←back to thread

321 points jhunter1016 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
solarkraft ◴[] No.41881121[source]
How come I rarely see news about Anthropic? Aren’t they the closest competitor to ChatGPT with Claude? Or is LLama just so good that all the other inference providers without own products (Groq, Cerebras) are equally interesting right now?
replies(7): >>41881125 #>>41881158 #>>41881226 #>>41881285 #>>41881291 #>>41881447 #>>41883356 #
gman83 ◴[] No.41881285[source]
Because there's less drama? I use Claude 3.5 Sonnet every day for helping me with coding. It seems to just work. It's been much better than GPT-4 for me, haven't tried o1, but don't really feel the need, very happy with Claude.
replies(1): >>41881298 #
ponty_rick ◴[] No.41881298[source]
Sonnet 3.5 is phenomenal for coding, so much better than GPT or Llama 405 or anything else out there.
replies(1): >>41881393 #
douglasisshiny ◴[] No.41881393[source]
I've heard this and haven't really experienced it with Go, typescript, elixir yet. I don't doubt the claim, but I wonder if I'm not prompting it correctly or something.
replies(3): >>41881965 #>>41882286 #>>41894588 #
1. sbuttgereit ◴[] No.41882286[source]
I'm using Claude 3.5 Sonnet with Elixir and finding it really quite good. But depending on how you're using it, the results could vary greatly.

When I started using the LLM while coding, I was using Claude 3.5 Sonnet, but I was doing so with an IDE integration: Sourcegraph Cody. It was good, but had a large number of "meh" responses, especially in terms of autocomplete responses (they were typically useless outside of the very first parts of the suggestion).

I tried out Cursor, still with Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and the difference is night and day. The autocomplete responses with Cursor have been dramatically superior to what I was getting before... enough so that I switched despite the fact that Cursor is a VS Code fork and that there's no support outside of their VS Code fork (with Cody, I was using it in VS Code and Intellij products). Also Cursor is around twice the cost of Cody.

I'm not sure what the difference is... all of this is very much black box magic to me outside of the hand-waviest of explanations... but I have to expect that Cursor is providing more context to the autocomplete integration. I have to imagine that this contributes to the much higher (proportionately speaking) price point.