971–980 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their "constitution" is just garbage meant to defend them ripping off copyrighted material with the excuse that "it's not plagiarizing, it thinks!!!!1" which is, false.
I don't recall them ever offering that legal reasoning - I'm sure you can provide a citation?
Just tested the new Opus 4.6 (1M context) on a fun needle-in-a-haystack challenge: finding every spell in all Harry Potter books. All 7 books come to ~1.75M tokens, so they don't quite fit yet. (At this rate of progress, mid-April should do it ) For now you can fit the first 4 books (~733K tokens). Results: Opus 4.6 found 49 out of 50 officially documented spells across those 4 books. The only miss was "Slugulus Eruc…
Just tested the new Opus 4.6 (1M context) on a fun needle-in-a-haystack challenge: finding every spell in all Harry Potter books. All 7 books come to ~1.75M tokens, so they don't quite fit yet. (At this rate of progress, mid-April should do it ) For now you can fit the first 4 books (~733K tokens). Results: Opus 4.6 found 49 out of 50 officially documented spells across those 4 books. The only miss was "Slugulus Eruc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen many cases of Claude ignoring extremely specific instructions to the point that any further specificity would take more information to express than just doing it myself.
When I run into those situations I debug and try to understand why. Agent harnesses that allow you to rewind (/tree) are useful for this. It’s often because the context is full, I gave a bad prompt or context has conflicting guidance either from direct or indirect (agents.md) prompts.
I spend 8-20 hours a day coding nonstop with agentic models and you can believe I have tuned my approach quite a lot. This isn't a case of inexperience or conflicting instructions, The RL which gives Opus its fantastic ability to just knock out features is the same RL which causes it to constantly accumulate tech debt through short-sighted decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. It’s just web development languages are a better fit for agentic coding presently. They weighed the pros and cons, they’re not stupid.
Of course they can be stupid, hubris is a real thing and humans fail all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. It’s just web development languages are a better fit for agentic coding presently. They weighed the pros and cons, they’re not stupid.
I’ve had good success with Claude building snappy TUIs in Rust with Ratatui. It’s not obvious to me that there’d be any benefit of using TypeScript and React instead, especially none that makes up for the huge downsides compared to Rust in a terminal environment. Seems to me the problem is more likely the skills of the engineers, not Claude’s capabilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there you have it, proof you’re not being reasonable. Microsoft’s products annoy HN users but they are absolutely not total garbage. They’re highly functional and valuable and if they weren’t they truely wouldn’t be used, they’re just flawed.
You should look at some Copilot reviews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was playing about with Chat GPT the other day, uploading screen shots of sheet music and asking it to convert it to ABC notation so I could make a midi file of it. The results seemed impressive until I noticed some of the "Thinking" statements in the UI. One made it apparent the model / agent / whatever had read the title from the screenshot and was off searching for existing ABC transcripts of the piece Ode to Joy…
Yes I have found that grok for example actually suddenly becomes quite sane when you tell it to stop querying the internet And just rethink the conversation data and answer the question. It's weird, it's like many agents are now in a phase of constantly getting more information and never just thinking with what they've got.
2020's: LLMs are making humans who constantly rely on them dumber
2026: Google Search is making LLMs who constantly rely on it dumber
Just tested the new Opus 4.6 (1M context) on a fun needle-in-a-haystack challenge: finding every spell in all Harry Potter books. All 7 books come to ~1.75M tokens, so they don't quite fit yet. (At this rate of progress, mid-April should do it ) For now you can fit the first 4 books (~733K tokens). Results: Opus 4.6 found 49 out of 50 officially documented spells across those 4 books. The only miss was "Slugulus Eruc…
Surely the corpus Opus 4.6 ingested would include whatever reference you used to check the spells were there. I mean, there are probably dozens of pages on the internet like this: https://www.wizardemporium.com/blog/complete-list-of-harry-p... Why is this impressive? Do you think it's actually ingesting the books and only using those as a reference? Is that how LLMs work at all? It seems more likely it's predicting t…