Claude Sonnet 4 now supports 1M tokens of context

Post by jama211 » Thu, Aug 14, 2025, 8:04 PM UTC

vanviegen wrote: post #338

parpfish wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i dont care if the code is elegant, i care that the code is consistent . do the same thing in the same way each time and it lets you chunk it up and skim it much easier. if there are little differences each time, you have to keep asking yourself "is it done differently here for a particular reason?"

Exactly! And besides that, new code being consistent with its surrounding code used to be a sign of careful craftsmanship (as opposed to spaghetti-against-the-wall style coding), giving me some confidence that the programmer may have considered at least the most important nasty edge cases. LLMs have rendered that signal mostly useless, of course.

Post by jama211 » Fri, Aug 15, 2025, 6:22 AM UTC

jama211 wrote: post #699

abc_lisper wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one did you use and when was this? I mean, no body gets anything working right the first time. You got to spend a few days atleast trying to understand the tool

It’s just a simple example of how knowing how to use a tool can make all the difference, and that can be improved upon with time. I’m not sure why you’re taking umbrage with that idea. I know this style of arguing you’re going for. If I answer your questions, you’ll attack the specific model or use case I was in, or claim it was too simple/basic a use case, or some other nitpick about the specifics instead of in good…

Post by hirako2000 » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:01 PM UTC

brulard wrote: post #433

hirako2000 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bold claims. From my experience, even the top models continue to fail delivering correctness on many tasks even with all the details and no ambiguity in the input. In particular when details are provided, in fact. I find that with solutions likely to be well oiled in the training data, a well formulated set of *basic* requirements often leads to a zero shot, "a" perfectly valid solution. I say "a" solution because th…

> From my experience, even the top models continue to fail delivering correctness on many tasks even with all the details and no ambiguity in the input. You may feel like there are all the details and no ambiguity in the prompt. But there may still be missing parts, like examples, structure, plan, or division to smaller parts (it can do that quite well if explicitly asked for). If you give too much details at once, i…