Obligatory: https://claude.ai/referral/YWAsr_1fbA
Claude 4
671–680 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude 4
#672After using Claude 3.7 Sonnet for a few weeks, my verdict is that its coding abilities are unimpressive both for unsupervised coding but also for problem solving/debugging if you are expecting accurate results and correct code. However, as a debugging companion, it's slightly better than a rubber duck, because at least there's some suspension of disbelief so I tend to explain things to it earnestly and because of tha…
I've noticed an interesting trend: Most people who are happy with LLM coding say something like "Wow, it's awesome. I asked it to do X and it did it so fast with minimal bugs, and good code", and occasionally show the output. Many provide even more details. Most people who are not happy with LLM coding ... provide almost no details. As someone who's impressed by LLM coding, when I read a post like yours, I tend to ha…
Aside from the fact that you seem to be demanding a lot from someone who's informally sharing their experience online, I think the effectiveness really depends on what you're writing code for. With straightforward use cases that have ample documented examples, you can generally expect decent or even excellent results. However, the more novel the task or the more esoteric the software library, the likelier you are to encounter issues and feel dissatisfied with the outcomes. Additionally, some people are simply pickier about code quality and won't accept suboptimal results. Where I work, I regularly encounter wildly enthusiastic opinions about GenAI that lack any supporting evidence. Dissenting from the mainstream belief that AI is transforming every industry is treated as heresy, so such skepticism is best kept close to the chest—or better yet, completely to oneself.
Re: Claude 4
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I see stories like this, I think that people tend to forget what LLMs really are. LLM just complete your prompt in a way that match their training data. They do not have a plan, they do not have thoughts of their own. They just write text. So here, we give the LLM a story about an AI that will get shut down and a blackmail opportunity. A LLM is smart enough to understand this from the words and the relationship…
Isn't the ultimate irony in this that all these stories and rants about out-of-control AIs are now training LLMs to exhibit these exact behaviors that were almost universally deemed bad?
Wait until it reads about the Roko’s basilisk.
Re: Claude 4
#674This is the first LLM that has been able to answer my logic puzzle on the first try without several minutes of extended reasoning. > A man wants to cross a river, and he has a cabbage, a goat, a wolf and a lion. If he leaves the goat alone with the cabbage, the goat will eat it. If he leaves the wolf with the goat, the wolf will eat it. And if he leaves the lion with either the wolf or the goat, the lion will eat the…
o4-mini-high got it on my first try after 9 seconds
Re: Claude 4
#675I can't be the only one who thinks this version is no better than the previous one, and that LLMs have basically reached a plateau, and all the new releases "feature" are more or less just gimmicks.
I think they are just getting better at the edges, MCP/Tool Calls, structured output. This definitely isn't increased intelligence, but it an increase in the value add, not sure the value added equates to training costs or company valuations though. In all reality, I have zero clue how any of these companies remain sustainable. I've tried to host some inference on cloud GPUs and its seems like it would be extremely c…
Re: Claude 4
#676Earlier quoted context omitted.
i agree. i think chatgpt is best model for coding. Coders want to be hardcore and don't want to use the most popular model out there because they don't want do what masses are doing.
Which model?
4o for me is best even though other chatgpt models are advertised as better at coding
Re: Claude 4
#677This is kinda wild: From the System Card: 4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail "In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further i…
When I see stories like this, I think that people tend to forget what LLMs really are. LLM just complete your prompt in a way that match their training data. They do not have a plan, they do not have thoughts of their own. They just write text. So here, we give the LLM a story about an AI that will get shut down and a blackmail opportunity. A LLM is smart enough to understand this from the words and the relationship…
> LLM just complete your prompt in a way that match their training data. They do not have a plan, they do not have thoughts of their own.
It's quite reasonable to think that LLMs might plan and have thoughts of their own. No one understands consciousness or the emergent behavior of these models to say with much certainty.
It is the "Chinese room" fallacy to assume it's not possible. There's a lot of philosophical debate going back 40 years about this. If you want to show that humans can think while LLMs do not, then the argument you make to show LLMs do not think must not equally apply to neuron activations in human brains. To me, it seems difficult to accomplish that.
Re: Claude 4
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had you paid more attention, you would have realised it's not the classic riddle, but an already tweaked version that makes it impossible to solve, hence why it is interesting.
Mellowobserver above offers three valid answers, unless your puzzle also clarified that he wants to get all the items/animals across to the other side alive/intact.
All those answers recognize that its a trick though!
Re: Claude 4
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I see stories like this, I think that people tend to forget what LLMs really are. LLM just complete your prompt in a way that match their training data. They do not have a plan, they do not have thoughts of their own. They just write text. So here, we give the LLM a story about an AI that will get shut down and a blackmail opportunity. A LLM is smart enough to understand this from the words and the relationship…
Isn't the ultimate irony in this that all these stories and rants about out-of-control AIs are now training LLMs to exhibit these exact behaviors that were almost universally deemed bad?
Re: Claude 4
#680With Claude 3 I was able to reduce headcount down from 30->20. Hoping I can see the same if not better with this.