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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#681

Post by ctoth »

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…

> And sadly everyone has the same ideas, everyone ends up working on the same things

This is someone telling you they have never had an idea that surprised them. Or more charitably, they've never been around people whose ideas surprised them. Their entire model of "what gets built" is "the obvious thing that anyone would build given the tools." No concept of taste, aesthetic judgment, problem selection, weird domain collisions, or the simple fact that most genuinely valuable things were built by people whose friends said "why would you do that?"

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#682

Post by josephg »

renmillar wrote: post #553
K0balt wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opus 4.6 is outstanding for code, and for the little I have used it outside of that context, in everything else I have used it with. The productivity with code is at least 3x what I was getting with 5.2, and it can handle entire projects fairly responsibly. It doesn’t patronize the user, and it makes a very strong effort to capture and follow intentions. Unlike 5.2, I’ve never had to throw out a days work that it cov…

That last part is a real one though, mine tried to debug a Dockerfile by poking around my local environment outside of Docker today.

I’ve had it make some pretty obvious mistakes. I have to hold back the impulse to “unstick” it manually. In my case, it’s been surprisingly good at eventually figuring out what it was doing wrong - though sometimes it burns a few minutes of tokens in the process.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#683

Post by vineyardmike »

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?

Why would you ask about walking if it wasn't a valid option?

You'd never ask a person this question with the hope of having a real and valid discussion.

Implicit in the question is the assumption that walking could be acceptable.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#684

Post by chr15m »

srvo wrote: post #350
andsoitis wrote: post #77

I’m voting with my dollars by having cancelled my ChatGPT subscription and instead subscribing to Claude. Google needs stiff competition and OpenAI isn’t the camp I’m willing to trust. Neither is Grok. I’m glad Anthropic’s work is at the forefront and they appear, at least in my estimation, to have the strongest ethics.

Ethics often fold under the face of commercial pressure. The pentagon is thinking [1] about severing ties with anthropic because of its terms of use, and in every prior case we've reviewed (I'm the Chief Investment Officer of Ethical Capital), the ethics policy was deleted or rolled back when that happens. Corporate strategy is (by definition) a set of tradeoffs: things you do, and things you don't do. When google (o…

> companies always find new and exciting ways to disappoint you

So true. This is how history will remember our age.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#685

Post by josephg »

iamjfu wrote: post #678
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…

If I ask, "I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive?" It says, "Walk — it's 50 meters, about a 30-second stroll. Driving that distance to a car wash would be a bit circular anyway!" However, if I ask, "The car wash is 50 meters away. I want to wash my car. Should I walk or drive?" It says, "Drive — it's a car wash! You kind of need the car there. " Note the slight difference in th…

I just tried with chatgpt. It suggests walking in both cases.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#686

Post by nl »

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…

> 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.

Not sure when you checked.

In the US more food is grown for sure. For example just since 2007 it has grown from $342B to $417B, adjusted for inflation[1].

But employment has shrunk massively, from 14M in 1910 to around 3M now[2] - and 1910 was well after the introduction of tractors (plows not so much... they have been around since antiquity - are mentioned extensively in the old testament Bible for example).

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A2000X1A020NBEA

[2] https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Farm_Labor/fl_frmw...

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#687

Post by zaphirplane »

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…

1 you are massively assuming less than linear improvement, even linear over 5 years puts LLM in different category

2 more efficient means need less people means redundancy means cycle of low demand

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#688

Post by chasd00 »

speedgoose wrote: post #487
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…

My human partner also failed the car wash question. I guess they didn’t put a lot of thoughts into it.

My 16 year old failed it as well. My 13 year old got it immediately though.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#689

Post by bjt12345 »

MrCheeze wrote: post #321
andrewchilds wrote: post #244

Many people have reported Opus 4.6 is a step back from Opus 4.5 - that 4.6 is consuming 5-10x as many tokens as 4.5 to accomplish the same task: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/23706 I haven't seen a response from the Anthropic team about it. I can't help but look at Sonnet 4.6 in the same light, and want to stick with 4.5 across the board until this issue is acknowledged and resolved.

In my experience with the models (watching Claude play Pokemon), the models are similar in intelligence, but are very different in how they approach problems: Opus 4.5 hyperfocuses on completing its original plan, far more than any older or newer version of Claude. Opus 4.6 gets bored quickly and is constantly changing its approach if it doesn't get results fast. This makes it waste more time on"easy" tasks where the…

I think that's because Opus 4.6 has more "initiative".

Opus 4.6 can be quite sassy at times, the other day I asked it if it were "buttering me up" and it candidly responded "Hey you asked me to help you write a report with that conclusion, not appraise it."

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#690

Post by dakolli »

ctoth wrote: post #681
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…

> And sadly everyone has the same ideas, everyone ends up working on the same things This is someone telling you they have never had an idea that surprised them. Or more charitably, they've never been around people whose ideas surprised them. Their entire model of "what gets built" is "the obvious thing that anyone would build given the tools." No concept of taste, aesthetic judgment, problem selection, weird domain…

I'm speaking about the vast majority of people, who yes, build the same things. Look at any HN post over the last 6 months and you'll see everyone sharing clones of the same product.

Yes some ideas or novel, I would argue that LLMs destroy or atrophy the creative muscle in people, much like how GPS powered apps destroyed people's mental navigation "muscles".

I would also argue that very few unique valuable "things" built by people ever had people saying "Why would you build that". Unless we're talking about paradigm shifting products that are hard for people to imagine, like a vacuum cleaner in the 1800s. But guess what, llms aren't going to help you build those things.. They can create shitty images, clones of SaaS products that have been built 50x over, and all around encourage people to be mediocre and destroy their creativity as their brains atrophy from their use.

Post reply on HN