is it ever useful to have a context window that full? I try to keep usage under 40%, or about 80k tokens, to avoid what Dex Horthy calls the dumb zone in his research-plan-implement approach. Works well for me so far. No vibes allowed: https://youtu.be/rmvDxxNubIg?is=adMmmKdVxraYO2yQ

[dead]

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#546

Post by staticassertion »

jhatemyjob wrote: post #544
staticassertion wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most devs aren't very good. That's the reality, it's what we've all known for a long time. AI is trained on their code, and so these "subpar" devs are blown away when they see the AI generate boring, subpar code. The second you throw a novel constraint into the mix things fall apart. But most devs don't even know about novel constraints let alone work with them. So they don't see these limitations. Ask an LLM to not…

The people glazing these tools can't design systems. I have this founder friend who I've known for decades, he knows how to code but he isn't really interested in it; he's more interested in the business side and mostly sees programming as a way to make money. Before ChatGPT he would raise money and hire engineers ASAP. When not a founder he would try to get into management roles etc etc. About a year ago he told me…

> I know for a fact that "everything" in that persons mind is very limited in scope.

I agree, and I think it's quite telling what people are impressed by. Someone elsewhere said that Opus 4.6 is a better programmer than they are and... I mean, I kinda believe it, but I think it says way more about them than it does about Opus.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#547

Post by jhatemyjob »

staticassertion wrote: post #546
jhatemyjob wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people glazing these tools can't design systems. I have this founder friend who I've known for decades, he knows how to code but he isn't really interested in it; he's more interested in the business side and mostly sees programming as a way to make money. Before ChatGPT he would raise money and hire engineers ASAP. When not a founder he would try to get into management roles etc etc. About a year ago he told me…

> I know for a fact that "everything" in that persons mind is very limited in scope. I agree, and I think it's quite telling what people are impressed by. Someone elsewhere said that Opus 4.6 is a better programmer than they are and... I mean, I kinda believe it, but I think it says way more about them than it does about Opus.

Yep that's from the same comment I quoted. Decent chance it's not even a real person.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#548

Post by copperx »

akersten wrote: post #464
copperx wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but at the same time it feels like victim blaming.

I don't know. Is pointing out that someone holding a drill by the chuck won't get the results they expect that bad?

But what if the drill is non deterministic?

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#549

Post by phendrenad2 »

arcanemachiner wrote: post #442
phendrenad2 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay the process is simple. You're going to go to another website, called YouTube. Don't be alarmed. First read all the steps so you don't miss any, once you start going to the other site you won't be able to see this one. You might want to write these down on a piece of paper first. Okay here we go: 1. Click in the bar at the top of the page that says ycombinator.com 2. type this in: youtube.com 3. press enter 4. Th…

But what if they find a bad one? There's a lot of junk out there.

Yes, this can happen. Some people just have the worst luck, and will always find the bad one. This is why Greene made "stay away from unlucky people" law 10 out of 48. It's really that important.

Re: 1M context is now generally available for Opus 4.6 and Sonnet 4.6

#550

Post by essentia0 »

dahart wrote: post #474
alecco wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is Google engineers go to the trouble of setting up a URL shortener service on one hand, but on the other hand it seems ad the business anti-privacy executives can override anything. This points out it's a dysfunctional company.

You’d rather have the video code and the tracking code baked into the same code just to save a couple of characters? Why? That would result in a longer code than the video code alone, you would save very few characters. It would not be nicer to look at or functionally any different, and it would obscure the fact that it’s being tracked and prevent people from being able to edit the URL to remove the tracking. I appre…

That's what both Pinterest and Tiktok do with their mobile short links.
Post reply on HN