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

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#621

Post by pixelatedindex »

josephg wrote: post #607
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…

> Its also worth noting that if you can create a business with an LLM, so can everyone else. And sadly everyone has the same ideas Yeah, this is quite thought provoking. If computer code written by LLMs is a commodity, what new businesses does that enable? What can we do cheaply we couldn't do before? One obvious answer is we can make a lot more custom stuff . Like, why buy Windows and Office when I can just ask clau…

> If software is the commodity, what is the bespoke value-added service that can sit on top of all that?

It would be cool if I can brew hardware at home by getting AI to design and 3D print circuit boards with bespoke software. Alas, we are constrained by physics. At the moment.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#622

Post by Havoc »

Alifatisk wrote: post #541

> Sonnet 4.5, starting at $3/$15 per million tokens. Are people really willing to pay these prices? The open-weight models are catching up in a rapid pace while keeping the prices so low. MiniMax M2.5, Kimi 2.5 and GLM-5 is dirt cheap compared to this. They may not be sota but they are more than good enough.

I'm toying with a hybrid approach. GLM5 for everything except at the write a implementation plan stage and at the end a pass with opus/sonnet to spot bugfixes.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#623

Post by Applejinx »

cmiles8 wrote: post #558
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…

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…

It sure did: I never thought I would abandon Google Search, but I have, and it's the AI elements that have fundamentally broken my trust in what I used to take very much for granted. All the marketing and skewing of results and Amazon-like lying for pay didn't do it, but the full-on dive into pure hallucination did.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#624

Post by cobolexpert »

Sajarin wrote: post #130
Retr0id wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be a bit weird to have the Sonnet numbering ahead of the Opus numbering. The Opus 4.5->4.6 change was a little more incremental (from my perspective at least, I haven't been paying attention to benchmark numbers), so I think the Opus numbering makes sense.

Sonnet numbering has been weirder in the past. Opus 3.5 was scrapped even though Sonnet 3.5 and Haiku 3.5 were released. Not to mention Sonnet 3.7 (while Opus was still on version 3) Shameless source: https://sajarin.com/blog/modeltree/

I like this tree visualization! The background with little squares is making the text difficult to read, though.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#625

Post by echelon »

josephg wrote: post #607
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…

> Its also worth noting that if you can create a business with an LLM, so can everyone else. And sadly everyone has the same ideas Yeah, this is quite thought provoking. If computer code written by LLMs is a commodity, what new businesses does that enable? What can we do cheaply we couldn't do before? One obvious answer is we can make a lot more custom stuff . Like, why buy Windows and Office when I can just ask clau…

> Yeah, this is quite thought provoking. If computer code written by LLMs is a commodity, what new businesses does that enable? What can we do cheaply we couldn't do before?

The model owner can just withhold access and build all the businesses themselves.

Financial capital used to need labor capital. It doesn't anymore.

We're entering into scary territory. I would feel much better if this were all open source, but of course it isn't.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#626

Post by gverrilla »

nikcub wrote: post #267

Enabling /extra-usage in my (personal) claude code[0] with this env: "ANTHROPIC_DEFAULT_SONNET_MODEL": "claude-sonnet-4-6[1m]" has enabled the 1M context window. Fixed a UI issue I had yesterday in a web app very effectively using claude in chrome. Definitely not the fastest model - but the breathing space of 1M context is great for browser use. [0] Anthropic have given away a bunch of API credits to cc subscribers -…

/extra-usage inside claude code also works

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#627

Post by simondotau »

polotics wrote: post #528
jatari wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you legally permitted to drive that vehicle? Is the car actually a 1:10th scale model? Have aliens just invaded earth?

Sorry, but that’s not how conversation works. The person explained the situation and asked a question; it’s entirely reasonable for the respondent to answer based on the facts provided. If every exchange required interrogating every premise, all discussion would collapse into an absurd rabbit hole. It’s like typing “2 + 2 =” into a calculator and, instead of displaying “4”, being asked the clarifying question, “What is your definition of 2?”

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#628

Post by SoftTalker »

mbrumlow wrote: post #564
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…

> 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…

> With AI we now have a chance to do projects that simply would have cost way too much to do 10 years ago.

Not sure about that, at least if we're talking about software. Software is limited by complexity, not the ability to write code. Not sure LLMs manage complexity in software any better than humans do.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#629

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#630

Post by JamesSwift »

cmiles8 wrote: post #595
alex43578 wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not really though: 1. Companies like savings but they’re not dumb enough to just wipe out junior roles and shoot themselves in the foot for future generations of company leaders. Business leaders have been vocal on this point and saying it’s terrible thinking. 2. In the US and Europe the work most ripe for automation and AI was long since “offshored” to places like India. If AI does have an impact it will wipe out th…

To think companies worry about protecting the talent supply chain is to put your fingers in your ears and ignore your eyes for the past 5-10 years. We were already in a crisis of seniority where every single role was “senior only” and AI is only going to increase that.
Post reply on HN