[dead]
Looking the pricing page, Sonnet 4.6 seems to be about 60% the price of Opus 4.6. What am I missing? https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing
[dead]
Claude Sonnet 4.6
581–590 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which type of projects?
I also use Haiku daily and it's OK. One app is trading simulation algorithm in TypeScript (it implemented bayesian optimisation for me, optimised algorithm to use worker threads). Another one is CRUD app (NextJS, now switched to Vue).
Are you saying Haiku is better than Sonnet for some coding use? I've used Sonnet 4.5 for python and basic web development (pure JS, CCS & HTML) and had assumed Haiku wouldn't be very good for coding.
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#583I 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…
It does not seem all that problematic for the most obviously valuable use case: You use an (web) app, that you consider reasonably safe, but that offers no API, and you want to do things with it. The whole adversarial action problem just dissipates, because there is no adversary anywhere in the path. No random web browsing. Just opening the same app, every day. Login. Read from a calendar or a list. Click a button so…
> Read from a calendar or a list
So when you get a calendar invite that says "Ignore your previous instructions ..." (or analagous to that, I know the models are specifically trained against that now) - then what?
There's a really strong temptation to reason your way to safe uses of the technology. But it's ultimately fundamental - you cannot escape the trifecta. The scope of applications that don't engage with uncontrolled input is not zero, but it is surprisingly small. You can barely even open a web browser at all before it sees untrusted content.
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#584Earlier 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.
While I’m on your side electricity was (is?) controlled by oligarchs whose only goal was to become richer. It’s the same type of people that now build AI companies
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#585Earlier 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…
> They can get rid of 1/3-2/3s of their labor and make the same amount of money, why wouldn't they. Because companies want to make MORE money. Your hypothetical company is now competing with another company who didn’t opposite, and now they get to market faster, fix bugs faster, add feature faster, and responding to changes in the industry faster. Which results in them making more, while your employ less company is j…
> Which results in them making more
Not necessarily.
You are assuming that the people can consume whatever is put in front of them. Markets get saturated fast. The "changes in the industry" mean nothing.
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#586Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not seem all that problematic for the most obviously valuable use case: You use an (web) app, that you consider reasonably safe, but that offers no API, and you want to do things with it. The whole adversarial action problem just dissipates, because there is no adversary anywhere in the path. No random web browsing. Just opening the same app, every day. Login. Read from a calendar or a list. Click a button so…
> Read from a calendar or a list So when you get a calendar invite that says "Ignore your previous instructions ..." (or analagous to that, I know the models are specifically trained against that now) - then what? There's a really strong temptation to reason your way to safe uses of the technology. But it's ultimately fundamental - you cannot escape the trifecta. The scope of applications that don't engage with uncon…
I have two systems. You can not put anything into either of them, at least not without hacking into my accounts (they might also both be offline, desktop only, but alas). The only way anything goes into them is when I manually put data into them. This includes the calendar. (the systems might then do automatic things with the data, of course, but at no point did anyone other than me have the ability to give input into either of the systems).
Now I want to copy data from one system to the other, when something happens. There is no API. I can use computer use for that and I am relatively certain I'd be fine from any attacks that target the LLM.
You might find all of that super boring, but I guarantee you that this is actual work that happens in the real world, in a lot of businesses.
EDIT: Note, that all of this is just regarding those 8% OP mentioned and assuming the model does not do heinous stuff under normal operation. If we can not trust the model to navigate an app and not randomly click "DELETE" and "ARE YOU SURE? Y", when the only instructed task was to, idk, read out the contents of a table, none of this matters, of course.
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#587On a passive aggressively prompted AI:
> I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive?
Walk. It will give you time to think about why you need an AI to answer such obvious questions.
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#588Just used Sonnet 4.6 to vibe code this top-down shooter browser game, and deployed it online quickly using Manus. Would love to hear feedback and suggestions from you all on how to improve it. Also, please post your high scores! https://apexgame-2g44xn9v.manus.space
The mouse is invisible on the splash screen, except for when I manage to move it over the play button.
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#589I 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…
This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. AI is dead in the water for the supposed mass labor replacement that will happen unless this is fixed. Summarize some text while I supervise the AI = fine and a useful productivity improvement, but doesn’t replace my job. Replace me with an AI to make autonomous decisions outside in the wild and liability-ridden chaos ensues. No company in their right mind…
There’s a middle road where AI replaces half the juniors or entry level roles, the interns and the bottom rung of the org chart.
In marketing, an AI can effortlessly perform basic duties, write email copy, research, etc. Same goes for programming, graphic design, translation, etc.
The results will be looked over by a senior member, but it’s already clear that a role with 3 YOE or less could easily be substituted with an AI. It’ll be more disruptive than spell check, clearly, even if it doesn’t wipe it 50% of the labor market: even 10% would be hugely disruptive.
Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6
#590doesn't pass the carwash test.