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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#751

Post by KennyBlanken »

vineyardmike wrote: post #434
WarmWash wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just thinking earlier today how in an alternate universe, probably not too far removed from our own, Google has a monopoly on transformers and we are all stuck with a single GPT-3.5 level model, and Google has a GPT-4o model behind the scenes that it is terrified to release (but using heavily internally).

This was basically almost real. Before ChatGPT was even released, Google had an internal-only chat tuned LLM. It went "viral" because some of the testers thought it was sentient and it caused a whole media circus. This is partially why Google was so ill equipped to even start competing - they had fresh wounds of a crazy media circus. My pet theory though is that this news is what inspired OpenAI to chat-tune GPT-3, w…

> some of the testers thought it was sentient and it caused a whole media circus.

Not "some of the testers." One engineer.

He realized he could get a lot of attention by claiming (with no evidence and no understanding of what sentience means) that the LLM was sentient and made a huge stink about it.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#752

Post by scottmf »

madihaa wrote: post #48
dpe82 wrote: post #10

It's wild that Sonnet 4.6 is roughly as capable as Opus 4.5 - at least according to Anthropic's benchmarks. It will be interesting to see if that's the case in real, practical, everyday use. The speed at which this stuff is improving is really remarkable; it feels like the breakneck pace of compute performance improvements of the 1990s.

The most exciting part isn't necessarily the ceiling raising though that's happening, but the floor rising while costs plummet. Getting Opus-level reasoning at Sonnet prices/latency is what actually unlocks agentic workflows. We are effectively getting the same intelligence unit for half the compute every 6-9 months.

2024: Intelligence too cheap to meter

2026: Everyone is spending $500/month on LLM subscriptions

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#753

Post by ivanb »

That explains why Opus was so dumb yesterday. It walked in circles on tasks it used to one-shot. With these companies and services you never know what product you are actually getting regardless what is said on the tin.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#754

Post by michaelcampbell »

minimaxir wrote: post #633
minimaxir wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your CC personal or tied to an Enterprise account? Per the docs: > The 1M token context window is currently in beta for organizations in usage tier 4 and organizations with custom rate limits.

Update: On my personal Claude Code I have access to the 1M model endpoints, so I'm confused.

Yup, same here. Upcharge listed, but it is available.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#755

Post by sp1nningaway »

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…

Here is a very real example of how an LLM can at least save, if not create jobs, and also not take a programmers job:

I work for a cash-strapped nonprofit. We have a business idea that can scale up a service we already offer. The new product is going to need coding, possibly a full-scale app. We don't have any capacity to do it in-house and don't have an easy way to find or afford vendor that can work on this somewhat niche product.

I don't have the time to help develop this product but I'm VERY confident an LLM will be able to deliver what we need faster and at a lower cost than a contractor. This will save money we couldn't afford to gamble on an untested product AND potentially create several positions that don't currently exist in our org to support the new product.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#756

Post by vlovich123 »

jefftk wrote: post #750
fhub wrote: post #731

They use the word "Sonnet" 60+ times on that page but never give the casual reader any context of what a "Sonnet model" actually is. Neither does their landing page. You have to scroll all the way to the footer to find a link under the "Models" section. You click it and you finally get the description "Hybrid reasoning model with superior intelligence for agents, featuring a 1M context window" You then compare that t…

I think they're assuming the reader already understands their Opus > Sonnet> Haiku. Which is probably not a great assumption.

I can see the argument if you’re familiar with poetry terms, then of course that naming makes sense, but I think proper names occupy a different part of the brain for people which inhibits the ability to make that connection. But also the jump from sonnet to opus is not as big as haiku to sonnet even though the names might imply such a jump (17 syllables -> 14 lines -> multi page masterpiece does not capture the difference between the models)

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#757

Post by spankalee »

sp1nningaway wrote: post #755
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…

Here is a very real example of how an LLM can at least save, if not create jobs, and also not take a programmers job: I work for a cash-strapped nonprofit. We have a business idea that can scale up a service we already offer. The new product is going to need coding, possibly a full-scale app. We don't have any capacity to do it in-house and don't have an easy way to find or afford vendor that can work on this somewha…

Do you have someone who can babysit and review what the LLM does? Otherwise, I'm not sure we're at the point where you can just tell an agent to go off and build something and it does it _correctly_.

IME, you'll just get demoware if you don't have the time and attention to detail to really manage the process.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#758

Post by majormajor »

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…

> 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" that companies produce is already just extra. They can get rid of 1/3-2/3s of their labor and make the same amount of money, why wouldn't they.

Most companies have "want to do" lists much longer than what actually gets done.

I think the question for many will be is it actually useful to do that. For instance, there's only so much feature-rollout/user-interface churn that users will tolerate for software products. Or, for a non-software company that has had a backlog full of things like "investigate and find a new ERP system", how long will that backlog be able to keep being populated.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#759

Post by schrodinger »

somenameforme wrote: post #720
josephg wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Writing the code has never been the hard part for the vast majority of businesses. It's become an order of magnitude cheaper, and that WILL have effects. Businesses that are selling crud apps will falter.

But your hypothetical manager who needs employee scheduling software isn't paying for the coding, they're paying for someone to _figure out_ their exact needs, and with a UI that fits their preference, ready to go in no time.

I've thought a lot about this and I don't think it'll be the death of SaaS. I don't think it's the death of a software engineer either — but a major transformation of the role and the death if your career _if you do not adapt_, and fast.

Agentic coding makes software cheap, and will commoditize a large swath of SaaS that exists primarily because software used to be expensive to build and maintain. Low-value SaaS dies. High-value SaaS survives based on domain expertise, integrations, and distribution. Regulations adapt. Internal tools proliferate.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#760

Post by tiltowait »

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.

Claude's willingness to poke outside of its present directory can definitely be a little worrying. Just the other day, it started trying to access my jails after I specifically told it not to.
Post reply on HN