Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
You're completely right.
uhh the model found actual vulnerabilities in software that people use. either you believe that the vulnerabilities were not found or were not serious enough to warrant a more thoughtful release
So did GPT-4.

https://arxiv.org/html/2402.06664v1

Like think carefully about this. Did they discover AGI? Or did a bunch of investors make a leveraged bet on them "discovering AGI" so they're doing absolutely anything they can to make it seem like this time it's brand new and different.

If we're to believe Anthropic on these claims, we also have to just take it on faith, with absolutely no evidence, that they've made something so incredibly capable and so incredibly powerful that it cannot possibly be given to mere mortals. Conveniently, that's exactly the story that they are selling to investors.

Like do you see the unreliable narrator dynamic here?

On the other hand I've gotten to use opus-4.6 and claude code and the quality is off the charts compared to 2023 when coding agents first hit the scene. And what you're saying is essentially "If they haven't created God, I'm not impressed". You don't think there's some middleground between those two?

Also they just hit a $30B run-rate, I don't think they're that needy for new hype cycles.

I don't see the problem here. How would you have handled it differently? If you released this model as such without any safety concern, the vulnerabilities might be found by bad actors and used for wrong things.

What do you find surprising here?

loading story #47681133