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

Claude 4

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude 4

#871

Post by quantumHazer »

jjmarr wrote: post #568
GolDDranks wrote: post #437

After using Claude 3.7 Sonnet for a few weeks, my verdict is that its coding abilities are unimpressive both for unsupervised coding but also for problem solving/debugging if you are expecting accurate results and correct code. However, as a debugging companion, it's slightly better than a rubber duck, because at least there's some suspension of disbelief so I tend to explain things to it earnestly and because of tha…

As a junior developer it's much easier for me to jump into a new codebase or language and make an impact. I just shipped a new error message in LLVM because Cline found the 5 spots in 10k+ files where I needed to make the code changes. When I started an internship last year, it took me weeks to learn my way around my team's relatively smaller codebase. I consider this a skill and cost issue. If you are rich and able…

You're sabotaging yourself though. You are avoiding learning.

What's the point of shipping a Chrome feature before graduating? Just to put in your CV that you've committed in some repo? In the past this would be signal of competence, but now you're working towards a future where doing this thing is not competence signaling anymore.

Re: Claude 4

#872

Post by joedwin »

BoorishBears wrote: post #845
jen729w wrote: post #824

Me: is 'Claude does not have the ability to run the code it generates yet' a split infinitive? it's clumsy, no? i'd say 'Claude does not yet have the ability to run the code it generates' Claude: You're absolutely right on both counts! "Claude does not have the ability to run the code it generates yet" isn't technically a split infinitive (that would be something like "to quickly run"), but it is definitely clumsy. T…

"Claude can't run the code it generates."

Claude can't run the code

Re: Claude 4

#873

Post by imiric »

j_timberlake wrote: post #716
imiric wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Benchmark scores are marketing fluff. Just like the rest of this article with alleged praises from early adopters, and highly scripted and edited videos. AI companies are grasping at straws by selling us minor improvements to stale technology so they can pump up whatever valuation they have left.

The fact that people like you are still posting like this after Veo 3 is wild. Nothing could possibly be forcing you to hold onto that opinion, yet you come out in drones in every AI thread to repost it.

I concede that my last sentence was partly hyperbolic, particularly around "stale technology". But the rest of what I wrote is an accurate description of the state of the AI industry, from the perspective of an unbiased outsider, anyway.

What we've seen from Veo 3 is impressive, and the technology is indisputably advancing. But at the same time we're flooded with inflated announcements from companies that create their own benchmarks or optimize their models specifically to look good on benchmarks. Yet when faced with real world tasks the same models still produce garbage, they need continuous hand-holding to be useful, and they often simply waste my time. At least, this has been my experience with Sonnet 3.5, 3.7, Gemini, o1, o3, and all of the SOTA models I've tried so far. So there's this dissonance between marketing and reality that's making it really difficult to trust what any of these companies say anymore.

Meanwhile, little thought is put into the harmful effects of these tools, and any alleged focus on "safety" is as fake as the hallucinations that plague them.

So, yes, I'm jaded by the state of the tech industry and where it's taking us, and I wish this bubble would burst already.

Re: Claude 4

#875

Post by holoduke »

yahoozoo wrote: post #675
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are just getting better at the edges, MCP/Tool Calls, structured output. This definitely isn't increased intelligence, but it an increase in the value add, not sure the value added equates to training costs or company valuations though. In all reality, I have zero clue how any of these companies remain sustainable. I've tried to host some inference on cloud GPUs and its seems like it would be extremely c…

https://www.wheresyoured.at/reality-check/

This man (in the article) clearly hates AI. I also think he does not understand business and is not really able to predict the future.

Re: Claude 4

#876

Post by quantumHazer »

jjmarr wrote: post #854
kweingar wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you cannot afford the hundreds of dollars a month Claude costs Employers will buy AI tools for their employees, this isn't a problem. If you're saying that you need to buy and learn these tools yourself in order to get a job, I strongly disagree. Prompting is not exactly rocket science, and with every generation of models it gets easier. Soon you'll be able to pick it up in a few hours. It's not a differentiator…

I need side projects and OSS contributions to get hired as a new graduate or an intern. The bar for both of those will be much higher if everyone is using AI.

Yes side project are for fun and for learning, not for prompting an LLM. Unless you dislike coding and problem solving.

Re: Claude 4

#877

Post by imiric »

AdamN wrote: post #853
arewethereyeta wrote: post #815

I feel like these AI companies are in a gold rush while somebody else is selling the shovels. I've never jumped ship for the same service, from a vendor to another... so often. Looks like a race to the bottom where the snake eats itself.

I believe Google released a paper about 2 years ago that said the same thing. There is no moat with AGI. Companies will find moats though - they just haven't figured out yet how.

The moat is how much money they have to throw at the problem. Corporations with deep pockets and those that secure investments based on fairy tales will "win".

Re: Claude 4

#878

Post by epolanski »

jasonthorsness wrote: post #16

“GitHub says Claude Sonnet 4 soars in agentic scenarios and will introduce it as the base model for the new coding agent in GitHub Copilot.” Maybe this model will push the “Assign to CoPilot” closer to the dream of having package upgrades and other mostly-mechanical stuff handled automatically. This tech could lead to a huge revival of older projects as the maintenance burden falls.

> having package upgrades and other mostly-mechanical stuff handled automatically

Those are already non-issues mostly solved by bots.

In any case, where I think AI could help here would be by summarizing changes, conflicts, impact on codebase and possibly also conduct security scans.

Re: Claude 4

#879

Post by epolanski »

Doohickey-d wrote: post #48

> Users requiring raw chains of thought for advanced prompt engineering can contact sales So it seems like all 3 of the LLM providers are now hiding the CoT - which is a shame, because it helped to see when it was going to go down the wrong track, and allowing to quickly refine the prompt to ensure it didn't. In addition to openAI, Google also just recently started summarizing the CoT, replacing it with an, in my opi…

> because it helped to see when it was going to go down the wrong track

It helped me tremendously learning Zig.

Seeing his chain of thought when asking it stuff about Zig and implementations let me widen the horizon a lot.

Re: Claude 4

#880

Post by Jabrov »

lherron wrote: post #330
waleedlatif1 wrote: post #108

I really hope sonnet 4 is not obsessed with tool calls the way 3-7 is. 3-5 was sort of this magical experience where, for the first time, I felt the sense that models were going to master programming. It’s kind of been downhill from there.

Overly aggressive “let me do one more thing while I’m here” in 3.7 really turned me off as well. Would love a return to 3.5’s adherence.

Can be solved with more specific prompting
Post reply on HN