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

Claude can now search the web

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 758 posts

Re: Claude can now search the web

#561

Post by andreygrehov »

Two things.

1. I generally prefer that an LLM not search the web. The top N results are often either SEO spam, excessively long articles created solely to rank well, or long-established websites that gained authority years ago, when Google's crawler and ranking algorithms were less sophisticated.

2. Web search by LLMs is likely here to stay, so I'm curious whether there's an agent-friendly web format. For example, when an RSS reader visits a website, the site responds with an RSS feed. I think we need something similar for agents - an open standard that all websites would support. This could reduce processing overhead and potentially improve the accuracy of the information retrieved. Thoughts?

Re: Claude can now search the web

#562

Post by throw10920 »

_heimdall wrote: post #131
yoyohello13 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The longer I've been in the workforce, the more I realize most humans actually kind of suck at their jobs. LLMs being more human like is the opposite of what I want.

That could very well be because the jobs are effectively useless. By no means does that mean the people are, nor is what the income allows them to do. But most jobs sure do seem pointless.

What's the evidence for "most"?

Re: Claude can now search the web

#564

Post by eraserj »

Cort3z wrote: post #560

I usually find Claude to be my favourite flavor of LLMs, but I still pay for ChatGPT because their voice offering is so great! I regularly use it as an "expert on the side" when I do other things, like doing bike repairs. I ask it things like "how do I find the min/max adjustments on my particular flavor of front derailleur", or when cooking, and my hands are dirty, I can ask stuff like "how much X do I usually need…

> There's less usage of voice mode on the enterprise and power users side but that will happen eventually. - Anthropic CEO 21 jan. [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/snkOMOjiVOk 01:30

Re: Claude can now search the web

#565

Post by _heimdall »

ldoughty wrote: post #423
rank0 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we determine who gets what job?

The idea behind UBI is that people do jobs that they want to do...

How do you make sure that enough people want to do the necessary jobs?

And why do you need money at all in that scenario, at least for the basic items the UBI intends to make affordable to all? Why not just make them free and available to everyone?

Re: Claude can now search the web

#566

Post by _heimdall »

LinXitoW wrote: post #555
_heimdall wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is based on, among other things, an expectation that free markets are pretty good at balancing out in the long run. If demand goes up only because access to money goes up, prices will rise. Any increase in supply over time will eat up some of that price fluctuation, but for most products prices are more flexible than supply and a majority share of any capital increase will go towards prices rather than sup…

In a UBI situation demand would shift, not just go up. If there's two hypothetical people paying the tax, a very rich person (>300.000 a year) and a poor person ( Finally, we already do price controls and subsidies in many places, like food production. It's just that a big part of the advantage is soaked up by big companies.

Right, so prices for items the rich people want would fall and prices for items everyone else wants would go up.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#567

Post by _heimdall »

dataflow wrote: post #426
_heimdall wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is based on, among other things, an expectation that free markets are pretty good at balancing out in the long run. If demand goes up only because access to money goes up, prices will rise. Any increase in supply over time will eat up some of that price fluctuation, but for most products prices are more flexible than supply and a majority share of any capital increase will go towards prices rather than sup…

> a majority share of any capital increase will go towards prices rather than supply You actually made my point, I think: that the price increase need not necessarily be "roughly in line with that", but could be less. This distinction is absolutely critical. Like I said in [1], if you put $3k in my pocket, and my expenses increase by $2k, that's a very different situation from if my expenses grow by $3k. It would mea…

When I said "in line" I didn't mean 1:1 or 100%. I may have picked a bad phrase there, I was intending to say that there would be a strong correlation between the two and that a majority of the extra Monet would go towards price increases.

I forget the general rule when it comes to companies, but there's a general percentage that is often how much a price increase on a company is passed on to consumers. If a company's tax rate goes up by 10% something like 8% of that is passed on to the consumer through price increases. I'd expect something similar with a UBI.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#568

Post by _heimdall »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #472
_heimdall wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is based on, among other things, an expectation that free markets are pretty good at balancing out in the long run. If demand goes up only because access to money goes up, prices will rise. Any increase in supply over time will eat up some of that price fluctuation, but for most products prices are more flexible than supply and a majority share of any capital increase will go towards prices rather than sup…

Governments already provide "free income" in the form of free or subsidized services. Say you have a fire-department even though you personally might not be paying anything for it because you are so poor that you don't pay any taxes. You have police protecting you and the army. You have free primary school at least. So I think the question is, would it help for the government to provide more, or less, or the same amo…

If you have a government that runs a balanced budget, those services aren't free.

> Would it "increase prices" if healthcare was free?

That depends, who's ultimately footing the bill? If its paid for with taxes on businesses, yes most of that would be passed on to consumers in the form of price increases. If its paid for by consumer taxes, ultimately you will find consumers demanding higher wages and prices would again go up. If its paid for with tariffs, well we'll fins out soon but prices should go up there as well.

Re: Claude can now search the web

#570

Post by _heimdall »

LinXitoW wrote: post #554
_heimdall wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI will almost certainly fail to cover the necessities unless we have Marx-style price controls. When everyone in the economy has a minimum of say $3,000 per month the cost of necessities, and everything else, will go up roughly in line with that.

We already have "Marx-style" price control and regulations in many sectors, specifically food production. It's just that the advantages are arbitraged away by corporations using cheap corn to create highly addictive foods, and lobbying and marketing with the resultant profits. But I also disagree with your assertion. Minimum wage increases are a great example. Opponents will constantly claim they will lead to massive…

> We already have "Marx-style" price control and regulations in many sectors, specifically food production.

And our food quality in the US is garbage. We can't say if there is causation there since we can't compare against a baseline US food system without subsidies, but there is a correlation in timing between the increase in food subsidies and the decrease in quality.

> Opponents will constantly claim they will lead to massively increasing prices, but they never do.

The only times that really comes up is when an increase is proposed and the whole debate is over politicized. Claims on both sides at those times are going to be exaggerated.

Prices absolutely go up with minimum wage increases. How could they not? It'd be totally reasonable to argue the timeline that matters, prices aren't going to go up immediately. You could also argue the ratio, maybe wage is increased by 30% and prices are only expected to go up by 20%.

People earning a minimum wage almost certainly have pent up demand, they would buy more if they could afford it. Increasing their wages opens that door a bit, they will spend more which means demand, and prices, will go up in response.

Post reply on HN