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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#631

Post by tjr »

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…

Its also worth noting that if you can create a business with an LLM, so can everyone else.

One possibility may be that we normalize making bigger, more complex things.

In pre-LLM days, if I whipped up an application in something like 8 hours, it would be a pretty safe assumption that someone else could easily copy it. If it took me more like 40 hours, I still have no serious moat, but fewer people would bother spending 40 hours to copy an existing application. If it took me 100 hours, or 200 hours, fewer and fewer people would bother trying to copy it.

Now, with LLMs... what still takes 40+ hours to build?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#632

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

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…

Last I checked, the tractor and plow are doing a lot more work than 3 farmers, yet we've got more jobs and grow more food.

People will find work to do, whether that means there's tens of thousands of independent contractors, whether that means people migrate into new fields, or whether that means there's tens of multi-trillion dollar companies that would've had 200k engineers each that now only have 50k each and it's basically a net nothing.

People will be fine. There might be big bumps in the road.

Doom is definitely not certain.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#633

Post by minimaxir »

minimaxir wrote: post #215
michaelcampbell wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. My CC (2.1.45) doesn't provide the 1M option at all. Huh.

Is your CC personal or tied to an Enterprise account? Per the docs: > The 1M token context window is currently in beta for organizations in usage tier 4 and organizations with custom rate limits.

Update: On my personal Claude Code I have access to the 1M model endpoints, so I'm confused.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#634

Post by fatherwavelet »

gallerdude wrote: post #69

The weirdest thing about this AI revolution is how smooth and continuous it is. If you look closely at differences between 4.6 and 4.5, it’s hard to see the subtle details. A year ago today, Sonnet 3.5 (new), was the newest model. A week later, Sonnet 3.7 would be released. Even 3.7 feels like ancient history! But in the gradient of 3.5 to 3.5 (new) to 3.7 to 4 to 4.1 to 4.5, I can’t think of one moment where I saw e…

I had not used Claude much until an hour ago since probably before GPT5. I had only been using Gemini the last 3 months.

Sonnet 4.6 extended on the free plan is just incredible. I am just complete floored by it. The conversation I just had with it was nuts. It was from Dario mentioning something like a 20% chance Claude is conscious or something crazy like that. I have always tried that conversation with previous models but it got boring so fast.

There is something with the way it can organize context without getting lost that completely blows Gemini away.

Maybe even more so that it was the first time it felt like a model pushed back a little and the answers were not just me ultimately steering it into certain answers. For the free plan that is nuts.

In terms of being conscious, it is the first time I would say I am not 100% certain it is just a very useful, very smart , stochastic parrot. I wouldn't want to say more than that but 15-20% doesn't sound so insane to me as it did 2 hours ago.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#635

Post by extr »

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.

You get what you pay for imo.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#636

Post by DrewADesign »

leptons wrote: post #569
m101 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be validated but that doesn’t mean that the providers of these services will be making money. It’s about the demand at a profitable price. The uncontroversial part is that the demand exists at an unprofitable price.

That really is the $800 billion elephant in the room.

This “It’s not about profits, man, it’s about how much you’re worth. The rules have changed. Don’t get left behind,” nonsense is exactly what a bunch of super wrong people said about investing during the .com bust. Even if we got some useful tech out of it in the end, that was a lot of people’s money that got flushed down the toilet.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#637

Post by emmelaich »

simondotau wrote: post #450
ManlyBread wrote: post #448

Still fails the car wash question, I took the prompt from the title of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47031580 The answer was "Walk! It would be a bit counterproductive to drive a dirty car 50 meters just to get it washed — you'd barely move before arriving. Walking takes less than a minute, and you can simply drive it through the wash and walk back home afterward." I've tried several other variant…

Remarkable, since the goal is clearly stated and the language isn’t tricky.

I would drive the car to the car wash, because I want to bring the car wash home and it's too heavy for me to carry all the way home.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#638

Post by vardalab »

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…

We said the same thing when 3D printing came out. Any sort of cool tech, we think everybody’s going to do it. Most people are not capable of doing it. in college everybody was going to be an engineer and then they drop out after the first intro to physics or calculus class. A bunch of my non tech friends were vibe coding some tools with replit and lovable and I looked at their stuff and yeah it was neat but it wasn't gonna go anywhere and if it did go somewhere, they would need to find somebody who actually knows what they're doing. To actually execute on these things takes a different kind of thinking. Unless we get to the stage where it's just like magic genie, lol. Maybe then everybody’s going to vibe their own software.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#639

Post by theappsecguy »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #632
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…

Last I checked, the tractor and plow are doing a lot more work than 3 farmers, yet we've got more jobs and grow more food. People will find work to do, whether that means there's tens of thousands of independent contractors, whether that means people migrate into new fields, or whether that means there's tens of multi-trillion dollar companies that would've had 200k engineers each that now only have 50k each and it's…

More jobs where? In farming? Is that why farming in the US is dying, being destroyed by corporations and farmers are now prisoners to John Deer? It’s hilarious that you chose possibly the worst counter example here…

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#640

Post by gzread »

emmelaich wrote: post #637
simondotau wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remarkable, since the goal is clearly stated and the language isn’t tricky.

I would drive the car to the car wash, because I want to bring the car wash home and it's too heavy for me to carry all the way home.

You grunt with all your might and heave the car wash onto your shoulders. For a moment or two it looks as if you're not going to be able to lift it, but heroically you finally lift it high in the air! Seconds later, however, you topple underneath the weight, and the wash crushes you fatally. Geez! Didn't I tell you not to pick up the car wash?! Isn't the name of this very game "Pick Up The Car Wash and Die"?! Man, you're dense. No big loss to humanity, I tell ya.

    *** You have died ***
In that game you scored 0 out of a possible 100, in 1 turn, giving you the rank of total and utter loser, squished to death by a damn car wash.

Would you like to RESTART, RESTORE a saved game, give the FULL score for that game or QUIT?

Post reply on HN