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

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#761

Post by robwwilliams »

robwwilliams wrote: post #744
ManlyBread wrote: post #448

Still fails the car wash question, I took the prompt from the title of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47031580 The answer was "Walk! It would be a bit counterproductive to drive a dirty car 50 meters just to get it washed — you'd barely move before arriving. Walking takes less than a minute, and you can simply drive it through the wash and walk back home afterward." I've tried several other variant…

Sonnet 4.6 failed for me. “Walk. It’s 50 meters—a 30-second stroll. Driving that distance to a car wash would be slightly absurd, and you’d presumably need to drive back anyway. “ Opus 4.6 nailed it: “Drive. You’re going to a car wash. ” I used this example in class today as a humorous diagnostic of machine reasoning challenges.

This is almost too damn funny/perfect to believe. All it had to add:

"And you will get some good exercise too."

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#762

Post by eru »

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.

Yes, that's how technology works in general. It's good and intended.

You can't have baristas (for all but the extremely rich), when 90%+ of people are farmers.

> ZeroHedge on twitter said the following:

Oh, ZeroHedge. I guess we can stop any discussion now..

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#763

Post by lyu07282 »

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…

But if you could afford to hire a worker for this job, that an LLM would be able to do for a fraction of the cost (by your estimation), then why on earth would you ever waste money on a worker? By extension if you pay a worker and an AI or robot comes along that can do the work for cheaper, then why would you not fire the worker and replace them with the cheaper alternative?

Its kind of funny to see capitalists brains all over this thread desperately try to make it make sense. It's almost like the system is broken, but that can't possibly be right everybody believes in capitalism, everybody can't be wrong. Wake the fuck up.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#764

Post by 1broseidon »

hypercube33 wrote: post #746
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…

Opus 4.6 has been awful for me and my team. It goes immediately off the rails and jumps to conclusions on wants and asks and just keeps chugging along forever and won't let anything stop it down whatever path it decides. 4.5 was awesome and is our still go-to model.

I have found this to be true too and I thought I was the only one. Everyone is praising 4.6 and while it’s great at agentic and tool use, it does not follow instructions as cleanly as 4.5 - I also feel like 4.5 was just way more efficient too

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#765

Post by sp1nningaway »

lyu07282 wrote: post #763
sp1nningaway wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But if you could afford to hire a worker for this job, that an LLM would be able to do for a fraction of the cost (by your estimation), then why on earth would you ever waste money on a worker? By extension if you pay a worker and an AI or robot comes along that can do the work for cheaper, then why would you not fire the worker and replace them with the cheaper alternative? Its kind of funny to see capitalists brain…

New people hired for this project would not be coders. They would be an expert in the service we offer, and would be doing work an LLM is not capable of.

I don't know if LLMs would be capable of also doing that job in the future, but my org (a mission-driven non profit) can get very real value from LLMs right now, and it's not a zero-sum value that takes someone's job away.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#766

Post by dakolli »

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…

There are ton's of underprivileged college grads or soon to be grads that could really use the experience, and pro bono work for a non profit would look really good on their CVs. Have you considered contacting a local university's CS department? This seems more valuable to society from a non profit's perspective, imo, than giving that money/work to an AI company. Its not like the students don't have access to these tools, and will be able to leverage them more effectively while getting the same outcome for you.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#767

Post by jxmesth »

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…

I'm curious how this would compare with codex 5.3. I've heard Codex actually is pretty good but Opus 4.6 has become synonymous with AI coding because all the big names praise it. I haven't compared them against each other though so can't really draw a conclusion.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#768

Post by alex43578 »

cmiles8 wrote: post #595
alex43578 wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a middle road where AI replaces half the juniors or entry level roles, the interns and the bottom rung of the org chart. In marketing, an AI can effortlessly perform basic duties, write email copy, research, etc. Same goes for programming, graphic design, translation, etc. The results will be looked over by a senior member, but it’s already clear that a role with 3 YOE or less could easily be substituted with…

Not really though: 1. Companies like savings but they’re not dumb enough to just wipe out junior roles and shoot themselves in the foot for future generations of company leaders. Business leaders have been vocal on this point and saying it’s terrible thinking. 2. In the US and Europe the work most ripe for automation and AI was long since “offshored” to places like India. If AI does have an impact it will wipe out th…

1) Companies are dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot over a single quarter's financials - they certainly aren't thinking about where their middle management is going to come from in 5 or 10 years.

2) There's plenty of work ripe for automation that's currently being done by recent US grads. I don't doubt offshored roles will also be affected, but there's nothing special about the average entry-level candidate from a state school that'll make them immune to the same trends.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#769

Post by alex43578 »

johnnienaked wrote: post #735
alex43578 wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a middle road where AI replaces half the juniors or entry level roles, the interns and the bottom rung of the org chart. In marketing, an AI can effortlessly perform basic duties, write email copy, research, etc. Same goes for programming, graphic design, translation, etc. The results will be looked over by a senior member, but it’s already clear that a role with 3 YOE or less could easily be substituted with…

I think you're really overstating things here. Entry level positions are the tier at which replacement of senior positions happen. They don't do a lot, sure, but they are cheap and easily churnable. This is precisely NOT the place companies focus on for cutbacks or downsizing. AI being acceptable at replacing unskilled labor doesn't mean it WILL replace it. It has to make business sense to implement it.

If they're cheap and churnable, they're also the easiest place to see substitution.

Pre-AI, Company A hired 3 copywriters a year for their marketing team. Post-AI, they hire 1 who manages some prompting and makes some spot-tweaks, saving $80K a year and improving the turnaround time on deliverables.

My original comment isn't saying the company is going to fire the 3 copywriters on staff, but any company looking at hiring entry-level roles for tasks that AI is already very good at would be silly to not adjust their plans accordingly.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#770

Post by teaearlgraycold »

tiltowait wrote: post #760
renmillar wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For the moment it’s best practice to run it and all of your dev stuff in a VM.
Post reply on HN