Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#91

Post by rishabhaiover »

viraptor wrote: post #67
rishabhaiover wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're given a finite context window, what's the most efficient token to present for a programming task? sloppy prompts or actual code (using it with autocomplete)

I'm not sure you get how Cursor works. You add both instructions and code to your prompt. And it does provide its own autocomplete model as well. And... lots of people use that. (It's the largest platform today as far as I can tell)

I wish I didn't know how Cursor works. It's a great product for 90% of programmers out there no doubt.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#92

Post by screye »

827a wrote: post #12

I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI…

Gemini being terrible in Cursor is a well known problem.

Unfortunately, for all its engineers, Google seems the most incompetent at product work.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#93

Post by futureshock »

A really great way to get an idea of the relative cost and performance of these models at their various thinking budgets is to look at the ARC-AGI-2 leaderboard. Opus 4.5 stacks up very well here when you compare to Gemini 3’s score and cost. Gemini 3 Deep Think is still the current leaders but at more than 30x the cost.

The cost curve of achieving these scores is coming down rapidly. In Dec 2024 when OpenAI announced beating human performance on ARC-AGI-1, they spent more than $3k per task. You can get the same performance for pennies to dollars, approximately an 80x reduction in 11 months.

https://arcprize.org/leaderboard

https://arcprize.org/blog/oai-o3-pub-breakthrough

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#94

Post by jeswin »

vunderba wrote: post #36
827a wrote: post #12

I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI…

My workflow was usually to use Gemini 2.5 Pro (now 3.0) for high-level architecture and design. Then I would take the finished "spec" and have Sonnet 4.5 perform the actual implementation.

Same here. But with GPT 5.1 instead of Gemini.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#95

Post by edf13 »

bnchrch wrote: post #5

Seeing these benchmarks makes me so happy. Not because I love Anthropic (I do like them) but because it's staving off me having to change my Coding Agent. This world is changing fast, and both keeping up with State of the Art and/or the feeling of FOMO is exhausting. Ive been holding onto Claude Code for the last little while since Ive built up a robust set of habits, slash commands, and sub agents that help me squee…

I’m threw a few hours at Codex the other day and was incredibly disappointed with the outcome…

I’m a heavy Claude code user and similar workloads just didn’t work out well for me on Codex.

One of the areas I think is going to make a big difference to any model soon is speed. We can build error correcting systems into the tools - but the base models need more speed (and obviously with that lower costs)

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#96

Post by film42 »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #46

This is gonna be game-changing for the next 2-4 weeks before they nerf the model. Then for the next 2-3 months people complaining about the degradation will be labeled “skill issue”. Then a sacrificial Anthropic engineer will “discover” a couple obscure bugs that “in some cases” might have lead to less than optimal performance. Still largely a user skill issue though. Then a couple months later they’ll release Opus 4…

This is why I migrated my apps that need an LLM to Gemini. No model degradation so far all through the v2.5 model generation. What is Anthropic doing? Swapping for a quantized version of the model?

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#97

Post by emodendroket »

827a wrote: post #12

I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI…

Yeah I think Sonnet is still the best in my experience but the limits are so stingy I find it hard to recommend for personal use.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#99

Post by saaaaaam »

Anecdotally, I’ve been using opus 4.5 today via the chat interface to review several large and complex interdependent documents, fillet bits out of them and build a report. It’s very very good at this, and much better than opus 4.1. I actually didn’t realise that I was using opus 4.5 until I saw this thread.
Post reply on HN