multipleof4/lynchmark
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/multipleof4/lynchmark.git synced 2026-03-16 19:01:02 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Feat: Add newsletter issue 4 - Sonnet 4.6 critique

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
multipleof4
2026-02-17 19:33:24 -08:00
parent 79886a435d
commit 55060257ea
1 changed files with 37 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

37
newsletter/issue004.html Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<title>Lynchmark Newsletter - Issue 4</title>
<style>
*{margin:0;padding:0;box-sizing:border-box}
body{font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,'Segoe UI',Roboto,sans-serif;line-height:1.6;color:#111;background:#f5f5f5;padding:20px}
.email{max-width:600px;margin:0 auto;background:#fff;border-radius:4px;overflow:hidden;box-shadow:0 2px 8px rgba(0,0,0,.08)}
.header{background:#000;color:#fff;padding:28px 20px;text-align:center}
.header h1{font-size:24px;font-weight:700;margin-bottom:4px;letter-spacing:-.5px}
.content{padding:28px 24px}
.footer{text-align:center;padding:20px;background:#f9f9f9;border-top:1px solid #e5e5e5;color:#666;font-size:12px}
.footer a{color:#000;text-decoration:none;font-weight:500}
.footer a:hover{text-decoration:underline}
p{margin-bottom:14px;color:#222;font-size:14px}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="email">
<div class="header"><h1>Lynchmark Newsletter</h1></div>
<div class="content">
<p>Claude Sonnet 4.6 is a step back.</p>
<p>I cannot verify the integrity of this model. It performed very poorly on Lynchmark, scoring worse than Sonnet 4.5 and many open-source models. Anthropic marketed this as an upgrade, but the benchmark data tells a different story.</p>
<p>When a "newer version" regresses on real-world coding tasks—importing the wrong CDN paths, failing library-specific implementations—it raises questions about what exactly was optimized. Vibes? Marketing copy? It wasn't code generation accuracy.</p>
<p>I do not recommend Claude Sonnet 4.6 for production coding workflows. If you're currently on Sonnet 4.5, stay there. Check the full results to see for yourself how it stacks up against the competition.</p>
</div>
<div class="footer">
<p>You can reply to this but I can't respond.</p>
<p><a href="https://lynchmark.com">View full benchmark results</a> | <a href="https://lynchmark.com/unsubscribe">Unsubscribe</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>