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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#981

Post by democracy »

vardalab wrote: post #638
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…

We said the same thing when 3D printing came out. Any sort of cool tech, we think everybody’s going to do it. Most people are not capable of doing it. in college everybody was going to be an engineer and then they drop out after the first intro to physics or calculus class. A bunch of my non tech friends were vibe coding some tools with replit and lovable and I looked at their stuff and yeah it was neat but it wasn't…

100%, it's like with "Suno" - everyone can create a good quality music/song basically in 2-3 minutes (and vibe programming can only do.... nothing in a few minutes) - how many new great bands and musicions we got )))))

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#982

Post by jama211 »

lawstkawz wrote: post #329
jama211 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This honestly reads like a copypasta

Low effort thought ending dismissal. The most copied of pasta. Bet you used an LLM too; prompt: generate a one line reply to a social media comment I don't understand. "Sure here are some of the most common: Did an LLM write this? Is this copypasta?"

Accusing someone of a low effort dismissal and dismissing their comment as LLM written at the same time is quite the demonstration of both hypocrisy and instability.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#983

Post by astrange »

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…

> 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

That is a productivity improvement, which tends to increase employment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#984

Post by runeks »

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…

> Companies don't need "more work" half the "features"/"products" that companies produce is already just extra.

At my company we have a huge backlog where only the top of that iceberg is pulled every iteration to keep customers happy.

If they fired 90% of the engineers assuming a 10x increase in productivity, they might be able to offer their product at half the price. But if they keep all their engineers they'd get 10x the features and could probably charge twice as much for it.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#985

Post by zaphirplane »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #701
zaphirplane wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

1 it has nothing to do with 'improvement'. You can improve it to be a little less susceptible to injection attacks but that's not the same as solving it. If only 0.1% of the time it wires all your money to a scammer, are you going to be satisfied with that level of "improvement"?

> You can improve it to be a little less susceptible to injection attacks

That’s exactly the point the rapid rate of improvement is far form slow polish in 10 years it will be everywhere doing everything

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#986

Post by zaphirplane »

windexh8er wrote: post #860
zaphirplane wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

Why is the bar replacing a receptionist ? At the low end It will take over tasks and companies will need less people, at the top end it will take over roles. What’s the point you are making, if it can’t do bla now it never will ?

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#987

Post by Otterly99 »

democracy wrote: post #981
vardalab wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We said the same thing when 3D printing came out. Any sort of cool tech, we think everybody’s going to do it. Most people are not capable of doing it. in college everybody was going to be an engineer and then they drop out after the first intro to physics or calculus class. A bunch of my non tech friends were vibe coding some tools with replit and lovable and I looked at their stuff and yeah it was neat but it wasn't…

100%, it's like with "Suno" - everyone can create a good quality music/song basically in 2-3 minutes (and vibe programming can only do.... nothing in a few minutes) - how many new great bands and musicions we got )))))

You might not get great musicians from using Suno, but an ad company might decide to just generate a jingle rather than hire a musician to do it. Same with images/videos. The result might not be great, but the companies does it in 3 minutes and close-to-zero cost. Similarly, you can vibe-code a website for a restaurant (that does a very basic thing like display a menu, opening hours, maybe a google map location). It might not be the best, but you would be surprised at the amount of people that are willing to sacrifice quality for cheap prices.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#988

Post by lumost »

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…

This really points to a world where all services are too cheap to meter. The compute side of AI is a commodity, the usage of AI is a commodity, the model development of AI is a commodity. So far there is no evidence that a provider with heavy usage has any long-term advantage over a vendor with no usage. New top tier models come out every week from relative unknowns.

Other than a vast consolidation of what parts of the economy are "digital", what is going to have margin other than orphaned capital and "creative" efforts within 10 years?

EDIT: the top ranked model on openrouter based on traffic changes almost weekly now, I can't see how Amy claim of “stickiness” exists in this space.

https://openrouter.ai/rankings

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#989

Post by Otterly99 »

yoz-y wrote: post #594
RobertoG wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of oil at the price of water (ecology apart) should be a good thing. Automation should be, obviously, a good thing, because more is produced with less labor. What it says of ourselves and our politics that so many people (me included) are afraid of it? In a sane world, we would realize that, in a post-work world, the owner of the robots have all the power, so the robots should be owned in common. The soluti…

What do we “need” more of? Here in France we need more doctors, more nurseries, more teachers… I don’t see AI helping much there in short to middle term (with teachers all research points to AI making it massively worse even) Globally I think we need better access to quality nutrition and more affordable medicine. Generally cheaper energy.

Counter-argument: what if LLMs can help alleviate a doctor's work by providing quick diagnostic for simple cases? How much time does a doctor spend writing prescriptions for cough-like symptoms? How much time does an ophthalmologist spend measuring eye sight? I totally agree that this is a bit of a radical opinion, and not everybody would be pleased with the idea of a program making diagnosis, so I am not fully advocating for it, but I think that we should not limit the potential of AI. Also, to point out to France specifically. We need more teachers, yet new teachers are treated as commodities (you have to relocate to wherever the Education nationale tells you to go and in most cases, that means new teachers are relocated to difficult areas). We need more doctors, yet the number of new doctors each year is fixed by the number of people that are allowed to pass the exam.

Re: Claude Sonnet 4.6

#990

Post by Shocka1 »

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…

It's hard to swallow. I'm a 14 YOE software engineer working in an office of about 40 people, with five on the software team. We could cut our software team to 3 people and then maybe 2 after a couple years. The rest of the office could be skimmed to maybe 5 or 10 people. The engineers would babysit the systems and the other personnel would handle the face to face. With these systems developing in the OS the last year or so, it seems as though everything can be automated... Everyone has an X on their back, not just engineers.

Luckily my org has a bit of a pushback attitude towards AI systems, but it will only be a matter of time before we have to compete and adapt. It's kind of depressing, and only the strong will survive.

Post reply on HN