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

Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far

burkeholland.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far

#81

Post by Johanx64 »

nikisil80 wrote: post #11

[flagged]

> none of this is going to improve people's lives.

I have some old borderline senile relatives writting apps (asking LLMs to write for it them) for their own personal use. Stuff they surely haven't done on their own (or had the energy to do). Their extent of programming background - shitty VBScript macros for excel.

It also helps people to pick up programming and helps with the initial push of getting started. Getting over the initial hump, getting something on the screen so to speak.

Most things people want from their computers are simple shit that LLMs usually manage quite well.

Good question whether or not this (outsourcing their thinking) actually just accelerates their senility or not.

As someone who likes to solve hard or interesting technical problems, I've long before LLMs often been disappointed that most of the time what people want from programmers is simple stupid shit (ie. stuff i dont find interesting to work on).

Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far

#82

Post by maherbeg »

usefulposter wrote: post #29
maherbeg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true now, but think about how far we've come in a year alone! This is really impressive, and even if the models don't improve, someone will build skills to attack these specific scenarios. Over time, I imagine even cloud providers, app stores etc can start doing automated security scanning for these types of failure modes, or give a more restricted version of the experience to ensure safety too.

This comment addresses none of the concerns raised. It writes off entire fields of research (accessibility, UX, application security) as Just train the models more bro. Accelerate.

Both accessibility, and application security are easier to build rules + improved models for because they have pretty solid constraints and outcomes. UX on the other hand is definitely more challenging given how much of it isn't quite codified into simple rules.

I didn't write off an entire field of research, but rather want to highlight that these aren't intractable problems for AI research, and that we can actually start codifying many of these things today using the skills framework to close up edges in the model training. It may not be 100% but it's not 0%.

Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far

#85

Post by fragmede »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #66
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's even the point of this comment if you self-admittedly don't have access to the flagship tool that everyone has been using to make these big bold coding claims?

Because the same claims of "AI tool does everything" are made over and over again.

It's not "AI tool does everything", it's specifically Claude Code with Opus 4.5 is great at "it", for whatever "it" a given commenter is claiming.

Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far

#87

Post by hu3 »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #58
mcny wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody says how good Claude is and I go to my code base and I can't get it to correctly update one xaml file for me. It is quicker to make changes myself than to explain exactly what I need or learn how to do "prompt engineering". Disclaimer: I don't have access to Claude Code. My employer has only granted me Claude Teams. Supposedly, they don't use my poopy code to train their models if I use my work email Claude…

What's even the point of this comment if you self-admittedly don't have access to the flagship tool that everyone has been using to make these big bold coding claims?

isn't Claude Teams powerful? does it not have access to Opus?

pardon my ignorance.

I use GitHub Copilot which has access to llms like Gemini 3, Sonnet/Opus 4.5 ang GPT 5.2

Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far

#88

Post by Yoric »

OldGreenYodaGPT wrote: post #33

Most software engineers are seriously sleeping on how good LLM agents are right now, especially something like Claude Code. Once you’ve got Claude Code set up, you can point it at your codebase, have it learn your conventions, pull in best practices, and refine everything until it’s basically operating like a super-powered teammate. The real unlock is building a solid set of reusable “skills” plus a few agents for th…

You intrigue me.

> have it learn your conventions, pull in best practices

What do you mean by "have it learn your conventions"? Is there a way to somehow automatically extract your conventions and store it within CLAUDE.md?

> For example, we have a custom UI library, and Claude Code has a skill that explains exactly how to use it. Same for how we write Storybooks, how we structure APIs, and basically how we want everything done in our repo. So when it generates code, it already matches our patterns and standards out of the box.

Did you have to develop these skills yourself? How much work was that? Do you have public examples somewhere?

Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far

#89

Post by square_usual »

OldGreenYodaGPT wrote: post #49
hoten wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind sharing the bill for all that?

My company pays for the team Claude code plan which is like $200 a month for each dev. The workflows cost like 10 - 50 cents a PR

It's $150, not a huge difference but worth noting that it's not the same ast the 20x Max plan.

Re: Opus 4.5 is not the normal AI agent experience that I have had thus far

#90

Post by nikisil80 »

matusp wrote: post #15
nikisil80 wrote: post #11

[flagged]

This is a natural response to software enshittification. You can hardly find an iOS app that is not plagued by ads, subscriptions, or hostile data collection. Now you can have your own small utilities that can work for you. This sort of personal software might be very valuable in the world where you are expected to pay 5$ to click any button.

Yeah sure but have you considered that the actual cost of running these models is actually much greater than whatever cost you might be shelling out for the ad-free apps? You're talking to someone who hates the slopification and enshittification of everything, so you don't need to convince me about that. However, everything I've seen described in the replies to my initial comment - while cute, and potentially helpful on a case-by-case basis, does NOT warrant the amount of resources we are pouring into AI right now. Not even fucking close. It'll all come crashing down, taxpayers the world over will be caught with the bag in their hands, and for what? So that we can all have a less robust version of an app that already exists but that has the colours we want and the button where we want it?

If AI cost nothing and wasn't absolutely decimating our economy, I'd find what you've shared cute. However, we are putting literally all of our eggs, and the next generation's eggs, and the one after that, AND the one after that, into this one thing, which, I'm sorry, is so far away from everything that keeps on being promised to us that I can't help but feel extremely depressed.

Post reply on HN