4 ms·

Call me when a disinterested third-party says so. PR announcements by the very people who have a large stake in our belief in their product are unreliable.

NewsaHackO 9mo ago
Is your argument that the quotes by the researchers in the article are not real?
- taormina 9mo ago
  What quotes? This is an AI summary that may or may not have summarized actual quotes from the researchers, but I don't see a single quote in this article, or a source.
  - famouswaffles 9mo ago
    Why are you commenting if you can't even take a few minutes to read this ? It's quite bizarre. There's a quote and repo for Cheeseman, and a paper for Biomni.
    - WD-42 9mo ago
      There is only one quote in the entire article, though: > Cheeseman finds Claude consistently catches things he missed. “Every time I go through I’m like, I didn’t notice that one! And in each case, these are discoveries that we can understand and verify,” he says. Pretty vague and not really quantifiable. You would think an article making a bold claim would contain more than a single, hand-wavy quote from an actual scientist.
      - famouswaffles 9mo ago
        >Pretty vague and not really quantifiable. You would think an article making a bold claim would contain more than a single, hand-wavy quote from an actual scientist. Why? What purpose would quotes serve better than a paper with numbers and code? Just seems like nitpicking here. The article could have gone without a single quote (or had several more) and it wouldn't really change anything. And that quote is not really vague in the context of the article.
        inferiorhuman 9mo ago
        [flagged]
- inferiorhuman 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - bpodgursky 9mo ago
    Are you accusing Anthropic of hallucinating an MIT lab under the MIT domain? I mean they literally link to it https://cheesemanlab.wi.mit.edu/ https://cheesemanlab.wi.mit.edu/
    - inferiorhuman 9mo ago
      [flagged]
    - famouswaffles 9mo ago
      You know things have shifted a gear when people just start flat out denying reality.
    - NewsaHackO 9mo ago
      Honestly, it doesn't even seem they read the article, just came in, saw it was pro-AI, and commented.
    - falloutx 9mo ago
      And if you go to that site, the researchers say nothing about using Claude, or any LLMs for that matter.
  - simonw 9mo ago
    Most people aren't software developers. The HN audience can benefit from LLMs in ways that many people don't value.
- catlifeonmars 9mo ago
  The point is to look at who is making a claim and asking what they hope to gain from it. This is orthogonal to what the thing is, really. It’s just basic skepticism. Even if the article is accurate, it still makes sense to question the motives of the publisher. Especially if they’re selling a product.
joshribakoff 9mo ago
This company predicts software development is a dead occupation yet ships a mobile chat UI that appears to be perpetually full of bugs, and has had a number of high profile incidents.
- simonw 9mo ago
  "This company predicts software development is a dead occupation" Citation needed? Closest I've seen to that was Dario saying AI would write 90% of the code, but that's very different from declaring the death of software development as an occupation.
  - falloutx 9mo ago
    The clear disdain he has for the profession is evident in any interview he gives. Him saying 90% of the code was not a signal to us, but it was directed to his fellow execs, that they can soon get rid of 90% of the engineers and some other related professions.
    - throw234234234 9mo ago
      I think it's pretty clear that Anthrophic was the main AI lab pushing code automation right from the start. Their blog posts, everything just targeted code generation. Even their headings for new models in articules would be "code". My view if they weren't around, even if it would of happened eventually, code would of been solved with cadence to other use cases (i.e. gradually as per general demand). AI Engineers aren't actually SWE's per se; they use code but they see it as tedious non-main work IMO. They are happy to automate their compliment and raise in status vs SWE's who typically before all of this had more employment opportunities and more practical ways to show value.
  - throw310822 9mo ago
    AI is already writing 90% of my code. 100% of Claude Code's code, too. So Amodei was right.
signatoremo 9mo ago
> Call me when a disinterested third-party says Call me when a disinterested third-party says so Saying what? This describes three projects that use an Anthropic’s product. Do you need a third party to confirm that? Or do you need someone to tell you if they are legit? There are hundreds of announcements by vendors ơn HN. Did you object to them all or only when your own belief is against them?

NewsaHackO 9mo ago

Is your argument that the quotes by the researchers in the article are not real?

taormina 9mo ago
What quotes? This is an AI summary that may or may not have summarized actual quotes from the researchers, but I don't see a single quote in this article, or a source.
- famouswaffles 9mo ago
  Why are you commenting if you can't even take a few minutes to read this ? It's quite bizarre. There's a quote and repo for Cheeseman, and a paper for Biomni.
  - WD-42 9mo ago
    There is only one quote in the entire article, though: > Cheeseman finds Claude consistently catches things he missed. “Every time I go through I’m like, I didn’t notice that one! And in each case, these are discoveries that we can understand and verify,” he says. Pretty vague and not really quantifiable. You would think an article making a bold claim would contain more than a single, hand-wavy quote from an actual scientist.
    - famouswaffles 9mo ago
      >Pretty vague and not really quantifiable. You would think an article making a bold claim would contain more than a single, hand-wavy quote from an actual scientist. Why? What purpose would quotes serve better than a paper with numbers and code? Just seems like nitpicking here. The article could have gone without a single quote (or had several more) and it wouldn't really change anything. And that quote is not really vague in the context of the article.
      - inferiorhuman 9mo ago
        [flagged]
inferiorhuman 9mo ago
[flagged]
- bpodgursky 9mo ago
  Are you accusing Anthropic of hallucinating an MIT lab under the MIT domain? I mean they literally link to it https://cheesemanlab.wi.mit.edu/ https://cheesemanlab.wi.mit.edu/
  - inferiorhuman 9mo ago
    [flagged]
  - famouswaffles 9mo ago
    You know things have shifted a gear when people just start flat out denying reality.
  - NewsaHackO 9mo ago
    Honestly, it doesn't even seem they read the article, just came in, saw it was pro-AI, and commented.
  - falloutx 9mo ago
    And if you go to that site, the researchers say nothing about using Claude, or any LLMs for that matter.
- simonw 9mo ago
  Most people aren't software developers. The HN audience can benefit from LLMs in ways that many people don't value.
catlifeonmars 9mo ago
The point is to look at who is making a claim and asking what they hope to gain from it. This is orthogonal to what the thing is, really. It’s just basic skepticism. Even if the article is accurate, it still makes sense to question the motives of the publisher. Especially if they’re selling a product.

joshribakoff 9mo ago

This company predicts software development is a dead occupation yet ships a mobile chat UI that appears to be perpetually full of bugs, and has had a number of high profile incidents.

simonw 9mo ago
"This company predicts software development is a dead occupation" Citation needed? Closest I've seen to that was Dario saying AI would write 90% of the code, but that's very different from declaring the death of software development as an occupation.
- falloutx 9mo ago
  The clear disdain he has for the profession is evident in any interview he gives. Him saying 90% of the code was not a signal to us, but it was directed to his fellow execs, that they can soon get rid of 90% of the engineers and some other related professions.
  - throw234234234 9mo ago
    I think it's pretty clear that Anthrophic was the main AI lab pushing code automation right from the start. Their blog posts, everything just targeted code generation. Even their headings for new models in articules would be "code". My view if they weren't around, even if it would of happened eventually, code would of been solved with cadence to other use cases (i.e. gradually as per general demand). AI Engineers aren't actually SWE's per se; they use code but they see it as tedious non-main work IMO. They are happy to automate their compliment and raise in status vs SWE's who typically before all of this had more employment opportunities and more practical ways to show value.
- throw310822 9mo ago
  AI is already writing 90% of my code. 100% of Claude Code's code, too. So Amodei was right.

signatoremo 9mo ago

> Call me when a disinterested third-party says Call me when a disinterested third-party says so Saying what? This describes three projects that use an Anthropic’s product. Do you need a third party to confirm that? Or do you need someone to tell you if they are legit? There are hundreds of announcements by vendors ơn HN. Did you object to them all or only when your own belief is against them?