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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#711

Post by root_axis »

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…

> Its also worth noting that if you can create a business with an LLM

If that were true, LLM companies would just use it themselves to make money rather than sell and give away access to the models at a loss.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#712

Post by samlinnfer »

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…

It might be 80-95% complete but the last 5% is either going to take twice the time or be downright impossible.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#713

Post by pvab3 »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #515
red2awn wrote: post #500

> i need to wash my helicopter at the helicopter wash. it is 50m away, should i walk or fly there with my helicopter. Sonnet 4.6: Walk! Flying a helicopter 50 metres would be more trouble than it's worth — by the time you've done your pre-flight checks, spun up the rotors, lifted off, and then safely landed again, you'd have walked there and back twice. Just stroll over.

I think this is my favourite test. You can just tell it was programmed on smug Reddit comments talking about how Americans drive to places 50 metres away.

I want one that responds by asking how full the parking lots are and how busy the left turn lane is

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#714

Post by intended »

benlivengood wrote: post #676
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…

decreasing COGS creates wealth and consumer surplus, though. If we can flatten the social hierarchy to reduce the need for social mobility then that kills two birds with one stone.

In a simplified economic model though.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#715

Post by charlieflowers »

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…

This reminds me of the old idea of the Lisp curse. The claim was that Lisp, with the power of homoiconic macros, would magnify the effectiveness of one strong engineer so much that they could build everything custom, ignoring prior art.

They would get amazing amounts done, but no one else could understand the internals because they were so uniquely shaped by the inner nuances of one mind.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#716

Post by taytus »

Honest question: why would anyone use Opus instead of this? I’m doing web development, the whole shebang, and I don’t think I need Opus right now. I know it’s supposed to be smarter, but a 2%–5% improvement doesn’t seem meaningful, especially when it costs more than double and has only a portion of the context window.

Am I getting this wrong? I would seriously appreciate any clarification here.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#717

Post by bandrami »

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…

Which leads to the uncomfortable but difficult to avoid conclusion that having some friction in the production of code was actually helping because it was keeping people from implementing bad ideas.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#718

Post by bandrami »

nl wrote: post #686
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's his point. Drastically reducing agricultural employment didn't keep us from getting fed (and led to a significantly richer population overall -- there's a reason people left the villages for the industrial cities)

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#719

Post by Razengan »

alpineman wrote: post #308
Razengan wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uhh..why? I subbed just 1 month to Claude, and then never used it again. • Can't pay with iOS In-App-Purchases • Can't Sign in with Apple on website (can on iOS but only Sign in with Google is supported on web??) • Can't remove payment info from account • Can't get support from a human • Copy-pasting text from Notes etc gets mangled • Almost months and no fixes Codex and its Mac app are a much better UX, and seem bet…

Then they can offer it cheaper as they don’t pay the ‘Apple tax’

So why is Claude not cheaper than ChatGPT? Why won't they let me remove my payment info afterwards? Most other platforms like Steam let you do that. I don't want my shit sitting there waiting for the inevitable breach.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#720

Post by somenameforme »

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…

The logical endgame (which I do not think we will necessarily reach) would be the end of software development as a career in itself.

Instead software development would just become a tool anybody could use in their own specific domain. For instance if a manager needs some employee scheduling software, they would simply describe their exact needs and have software customized exactly to their needs, with a UI that fits their preference, ready to go in no time, instead of finding some SaaS that probably doesn't fit exactly what they want, learning how to use it, jumping through a million hoops, dealing with updates you don't like, and then paying a perpetual rent on top of all of this.

Post reply on HN