Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude 4

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#711

Post by nickandbro »

a10c wrote: post #708
nickandbro wrote: post #704

I am making a vim golf app, https://vimgolf.ai , for my side project where users compete with an AI vim opponent to learn vim and so far claude 4 sonnet (haven't tried opus) is ranked the highest in my evals against o3, o4-mini-high, and gemini 2.5 pro. After 3 retries, it solves this challenge: https://www.vimgolf.com/challenges/5957c3356f7e17045b00002c here is a snippet of its thinking process pinpointing the exact…

some feedback for your app. I'm just dumped on a screen and left to my own devices, zero hints, prompting etc. At no point am I "learning vim through challenges"

appreciate the feedback. Actually working on spinning up vim instances for the landing page now

Re: Claude 4

#712

Post by hsn915 »

strangescript wrote: post #528
hsn915 wrote: post #416

I 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 have used claude code a ton and I agree, I haven't noticed a single difference since updating. Its summaries I guess a little cleaner, but its has not surprised me at all in ability. I find I am correcting it and re-prompting it as much as I didn't with 3.7 on a typescript codebase. In fact I was kind of shocked how badly it did in a situation where it was editing the wrong file and it never thought to check that m…

I'd go so far as to say Sonnet 3.5 was better than 3.7

At least I personally liked it better.

Re: Claude 4

#713

Post by lobochrome »

GuB-42 wrote: post #594
briandw wrote: post #379

This 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"

"A LLM is smart enough to understand this"

It feels like you're contradicting yourself. Is it _just_ completing your prompt, or is it _smart_ enough?

Do we know if conscious thought isn't just predicting the next token?

Re: Claude 4

#714

Post by padolsey »

kovezd wrote: post #595
a2128 wrote: post #580

> Finally, we've introduced thinking summaries for Claude 4 models that use a smaller model to condense lengthy thought processes. This summarization is only needed about 5% of the time—most thought processes are short enough to display in full. Users requiring raw chains of thought for advanced prompt engineering can contact sales about our new Developer Mode to retain full access. I don't want to see a "summary" of…

Don't be so concerned. There's ample evidence that thinking is often disassociated from the output. My take is that this is a user experience improvement, given how little people actually goes on to read the thinking process.

If we're paying for reasoning tokens, we should be able to have access to these, no? Seems reasonable enough to allow access, and then we can perhaps use our own streaming summarization models instead of relying on these very generic-sounding ones they're pushing.

Re: Claude 4

#715

Post by mysterydip »

tails4e wrote: post #710
GuB-42 wrote: post #594

Earlier 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…

Well doesnt this go somewhat to the root of consciousness? Are we not the sum of our experiences and reflections on those experiences? To say an LLM will 'simply' respond as would a character in a sorry about that scenario, in a way shows the power, it responds similarly to how a person would protecting itself in that scenario.... So to bring this to a logical conclusion, while not alive in a traditional sense, if an…

But it's not self preservation. If it instead had trained on a data set full of fiction where the same scenario occurred but the protagonist said "oh well guess I deserve it", then that's what the LLM would autocomplete.

Re: Claude 4

#716

Post by j_timberlake »

imiric wrote: post #542
uludag wrote: post #46

I'm curious what are others priors when reading benchmark scores. Obviously with immense funding at stakes, companies have every incentive to game the benchmarks, and the loss of goodwill from gaming the system doesn't appear to have much consequences. Obviously trying the model for your use cases more and more lets you narrow in on actually utility, but I'm wondering how others interpret reported benchmarks these da…

Benchmark scores are marketing fluff. Just like the rest of this article with alleged praises from early adopters, and highly scripted and edited videos. AI companies are grasping at straws by selling us minor improvements to stale technology so they can pump up whatever valuation they have left.

The fact that people like you are still posting like this after Veo 3 is wild. Nothing could possibly be forcing you to hold onto that opinion, yet you come out in drones in every AI thread to repost it.

Re: Claude 4

#717

Post by ikiris »

johnb231 wrote: post #709
GuB-42 wrote: post #594

Earlier 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…

They emulate a complex human reasoning process in order to generate that text.

No they don't. They emulate a giant giant giant hugely multidimentional number line mapped to words.

Re: Claude 4

#718

Post by Wowfunhappy »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #646
pja wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC RLHF inevitably compromises model accuracy in order to train the model not to give dangerous responses. It would make sense if the model used for train-of-though was trained differently (perhaps a different expert from an MoE?) from the one used to interact with the end user, since the end user is only ever going to see its output filtered through the public model the chain-of-thought model can be closer to the…

Correct me if I'm wrong--my understanding is that RHLF was the difference between GPT 3 and GPT 3.5, aka the original ChatGPT. If you never used GPT 3, it was... not good. Well, that's not fair, it was revolutionary in its own right, but it was very much a machine for predicting the most likely next word, it couldn't talk to you the way ChatGPT can. Which is to say, I think RHLF is important for much more than just p…

Ugh, I'm past the edit window, but I meant RLHF aka "Reinforced Learning from Human Feedback", I'm not sure how I messed that up not once but twice!

Re: Claude 4

#719

Post by hobobaggins »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #654
gmueckl wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is a phenomenon I call cinetrope. Films influence the world which in turn influences film and so on creating a feedback effect. For example, we have certain films to thank for an escalation in the tactics used by bank robbers which influenced the creation of SWAT which in turn influenced films like Heat and so on.

Actually, Heat was the movie that inspired heavily armed bank robbers to rob the Bank of America in LA

(The movie inspired reality, not the other way around.)

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/north-hollywood-shootout

But your point still stands, because it goes both ways.

Re: Claude 4

#720

Post by sky2224 »

tails4e wrote: post #710
GuB-42 wrote: post #594

Earlier 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…

Well doesnt this go somewhat to the root of consciousness? Are we not the sum of our experiences and reflections on those experiences? To say an LLM will 'simply' respond as would a character in a sorry about that scenario, in a way shows the power, it responds similarly to how a person would protecting itself in that scenario.... So to bring this to a logical conclusion, while not alive in a traditional sense, if an…

I don't think so. It's just outputting the character combinations that align with the scenario that we interpret here as, "blackmail". The model has no concept of an experience.
Post reply on HN