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

111–120 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#111

Post by jiggawatts »

egeozcan wrote: post #64
lvl155 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don’t understand the hype around Gemini. Opus/Sonnet/GPT are much better for agentic workflows. Seems people get hyped for the first few days. It also has a lot to do with Claude code and Codex.

I'm completely the opposite. I find Gemini (even 2.5 Pro) much, much better than anything else. But I hate agentic flows, I upload the full context to it in aistudio and then it shines - anything agentic cannot even come close.

I recently wrote a small CLI tool for scanning through legacy codebases. For each file, it does a light parse step to find every external identifier (function call, etc...), reads those into the context, and then asks questions about the main file in question.

It's amazing for trawling through hundreds of thousands of lines of code looking for a complex pattern, a bug, bad style, or whatever that regex could never hope to find.

For example, I recently went through tens of megabytes(!) of stored procedures looking for transaction patterns that would be incompatible with read committed snapshot isolation.

I got an astonishing report out of Gemini Pro 3, it was absolutely spot on. Most other models barfed on this request, they got confused or started complaining about future maintainability issues, stylistic problems or whatever, no matter how carefully I prompted them to focus on the task at hand. (Gemini Pro 2.5 did okay too, but it missed a few issues and had a lot of false positives.)

Fixing RCSI incompatibilities in a large codebase used to be a Herculean task, effectively a no-go for most of my customers, now... eminently possible in a month or less, at the cost of maybe $1K in tokens.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#112

Post by andreybaskov »

Does anyone know or have a guess on the size of this latest thinking models and what hardware they use to run inference? As in how much memory and what quantization it uses and if it's "theoretically" possible to run it on something like Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 512GB RAM. Just curious from theoretical perspective.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#113

Post by shepherdjerred »

losvedir wrote: post #102
llamasushi wrote: post #30

The burying of the lede here is insane. $5/$25 per MTok is a 3x price drop from Opus 4. At that price point, Opus stops being "the model you use for important things" and becomes actually viable for production workloads. Also notable: they're claiming SOTA prompt injection resistance. The industry has largely given up on solving this problem through training alone, so if the numbers in the system card hold up under a…

I almost scrolled past the "Safety" section, because in the past it always seemed sort of silly sci-fi scaremongering (IMO) or things that I would classify as "sharp tool dangerous in the wrong hands". But I'm glad I stopped, because it actually talked about real, practical issues like the prompt injections that you mention. I wonder if the industry term "safety" is pivoting to refer to other things now.

I thought AI safety was dumb/unimportant until I saw this dataset of dangerous prompts: https://github.com/mlcommons/ailuminate/blob/main/airr_offic...

I don't love the idea of knowledge being restricted... but I also think these tools could result in harm to others in the wrong hands

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#114

Post by mudkipdev »

jedberg wrote: post #80

Up until today, the general advice was use Opus for deep research, use Haiku for everything else. Given the reduction in cost here, does that rule of thumb no longer apply?

In my opinion Haiku is capable but there is no reason to use anything lower than Sonnet unless you are hitting usage limits

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#115

Post by serf »

arghwhat wrote: post #49
chinathrow wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave Sonnet 4.5 a base64 encoded PHP serialize() json of an object dump and told him to extraxt the URL within. It gave me the Youtube-URL to Rick Astley.

If you're asking an LLM to compute something "off the top of its head", you're using it wrong. Ask it to write the code to perform the computation and it'll do better. Same with asking a person to solve something in their head vs. giving them an editor and a random python interpreter, or whatever it is normal people use to solve problems.

the decent models will (mostly) decide when they need to write code for problem solving themselves.

either way a reply with a bogus answer is the fault of the provider and model, not the question-asker -- if we all need to carry lexicons around to remember how to ask the black box a question we may as well just learn a programming language outright.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#116

Post by thot_experiment »

It's really hard for me to take these benchmarks seriously at all, especially that first one where Sonnet 4.5 is better at software engineering than Opus 4.1.

It is emphatically not, it has never been, I have used both models extensively and I have never encountered a single situation where Sonnet did a better job than Opus. Any coding benchmark that has Sonnet above Opus is broken, or at the very least measuring things that are totally irrelevant to my usecases.

This in particular isn't my "oh the teachers lie to you moment" that makes you distrust everything they say, but it really hammers the point home. I'm glad there's a cost drop, but at this point my assumption is that there's also going to be a quality drop until I can prove otherwise in real world testing.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#117

Post by ximeng »

With less token usage, cheaper pricing, and enhanced usage limits for Opus, Anthropic are taking the fight to Gemini and OpenAI Codex. Coding agent performance leads to better general work and personal task performance, so if Anthropic continue to execute well on ergonomics they have a chance to overcome their distribution disadvantages versus the other top players.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#118

Post by CuriouslyC »

I hate on Anthropic a fair bit, but the cost reduction, quota increases and solid "focused" model approach are real wins. If they can get their infrastructure game solid, improve claude code performance consistency and maintain high levels of transparency I will officially have to start saying nice things about them.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#119

Post by waynenilsen »

andai wrote: post #40

Why do they always cut off 70% of the y-axis? Sure it exaggerates the differences, but... it exaggerates the differences. And they left Haiku out of most of the comparisons! That's the most interesting model for me. Because for some tasks it's fine. And it's still not clear to me which ones those are. Because in my experience, Haiku sits at this weird middle point where, if you have a well defined task, you can use a…

marketing.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#120

Post by agentifysh »

again the question of concern as codex user is usage

its hard to get any meaningful use out of claude pro

after you ship a few features you are pretty much out of weekly usage

compared to what codex-5.1-max offers on a plan that is 5x cheaper

the 4~5% improvement is welcome but honestly i question whether its possible to get meaningful usage out of it the way codex allows it

for most use cases medium or 4.5 handles things well but anthropic seems to have way less usage limits than what openai is subsidizing

until they can match what i can get out of codex it won't be enough to win me back

edit: I upgraded to claude max! read the blog carefully and seems like opus 4.5 is lifted in usage as well as sonnet 4.5!

Post reply on HN