Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.1

anthropic.com

31–40 of 344 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#31
post #15

Why is everything releasing today?

Could it be nobody wanted to be first and overshadowed, nor the only one left out - and it cascaded after the first announcement? My first hunch, though, was that it had been agreed upon. Game theory I think tells us that releasing same day in the pattern ABC BCA CAB etc would be lowest risk and highest average gain?

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#32
post #10

I'm confused by how Opus is presented to be superior in nearly every way for coding purposes yet the general consensus and my own experience seem to be that Sonnet is much much better. Has anyone switched to entirely using Opus from Sonnet? Or maybe switching to Opus for certain things while using Sonnet for others?

Every time that Sonnet is acting like it has brain damage (which is once or twice a day), I switch to Opus and it seems to sort things out pretty fast. This is unscientific anicdata though, and it could just be that switching models (any model) would have worked.

This is a great use case for sub-agents IMO. By default, sub-agents use sonnet. You can have opus orchestrate the various agents and get (close to) the best of both worlds.

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#33
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time that Sonnet is acting like it has brain damage (which is once or twice a day), I switch to Opus and it seems to sort things out pretty fast. This is unscientific anicdata though, and it could just be that switching models (any model) would have worked.

They both seem to behave differently depending on how loaded the system seems to be.

I have suspected for a long time that hosted models load shed by diverting some requests to lesser models or running more quantized versions under high load.

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#34
post #9

it is barely an improvement according to their own benchmarks. not saying thats a bad thing, but not enough for anybody to notice any difference

I don't think this could even be called an improvement? It's small enough that it could just be random chance

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#35
post #10

I'm confused by how Opus is presented to be superior in nearly every way for coding purposes yet the general consensus and my own experience seem to be that Sonnet is much much better. Has anyone switched to entirely using Opus from Sonnet? Or maybe switching to Opus for certain things while using Sonnet for others?

Im on the Max plan and generally Opus seems to do better work than Sonnet. However, that’s only when they allow me to use Opus. The usage limits, even on the max plan, are a joke. Yesterday I hit the limits within MINUTES of starting my work day.

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#36
post #10

I'm confused by how Opus is presented to be superior in nearly every way for coding purposes yet the general consensus and my own experience seem to be that Sonnet is much much better. Has anyone switched to entirely using Opus from Sonnet? Or maybe switching to Opus for certain things while using Sonnet for others?

I notice that on the "Agentic Coding" benchmark cited in the article Sonnet 4 outperformed Opus 4 (by 0.2%), and under performs Opus 4.1 (by -1.8%).

So this release might change that consensus? If you believe the benchmarks are reflective of reality anyways.

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#37
post #33
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They both seem to behave differently depending on how loaded the system seems to be.

I have suspected for a long time that hosted models load shed by diverting some requests to lesser models or running more quantized versions under high load.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#38
post #36
post #10

I'm confused by how Opus is presented to be superior in nearly every way for coding purposes yet the general consensus and my own experience seem to be that Sonnet is much much better. Has anyone switched to entirely using Opus from Sonnet? Or maybe switching to Opus for certain things while using Sonnet for others?

I notice that on the "Agentic Coding" benchmark cited in the article Sonnet 4 outperformed Opus 4 (by 0.2%), and under performs Opus 4.1 (by -1.8%). So this release might change that consensus? If you believe the benchmarks are reflective of reality anyways.

> If you believe the benchmarks are reflective of reality anyways.

That's a big "if." But yeah, I can't tell a difference subjectively between Opus and Sonnet, other than maybe a sort of placebo effect. I'm more careful to write quality prompts when using Opus, because I don't want to waste the 5x more expensive tokens.

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#39
post #10

I'm confused by how Opus is presented to be superior in nearly every way for coding purposes yet the general consensus and my own experience seem to be that Sonnet is much much better. Has anyone switched to entirely using Opus from Sonnet? Or maybe switching to Opus for certain things while using Sonnet for others?

Every time that Sonnet is acting like it has brain damage (which is once or twice a day), I switch to Opus and it seems to sort things out pretty fast. This is unscientific anicdata though, and it could just be that switching models (any model) would have worked.

This seems like a case of reversion to the mean. When one model is performing below average, changing anything (like switching to another model) is likely to improve it by random chance...

Re: Claude Opus 4.1

#40
post #33
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They both seem to behave differently depending on how loaded the system seems to be.

I have suspected for a long time that hosted models load shed by diverting some requests to lesser models or running more quantized versions under high load.

I think OpenRouter saves tokens by summarizing queries through another model, IIRC.
Post reply on HN