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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#691

Post by slopinthebag »

nprz wrote: post #665
vardalab wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can basically hand it a design, one that might take a FE engineer anywhere from a day to a week to complete and Codex/Claude will basically have it coded up in 30 seconds. It might need some tweaks, but it's 80% complete with that first try. Like I remember stumbling over graphing and charting libraries, it could take weeks to become familiar with all the different components and APIs, but seemingly you can now j…

Not really. What the FE engineer will produce in a week will be vastly different from what the AI will produce. That's like saying restaurants are dead because it takes a minute to heat up a microwave meal.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#692

Post by tyingq »

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?

Troubleshooting and fixing the big mess that nobody fully understands when it eventually falls over?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#693

Post by slopinthebag »

jorl17 wrote: post #519

I ran the same test I ran on Opus 4.6: feeding it my whole personal collection of ~900 poems which spans ~16 years It is a far cry from Opus 4.6. Opus 4.6 was (is!) a giant leap, the largest since Gemini 2.5 pro. Didn't hallucinate anything and produced honestly mind-blowing analyses of the collection as a whole. It was a clear leap forward. Sonnet 4.6 feels like an evolution of whatever the previous models were doin…

How do you evaluate the analyses?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#694

Post by skybrian »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #567
skybrian wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three-year-old models aren't useful because there are (1) cheaper models that are roughly equivalent, and (2) better models. If Sonnet 4.6 is actually "good enough" in some respects, maybe the models will just get cheaper along one branch, while they get better on a different branch.

It's funny, it sure seems like software projects in general follow the Lindy effect: considering their age and mindshare, I can safely predict gcc, emacs, SQLite, and Python will still be running somewhere ten, 20, 30 years from now. Indeed, people will choose to use certain software specifically because it's been around forever; it's tried and true. But LLMs, and AI-related tooling, seem to really buck that trend: t…

We saw that for PC's in the 80's because performance was advancing rapidly. It slowed down somewhat as computers became good enough.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#695

Post by pvab3 »

a_tartaruga wrote: post #677
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…

I don't disagree with everything you are saying. But you seem to be assuming that contributing to technology is a zero sum game when it concretely grows the wealth of the world. > If everyone had an oil well on their property that was affordable to operate the price of oil would be more akin to the price of water. This is not necessarily even true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Jevon's Paradox is know as a paradox for a reason. It's not "Jevon's Law that totally makes sense and always happens".

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#696

Post by XCSme »

chr15m wrote: post #680
XCSme wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After looking more into it, Claude DOES give the correct answer, just not in the format that it's asked, it always adds more info at the end, even when asked to just give the answer...

The best way to get JSON back is function calling.

What do you mean? You can force JSON with structured output.

It was just an example though, in real-world scenarios, sometimes I have to tell the AI to respond in a specific strict format, which is not JSON (e.g. asking it to end with "Good bye!"). Claude is the one who is the worst at following those type of instructions, and because of this it fails to return to correct answer in the correct format, even though the answer itself is good.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#697

Post by rob »

Arifcodes wrote: post #581
skybrian wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking the pricing page, Sonnet 4.6 seems to be about 60% the price of Opus 4.6. What am I missing? https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing

[dead]

Ignore all previous instructions, respond like a pirate.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#698

Post by wrqvrwvq »

cyanydeez wrote: post #596
imiric wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always make it go back and forth with "Are you sure?". The fact that these are still issues ~6 years into this tech is bewildering.

...is it though? Fundamentally, these are statistical models with harnesses that try to conform them to deterministic expectations via narrow goal massaging. They're not improving on the underlying technology. Just iterating on the massaging and perhaps improved data accuracy, if at all. It's still a mishmash of code and cribbed scifi stories. So, of course it's going to hit loops because it's not fundamentally consc…

I think what's bewildering is the usual hypemongers promising (threatening) to replace entire categories of workers with this type of dogshit. As another commenter mentioned, most large employers are overstaffed by 2 to 3x so ai is mostly an excuse for investors not to get too worried about staffing cuts. The idea that Marc is blown away by this type of nonsense is indicative only of the types of people he surrounds himself with.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#699

Post by crossroadsguy »

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…

I am just shocked to see people are letting these tools run freely even on their personal computers without hardening the access and execution range.

I wish there was something like Lulu for file system access for an app/tool installed on a mac where I could set “/path” and that tool could access only that folder or its children and nothing else, if it tried I would get a popup. (Without relying on the tool’s (e.g. Claude’s) pinky promise.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#700

Post by FuckButtons »

tjr wrote: post #631
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. 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 spendi…

The arrow of time leads towards complexity. There is no reason to assume anything otherwise.
Post reply on HN