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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#931

Post by Andrex »

azath92 wrote: post #814
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…

This whole comment thread here is really echoing and adding to some thoughts ive had lately on the shift from considering LLMs replacing engineering to make software (much of which is about integration, longevity and customization of a general system), vs LLMs replacing buying software. If most software is just used by me to do a specific task, then being able to make software for me to do that task will become the n…

Taking it further, imagine a traditional desktop OS but it generates your programs on the fly.

Google's weird AI browser project is kind of a step in this direction. Instead of starting with a list of programs and services and customizing your work to that workflow, you start with the task you need accomplished and the operating system creates an optimized UI flow specifically for that task.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#932

Post by versteegen »

ethbr1 wrote: post #912
m_ke wrote: post #903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not the end of software, there will be infinitely more of it it's the end of 80-90% margins that the valley coasted on for the last 20 years. Salesforces of the world will not lose to an LLM, they will lose to thousands of tiny teams that outship them and beat them on cost instead of 7 figure contracts you'll have customized tailored tools for enterprises, and on the other end you'll have a custom nearly free CR…

Alternative take, in light of upthread -- Salesforce, SAP, et al. are positioned to be the biggest beneficiaries of this. Because their product is actually two things: (1) a UI/app & (2) a highly curated data model. My imagined future... they just stop building (1), or invest much less in it, and focus on (2). If they can build a compelling data foundation (ingest / processing / storage / exposing) + do much less wor…

Agreed, and here's a real example from a tiny startup: Clickup's web app is too damn slow and bloated with features and UI, so we created emacs modes to access and edit Clickup workspaces (lists, kanban boards, docs, etc) via the API. Just some limited parts we care about. I was initially skeptical that it would work well or at all, but wow, it really has significantly improved the usefulness of Clickup by removing barriers.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#933

Post by mrbungie »

3uler wrote: post #868
mrbungie wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Do you not value your time? Paying a 100 bucks for a Claude max subscription is well worth it

Opportunity costs: Would you rather pay 100 bucks for making more money or for your foss projects?

The same can be said of your time, but here we're talking about scale benefits due to LLMs (i.e. lots of SaaSs dying due to lots of "full featured f/oss projects").

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#934

Post by Andrex »

1PlayerOne wrote: post #930
pvab3 wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is the word "replacement" kills nuanced thought and starts to create a strawman. No one will be replaced for a long time, but what happens will depend on the shape of the supply and demand curves of labor markets. If 8 or 9 developers can do the work of 10, do companies choose to build 10% more stuff? Do they make their existing stuff 10% better? Or are they content to continue building the same a…

AI says: 1. The default outcome: fewer people, same output (at first) When productivity jumps (e.g., 5–6 devs can now do what 10 used to), most companies do not immediately ship 10% more or make things 10% better. Instead, they usually: Freeze or slow hiring Backfill less when people leave Quietly reduce team size over time This happens because: Output targets were already “good enough” Budgets are set annually, not…

One of the most insightful HN comments I've read in years. Thank you! I'm curious about what you've read and are reading.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#935

Post by pmelendez »

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 just don't see a world where every corporation is building their own accounts, crm, hr software.

I do see a world where every corporation would use agents-friendly platform to create their own accounts, crm, hr software. The insurance will come from the platforms vendor support.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#936

Post by m_ke »

versteegen wrote: post #932
ethbr1 wrote: post #912

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternative take, in light of upthread -- Salesforce, SAP, et al. are positioned to be the biggest beneficiaries of this. Because their product is actually two things: (1) a UI/app & (2) a highly curated data model. My imagined future... they just stop building (1), or invest much less in it, and focus on (2). If they can build a compelling data foundation (ingest / processing / storage / exposing) + do much less wor…

Agreed, and here's a real example from a tiny startup: Clickup's web app is too damn slow and bloated with features and UI, so we created emacs modes to access and edit Clickup workspaces (lists, kanban boards, docs, etc) via the API. Just some limited parts we care about. I was initially skeptical that it would work well or at all, but wow, it really has significantly improved the usefulness of Clickup by removing b…

you should try some markdown files in git

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#937

Post by alsetmusic »

ethbr1 wrote: post #909
miki123211 wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 da…

> "enterprise OS", some kind of Salesforce / ERP-like platform where all the data about a business is kept I read this, turn it to "person", and see Google/Android (maybe Microsoft/Windows/Office to a lesser degree) shooting off if they design their data APIs to be gen AI usable. Which they mostly already are. If individuals can vibe code personal apps easily because their personal/relevant data is already in one pla…

> if they design their data APIs to be gen AI usable. Which they mostly already are.

Surprisingly (or not), an ArsTechnica article showed that Google's AI browser was really bad at working with their services. At least, for what ought to be an obvious vertical integration win:

We let Chrome’s Auto Browse agent surf the web for us—here’s what happened[0]

0. https://arstechnica.com/google/2026/02/tested-how-chromes-au...

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#938

Post by gymbeaux »

dakolli wrote: post #486
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…

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…

I have a few app ideas that I've been sitting on for years and they would all be things that would help me, things that I would actually use.. But they're also things that I think others would find useful. I had Claude Code create two of them so far, and yeah the code isn't what I would write, but the apps generally work and are useful to me. The idea of trying to monetize these apps that I didn't even write is strange to me, especially considering anyone else can just tell their Claude Code to "create an app that's a clone of appwebsite.com" and within an hour they will probably have a virtually identical clone of my app that I'm trying to charge money for.

In this way, AI coding is a bummer. I also sincerely miss writing code. Merely reading it (or being a QA and telling Claude about bugs I find) is a shell of what software engineering used to be.

I know with apps especially, all that really matters is how large your user base is, but to spend all that time and money getting the user base, only for them to jump ship next month for an even better vibe-coded solution... eh. I don't have any answers, I just agree that everyone has the same ideas and it's just going to be another form of enshittification. "My AI slop is better than your AI slop".

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#939

Post by alsetmusic »

intrasight wrote: post #921
ethbr1 wrote: post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "enterprise OS", some kind of Salesforce / ERP-like platform where all the data about a business is kept I read this, turn it to "person", and see Google/Android (maybe Microsoft/Windows/Office to a lesser degree) shooting off if they design their data APIs to be gen AI usable. Which they mostly already are. If individuals can vibe code personal apps easily because their personal/relevant data is already in one pla…

Right. You can't vibe code an iOS app because the agent can't step into that cathedral. What I'm curious about is will this result in Apple locking down that cathedral even more or opening it up a bit - for example by better supporting progressive web apps. Apple is benefiting hugely from Openclaw because the Mac Mini's are selling like hot cakes. My hope would be that apple embraces that community, but given the his…

> You can't vibe code an iOS app

Probably not a feature-complete app, but they're not completely unable to code Swift apps. I wanted to contrast Claude vs Codex and had both build a basic weather app just to see if they could. It wasn't anything anyone would want or buy, but they were both able to do that much.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#940

Post by versteegen »

cube2222 wrote: post #843
jorl17 wrote: post #519

I ran the same test I ran on Opus 4.6: feeding it my whole personal collection of ~900 poems which spans ~16 years It is a far cry from Opus 4.6. Opus 4.6 was (is!) a giant leap, the largest since Gemini 2.5 pro. Didn't hallucinate anything and produced honestly mind-blowing analyses of the collection as a whole. It was a clear leap forward. Sonnet 4.6 feels like an evolution of whatever the previous models were doin…

This seems to agree with my own previous tests of Sonnet vs Opus (not on this version). If I give them a task with a large list of constraints ("do this, don't do this, make sure of this"), like 20-40, Sonnet will forget half of it, while Opus correctly applies all directives. My intuition is this is just related to model size / its "working memory", and will likely neither be fixed by training Sonnet with Opus nor b…

I'd agree that this effect is probably mainly due to architectural parameters such as the number and dimensions of heads, and hidden dimension. But not so much the model size (number of parameters) or less training.

Saw something about Sonnet 4.6 having had a greatly increased amount of RL training over 4.5.

Post reply on HN