Thread

1. rdli · 1791060574 · focus · HN ↗

   It’s a really good model. Over the past few days, I give Opus some general directives to basically speed up our CI, and telling it I care both about billing minutes and wall clock time. I told it to create a plan after analyzing everything in our CI, run the plan by a Fable subagent, and then focus on low-risk, high-reward changes.

   9 hours later, I had 12 PRs ready to be merged, and the net result is CI time has dropped from ~10 minutes to ~4 minutes, and billing minutes have dropped around 60%. Less than an hour of my attention.

   1. Betelbuddy · 1791063616 · focus · HN ↗

      >> It’s a really good model.

      In the meantime, I have cancelled my Anthropic subscription...

      I have a simple test that I have been running iteratively across the SOTA models from several vendors, including one Chinese vendor.

      I start with some code produced by an Anthropic SOTA model...let’s call that Code A. Then I get Code B and Code C for the same task from models by two other vendors.

      Then I ask each model to review and critique the other proposals.

      By the end, both the Anthropic model and I usually run out of arguments... against them and agree that proposals B and C are better.

      Claude then always asks whether it can incorporate the code or ideas from B and C into its own solution...

      1. karp773 · 1791064596 · focus · HN ↗

         It's not even funny any more. Chinese model, Chinese vendor, Chinese, Chinese... Did I say Chinese? Chinese!

         Nobody in his right mind will use a Chinese clone when you have models like Opus 5.5 for peanuts.

         1. verdverm · 1791064810 · focus · HN ↗

            > Nobody in his right mind will...

            let a few valley elites decide how humanity can use this technology

            open and transparent is the way, China is showing how

            1. christophilus · 1791065070 · focus · HN ↗

               I’m rooting for open models, but SOL 6.1 and Opus 5.5 are absolute workhorses on a $100/mo sub. I share your fears, though, and really hope an open model catches up and can somehow compete with the subscription prices of the big 2.

               1. verdverm · 1791065270 · focus · HN ↗

                  I have workhorse models, spend far less, the model matters less than people like to claim

                  there's no money long term in being a token vendor

                  1. K0balt · 1791094953 · focus · HN ↗

                     That sounds interesting.

                     I spin up “offices” for different projects, using a documentation heavy approach with procedures, policies, standards, and processes. Agent onboarding and orientation, etc. I usually have an engineer for each separate part, (one for a simulator to simulate the hardware, one for the user application, one for the data analysis and evaluation tool, one for the firmware on each type of device, one for schematic and board reviews, etc. ) then I’ll have an office manager in charge of policy and issue boards, agent rosters, etc, and a engineering governance agent that makes sure code is compliant and documentation / code is coherent before any merges. 6-15 agents in each office depending on the complexity of the task.

                     It sounds like open code could be pretty handy but it would nerf my Claude subscription (api!=subscription rates). Understanding my workflow, what models do you think might be suitable for those tasks outside of OAI and Anthropic?

                     1. verdverm · 1791097776 · focus · HN ↗

                        I've outlined the models I've used in a recent HN comment, check my history, and some spicy opinions too :]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.