Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic.com

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to really test this, search/replace the names with your own random ones and see if it lists those. Otherwise, LLMs have most of the books memorised anyway: https://arstechnica.com/features/2025/06/study-metas-llama-3...

Couldn't you just ask the LLM which 50 (or 49) spells appear in the first four Harry Potter books without the data for comparison?

btw it recalls 42 when i asked. (without web search)

full transcript: pastebin.com/sMcVkuwd

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#672
post #267
post #201

Epic, about 2/3 of all comments here are jokes. Not because the model is a joke - it's impressive. Not because HN turned to Reddit. It seems to me some of most brilliant minds in IT are just getting tired.

It's too much energy to keep up with things that become obsolete and get replaced in matters of weeks/months. My current plan is to ignore all of this new information for a while, then whenever the race ends and some winning new workflow/technology will actually become the norm I'll spend the time needed to learn it. Are we moving to some new paradigm same way we did when we invented compilers? Amazing, let me know w…

When this race ends your job might too, so I'd keep an eye on it.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#673
post #482

Just tested the new Opus 4.6 (1M context) on a fun needle-in-a-haystack challenge: finding every spell in all Harry Potter books. All 7 books come to ~1.75M tokens, so they don't quite fit yet. (At this rate of progress, mid-April should do it ) For now you can fit the first 4 books (~733K tokens). Results: Opus 4.6 found 49 out of 50 officially documented spells across those 4 books. The only miss was "Slugulus Eruc…

you are rich

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#675
Here's one I've been using for awhile. The 'smarter' LLMs will overconfidently spit out 7. The dumber ones ask for more info. Opus 4.6 fails.

     A round drink coaster with a diameter of 9 sits between a beer glass and a wood table. The glass has a wall thickness of 1. What is the inner diameter of the glass?

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#676

Here's one I've been using for awhile. The 'smarter' LLMs will overconfidently spit out 7. The dumber ones ask for more info. Opus 4.6 fails. A round drink coaster with a diameter of 9 sits between a beer glass and a wood table. The glass has a wall thickness of 1. What is the inner diameter of the glass?

Gemini 3 Pro gives me this:

> Based on the information provided, it is impossible to determine the inner diameter of the glass.

Here is why:

The Coaster Dimension: Knowing the coaster has a diameter of 9 only tells us the size of the object under the glass. It does not mean the glass is the same size; the glass could be smaller (fitting entirely on the coaster) or larger (overhanging the coaster). The Glass Dimensions: While you provided the wall thickness (1), you did not provide the outer diameter of the glass. To find the inner diameter, the formula is: Inner Diameter = Outer Diameter - (2 × Wall Thickness)

Without knowing the Outer Diameter of the glass, the calculation cannot be completed.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#677
post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't use web search. But for sure it has some internal knowledge already. It's not a perfect needle in the hay stack problem but gemini flash was much worse when I tested it last time.

This underestimates how much of the Internet is actually compressed into and is an integral part of the model's weights. Gemini 2.5 can recite the first Harry Potter book verbatim for over 75% of the book.

I'm getting astrology when I search for this. Any links on this?

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#678

Here's one I've been using for awhile. The 'smarter' LLMs will overconfidently spit out 7. The dumber ones ask for more info. Opus 4.6 fails. A round drink coaster with a diameter of 9 sits between a beer glass and a wood table. The glass has a wall thickness of 1. What is the inner diameter of the glass?

Gemini 3 Pro gives me this: > Based on the information provided, it is impossible to determine the inner diameter of the glass. Here is why: The Coaster Dimension: Knowing the coaster has a diameter of 9 only tells us the size of the object under the glass. It does not mean the glass is the same size; the glass could be smaller (fitting entirely on the coaster) or larger (overhanging the coaster). The Glass Dimension…

GPT 5.2 Chat:

> There isn’t enough information to determine the inner diameter *for sure*.

All we’re told is: - The coaster has a diameter of 9. - The glass sits on the coaster. - The glass wall thickness is 1.

Nothing explicitly states that the *outer diameter of the glass equals the coaster’s diameter*. The glass could be smaller than the coaster, which is very common.

*However*, if we make the usual implicit assumption in this kind of problem—that the coaster’s diameter matches the *outer diameter of the glass base*—then:

- Outer diameter of glass = 9 - Wall thickness = 1 on each side

So: \[ \text{Inner diameter} = 9 - 2(1) = 7 \]

*Inner diameter = 7 (same units as the coaster)*

Without that assumption, the problem is underdetermined.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#679
post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At $100k/yr the joke that AI means "actual Indians" starts to make a lot more sense... it is cheaper than the typical US SWE, but more than a lot of global SWEs.

No - because the AI will be super human. No human even at $1mm a year would be competitive with a $100k/yr corresponding AI subscription. See people get confused. They think you can charge __less__ for software because it's automation. The truth is you can charge MORE, because it's high quality and consistent, once the output is good. Software is worth MORE than a corresponding human, not less.

If we have 2-3 competitors and open sourced ones that are 90% there I think it’s hard to get so big margins.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#680
post #667

Does anyone else think its unethical that large companies, Anthropic now include, just take and copy features that other developers or smaller companies work hard for and implement the intellectual property (whether or not patented) by them without attribution, compensation or otherwise credit for their work? I know this is normalized culture for large corporate America and seems to be ok, I think its unethical, undi…

But they don't just take your code; they give you a model to code with .

chains, more like it...
Post reply on HN