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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#851

Post by crimsoneer »

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.

I mean, the flipside is that we have been tricking humans with this sort of thing for generations. We've all seen a hundred variations on "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" or "If 5 machines take 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long do 100 machines take to make 100 widgets?" or even the whole "the father was the surgeon" story.

If you don't recognise the problem and actively engage your "system 2 brain", it's very easy to just leap to the obvious (but wrong) answer. That doesn't mean you're not intelligent and can't work it out if someone points out the problem. It's just the heuristics you've been trained to adopt betray you here, and that's really not so different a problem to what's tricking these llms.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#852

Post by pzo »

vasco wrote: post #803
vineyardmike wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has lost over 50% of farms and farmers since 1900. Farming used to be a significant employer, and now it's not. Farming used to be a significant part of the GDP, and now it's not. Farming used to be politically significant... and not its complicated? . If you go to the many small towns in farm country across the United States, I think the last 100 years will look a lot closer to "doom" than "bumps in the road…

What does that matter that a lot of people were farming? If anything that's a good argument for not worrying because we don't have 50%+ unemployment so clearly all those farming jobs were reallocated.

This transformation back then took many many decades like few generations. People had time to adopt - it worked like this: as a kid you have seen family business was going worse, the writing was on the wall and teenagers pursued different professions. This time you won't have time to pivot different profession - most likely you will have not clue where to pivot to.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#853

Post by viraptor »

XCSme wrote: post #835
viraptor wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like you're mixing up two things when testing: the correct answer and format following. If you want both, why not use https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/struct... ? If you don't care about the structure, why penalise the correct answers? In realistic usage people don't say "I really care about the format a lot... but not enough to guarantee it".

Because the format can't also be strictly defined via structured output, and you have to write it in plain words. Imagine you also have a field within your JSON, which also needs a specific format. It's AI, you don't want to write a 2000lines JSON schema to define what you need and how to parse it, that's the point of using AI instead of writing your own data extraction script. Also, simply because a human would resp…

> Because the format can't also be strictly defined via structured output, and you have to write it in plain words.

That's not how structured output works. Check the docs https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/struct...

The schema is enforced at the inference time. The non-confirming tokens are removed from the possible responses.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#854

Post by sneak »

mrbungie wrote: post #849
sneak wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won’t be the demise of general purpose SaaS like CRM, though it may be the rise of ridiculously full featured f/oss alternatives. However, niche stuff like vertical-specific CRUD apps that used to be able to charge a heavy SaaS premium simply because they could develop CRUD apps and UI faster than their customers are toast.

> full featured f/oss alternatives. Assuming this comes from lower barriers of entry to software engineering skills at scale with LLMs, this is still begs the question: Who will pay for the tokens? One thing is giving away your free time for passion, other one is giving away money. Maybe we'll see a future were people crowdsource projects supporting them directly via donations for tokens/LLM queries.

Tokens aren’t that expensive.

I built a CapRover clone that’s actually free software for <$1k. I imagine it wouldn’t be much more to modify a fork of Mattermost to add in their pay-gated features like SSO and message expiry etc.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#855

Post by monkeydust »

mrbungie wrote: post #849
sneak wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won’t be the demise of general purpose SaaS like CRM, though it may be the rise of ridiculously full featured f/oss alternatives. However, niche stuff like vertical-specific CRUD apps that used to be able to charge a heavy SaaS premium simply because they could develop CRUD apps and UI faster than their customers are toast.

> full featured f/oss alternatives. Assuming this comes from lower barriers of entry to software engineering skills at scale with LLMs, this is still begs the question: Who will pay for the tokens? One thing is giving away your free time for passion, other one is giving away money. Maybe we'll see a future were people crowdsource projects supporting them directly via donations for tokens/LLM queries.

> people crowdsource projects supporting them directly via donations for tokens/LLM queries.

Is this perhaps happening today? Large open source projects where llm could deliver the code.. e.g. I want an home assistant to connect to something that perhaps isn't mainstream but used by a dozen users. Those dozen users fund the PR via token budget?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#856

Post by XCSme »

viraptor wrote: post #853
XCSme wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the format can't also be strictly defined via structured output, and you have to write it in plain words. Imagine you also have a field within your JSON, which also needs a specific format. It's AI, you don't want to write a 2000lines JSON schema to define what you need and how to parse it, that's the point of using AI instead of writing your own data extraction script. Also, simply because a human would resp…

> Because the format can't also be strictly defined via structured output, and you have to write it in plain words. That's not how structured output works. Check the docs https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/struct... The schema is enforced at the inference time. The non-confirming tokens are removed from the possible responses.

I use structured format in many of live AI systems, maybe my point was not clear.

For some tasks it's impossible to define a JSON schema. Let's say you want the message to end with "Thank you", in any language. Should I add in my schema 200 possible endings? What about all their variations and declinations in various languages?

Sometimes you have to define in natural language how you want the output to look like.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#857

Post by monkeydust »

dana321 wrote: post #850
monkeydust wrote: post #845

The demise of saas has been overplayed imho. When companies buy software they are essentially buying something that solves a problem and the insurance that comes with that. Part of that means they get to pick up the phone and complain if something doesn't work and someone on the other end has to listen. There is also a strong community aspect to software, someone asks for an enhancement others can benefit etc. I just…

"Part of that means they get to pick up the phone and complain if something doesn't work and someone on the other end has to listen." All over the internet on forums are stories of software that haven't fixed x bug, missing features and bugs that have been in software for years.

Perhaps those companies might start using llm to sort these out, typically it's the long tail that suffers in software...smaller enhancements, quality of life features that user would really like but can live without.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#858

Post by miki123211 »

monkeydust wrote: post #845

The demise of saas has been overplayed imho. When companies buy software they are essentially buying something that solves a problem and the insurance that comes with that. Part of that means they get to pick up the phone and complain if something doesn't work and someone on the other end has to listen. There is also a strong community aspect to software, someone asks for an enhancement others can benefit etc. I just…

I think it's a move from feature-centric SaaS to data-centric SaaS.

You can say that a SaaS consists of two components, the features and the data on which those features operate. If the cost of feature development goes to 0, and development speed goes to infinity, you can no longer compete on features alone. The Constraint shifts; it's no longer what features you can deliver, it's whether you have access to enough data about the business to deliver those features.

Instead of traditional, siloed, rigid web applications, I think the pattern for the AI era will be an "enterprise OS", some kind of Salesforce / ERP-like platform where all the data about a business is kept, and where applications like Slack or Jira exist as plug-ins consuming the database. Such a workflow makes it trivial to do a one-off task using conversational AI agents, or even to vibe-code a workflow-specific app that does one thing well, one thing only, and exactly how this particular business needs it done at this particular time.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#859

Post by brookst »

dana321 wrote: post #850
monkeydust wrote: post #845

The demise of saas has been overplayed imho. When companies buy software they are essentially buying something that solves a problem and the insurance that comes with that. Part of that means they get to pick up the phone and complain if something doesn't work and someone on the other end has to listen. There is also a strong community aspect to software, someone asks for an enhancement others can benefit etc. I just…

"Part of that means they get to pick up the phone and complain if something doesn't work and someone on the other end has to listen." All over the internet on forums are stories of software that haven't fixed x bug, missing features and bugs that have been in software for years.

Sure, same way that restaurants have an obligation to serve quality food in clean conditions, but it’s easy to find counter-examples.

I don’t think anyone is saying that SaaS is a magic bullet that guarantees big-free software with great support in every case… just that it aligns incentives between buyer and seller better than the “if I can trick you into writing a big check once, I’m outta here” one-time-purchase model.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#860

Post by windexh8er »

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

OK. Let's take what you've stated as a truth.

So where is the labor force replacement option on Anthropic's website? Dario isn't shy about these enormous claims of replacing humans. He's made the claim yet shows zero proof. But if Anthropic could replace anyone reliably, today why would they let you or I take that revenue? I mean they are the experts, right? The reality is these "improvements" metrics are built in sand. They mean nothing and are marketing. Show me any model replacing a receptionist today. Trivial, they say, yet they can't do it reliably. AND... It costs more at these subsidized prices.

Post reply on HN