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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#771

Post by oblio »

josephg wrote: post #709
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…

I don't think claude code is like 3d printing. The difference is that 3D printing still requires someone, somewhere to do the mechanical design work. It democratises printing but it doesn't democratise invention . I can't use words to ask a 3d printer to make something. You can't really do that with claude code yet either. But every few months it gets better at this. The question is: How good will claude get at turni…

> This pattern has already played out in chess and go. For a few years, a skilled Go player working in collaboration with a go AI could outcompete both computers and humans at go. But that era didn't last. Now computers can play Go at superhuman levels. Our skills are no longer required. I predict programming will follow the same trajectory.

Both of those are fixed, unchanging, closed, full information games. The real world is very much not that.

Though geeks absolutely like raving about go and especially chess.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#772

Post by oblio »

WarmWash wrote: post #664
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…

Its not our current location, but our trajectory that is scary. The walls and plateaus that have been consistently pulled out from "comments of reassurance" have not materialized. If this pace holds for another year and a half, things are going to be very different. And the pipeline is absolutely overflowing with specialized compute coming online by the gigawatt for the foreseeable future. So far the most accurate pr…

https://xkcd.com/605/

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#773

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

zaphirplane wrote: post #687
cmiles8 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. AI is dead in the water for the supposed mass labor replacement that will happen unless this is fixed. Summarize some text while I supervise the AI = fine and a useful productivity improvement, but doesn’t replace my job. Replace me with an AI to make autonomous decisions outside in the wild and liability-ridden chaos ensues. No company in their right mind…

1 you are massively assuming less than linear improvement, even linear over 5 years puts LLM in different category 2 more efficient means need less people means redundancy means cycle of low demand

LLMs haven't been improving for years.

Despite all the productizing and the benchmark gaming, fundamentally all we got is some low-hanging performance improvements (MoE and such).

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#774

Post by oblio »

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…

> If software is the commodity, what is the bespoke value-added service that can sit on top of all that?

Aggregation. Platforms that provide visibility, influence, reach.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#775

Post by NitpickLawyer »

vlovich123 wrote: post #756
jefftk wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 diff…

> I can see the argument if you’re familiar with poetry terms,

I think they mean "if you're familiar with Anthropic's family of models". They've had the same opus > sonnet > haiku line of models for a couple of years now. It's assumed that people already know where sonnet 4.6 lands in the scheme of things. Because they've had that in 4.5, and 4.1 before it, and 4 before it, and 3.7 before it, etc.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#776

Post by bandrami »

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…

The infosec guy in me dies a little inside every time somebody uses "Claude, summarize this document from the Internet for me" as a use case. The fact that companies allow this is kind of astounding.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#777

Post by esailija »

RobertoG wrote: post #506
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…

The price of oil at the price of water (ecology apart) should be a good thing. Automation should be, obviously, a good thing, because more is produced with less labor. What it says of ourselves and our politics that so many people (me included) are afraid of it? In a sane world, we would realize that, in a post-work world, the owner of the robots have all the power, so the robots should be owned in common. The soluti…

There is no such thing that you can always keep adding more of and have it automatically be effective.

I tend to automate too much because it's fun, but if I'm being objective in many cases it has been more work than doing the stuff manually. Because of laziness I tend to way overestimate how much time and effort it would took to do something manually if I just rolled my sleeved and simply did it.

Whether automating something actually produces more with less labor depends on nuance of each specific case, it's definitely not a given. People tend to be very biased when judging the actual productivity. E.g. is someone who quickly closes tickets but causes disproportionate amount of production issues, money losing bugs or review work on others really that productive in the end?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#778

Post by teaearlgraycold »

hibikir wrote: post #439
gallerdude wrote: post #55

I always grew up hearing “competition is good for the consumer.” But I never really internalized how good fierce battles for market share are. The amount of competition in a space is directly proportional to how good the results are for consumers.

Competition is great, but it's so much better when it is all about shaving costs. I am afraid that what we are seeing here is an arms race with no moat: Something that will behave a lot like a Vickrey auction. The competitors all lose money in the investment, and since a winner takes all, and it never makes sense to stop the marginal investment when you think you have a chance to win, ultimately more resources are sp…

People are rapidly learning how to improve model capabilities and lower resource requirements. The models we throw away as we go are the steps we climbed along the way.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#779

Post by rockinghigh »

imiric wrote: post #737
halJordan wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the new "r's in strawberry"? Are you going (stochastically) parrot this until it's been trained out?

> trained out No need. Just add one more correction to the system prompt. It's amusing to see hardcore believers of this tech doing mental gymnastics and attacking people whenever evidence of there being no intelligence in these tools is brought forth. Then the tool is "just" a statistical model, and clearly the user is holding it wrong, doesn't understand how it works, etc.

It's a lot simpler. These models are not optimized for ambiguous riddles.
Post reply on HN