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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#821

Post by dakolli »

arthurcolle wrote: post #813
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. False. Anyone can learn about index ETFs and still yolo into 3DTE options and promptly get variation margined out of existence. Discipline and contextual reasoning in humans is not dependent on the tools they are using, and I think the take is completely and definitively wrong.

*Checks Bio* Owns AI company and.... the whole family tree's portfolio :eyes:

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#822

Post by salkahfi »

How long are we going to do this shit for.

It’s becoming more insane to me how all these hn comments keep buying this fugazi.

It’s all pretrained: the model, the tools, the feedback loop.

All of it runs on infrastructure it does not control.

How can you call something autonomous when it can’t survive losing API keys?

And the capability frontier is fixed. It can’t modify its own architecture, weights, or training data. It can rewrite code inside the box, but it can’t change the box.

As with every other fugazi, there’s no agency.

Without control over substrate, governance, and learning mechanisms, there is no path to open-ended growth or persistence. Technically, it’s bounded automation with language-driven planning.

Useful, maybe, but not a new class of intelligence

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#823

Post by qalmakka »

1broseidon wrote: post #764
hypercube33 wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think that's because not everyone does the same job within the same stack and constraints. I'm yet to find an LLM that writes the kind of C++ I dabble with without having to manually tweak it myself (or that truly understands our codebase). Conversely, I find that LLMs are now excellent at python and orchestration tasks for instance. It's very situational

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#824

Post by TheDong »

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…

> why buy Windows and Office when I can just ask claude to write me my own versions instead? Why run a commodity operating system on kiosks?

Linux costs $0. Creating a linux clone compatible with your hardware from the hardware spec sheets with an AI for complicated hardware would cost thousands to millions of dollars in tokens, and you'd end up with something that works worse than linux (or more likely something that doesn't even boot).

Even if the price falls by a thousand fold, why would you spend thousands of dollars on tokens to develop an OS when there's already one you can use?

Even if software becomes cheaper to write, it's not free, and there's a lot of software (especially libraries) out there which is free.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#826

Post by josephg »

TheDong wrote: post #824
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…

> why buy Windows and Office when I can just ask claude to write me my own versions instead? Why run a commodity operating system on kiosks? Linux costs $0. Creating a linux clone compatible with your hardware from the hardware spec sheets with an AI for complicated hardware would cost thousands to millions of dollars in tokens, and you'd end up with something that works worse than linux (or more likely something tha…

> cost thousands to millions of dollars in tokens

> Even if the price falls by a thousand fold, why would you spend thousands of dollars on tokens to develop an OS when there's already one you can use?

Why do you assume token price will only fall a thousand fold? I'm pretty sure tokens have fallen by more than that in the last few years already - at least if we're speaking about like-for-like intelligence.

I suspect AI token costs will fall exponentially over the next decade or two. Like Dennard scaling / Moore's law has for CPUs over the last 40 years. Especially given the amount of investment being poured into LLMs at the moment. Essentially the entire computing hardware industry is retooling to manufacture AI clusters.

If it costs you $1-$10 in tokens to get the AI to make a bespoke operating system for your embedded hardware, people will absolutely do it. Especially if it frees them up from supply chain attacks. Linux is free, but linux isn't well optimized for embedded systems. I think my electric piano runs linux internally. It takes 10 seconds to boot. Boo to that.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#829

Post by [deleted] »

mkbkn wrote: post #787
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…

Perhaps AI wrote the announcement.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#830

Post by monadgonad »

shimman wrote: post #508
jasondigitized wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So like....every business having electricity? I am not a economist so would love someone smarter than me explain how this is any different than the advent of electricity and how that affected labor.

The difference is that electricity wasn't being controlled by oligarchs that want to shape society so they become more rich while pillaging the planet and hurting/killing real human beings. I'd be more trusting of LLM companies if they were all workplace democracies, not really a big fan of the centrally planned monarchies that seem to be most US corporations.

> The difference is that electricity wasn't being controlled by oligarchs that want to shape society so they become more rich while pillaging the planet and hurting/killing real human beings.

Yes it was. Those industrialists were called "robber barons" for a reason.

Post reply on HN