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

141–150 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#141

Post by redfloatplane »

Robdel12 wrote: post #108
redfloatplane wrote: post #90

On my Max plan, Opus 4.5 is now the default model! Until now I used Sonnet 4.5 exclusively and never used Opus, even for planning - I'm shocked that this is so cheap (for them) that it can be the default now. I'm curious what this will mean for the daily/weekly limits. A short run at a small toy app makes me feel like Opus 4.5 is a bit slower than Sonnet 4.5 was, but that could also just be the day-one load it's pres…

Right! I thought this at the very bottom was super interesting > For Claude and Claude Code users with access to Opus 4.5, we’ve removed Opus-specific caps. For Max and Team Premium users, we’ve increased overall usage limits, meaning you’ll have roughly the same number of Opus tokens as you previously had with Sonnet. We’re updating usage limits to make sure you’re able to use Opus 4.5 for daily work. These limits a…

It looks like they've now added a Sonnet cap which is the same as the previous cap:

> Nov 24, 2025 update:

> We've increased your limits and removed the Opus cap, so you can use Opus 4.5

> up to your overall limit. Sonnet now has its own limit—it's set to match your

> previous overall limit, so you can use just as much as before. We may continue

> to adjust limits as we learn how usage patterns evolve over time.

Quite interesting. From their messaging in the blog post and elsewhere, I think they're betting on Opus being significantly smarter in the sense of 'needs fewer tokens to do the same job', and thus cheaper. I'm curious how this will go.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#142

Post by jammaloo »

jiggawatts wrote: post #111
egeozcan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ho…

Is there any chance you'd be willing to share that tool? :)

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#143

Post by adastra22 »

firloop wrote: post #123
HugoDias wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL! I'll finally give Claude Code a try. I've been using Cursor since it launched and never tried anything else. The terminal UI didn't appeal to me, but knowing it has better performance, I'll check it out. Cursor has been a terrible experience lately, regardless of the model. Sometimes for the same task, I need to try with Sonnet 4.5, ChatGPT 5.1 Codex, Gemini Pro 3... and most times, none managed to do the work,…

You can install the Claude Code VS Code extension in Cursor and you get a similar AI side pane as the main Cursor composer.

That’s just Claude Code then. Why use cursor?

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#144

Post by throwuxiytayq »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #101
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…

I fully agree that this is what's happening. I'm quite convinced after about a year of using all these tools via the "pro" plans that all these companies are throttling their models in sophisticated ways that have a poorly understood but significant impact on quality and consistency. Gpt-5.1-* are fully nerfed for me at the moment. Maybe they're giving others the real juice but they're not giving it to me. Gpt-5-* ga…

y’all hallucinating harder than GPT2 on DMT

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#145

Post by wahnfrieden »

adriand wrote: post #137
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…

Don't throw away what's working for you just because some other company (temporarily) leapfrogs Anthropic a few percent on a benchmark. There's a lot to be said for what you're good at. I also really want Anthropic to succeed because they are without question the most ethical of the frontier AI labs.

Aren’t they pursuing regulatory capture for monopoly like conditions? I can’t trust any edge in consumer friendliness when those are their longer term goal and tactics they employ today toward it. It reeks of permformativity

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#146

Post by Rastonbury »

jjcm wrote: post #62
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…

Tangental observation - I've noticed Gemini 3 Pro's train of thought feels very unique. It has kind of an emotive personality to it, where it's surprised or excited by what it finds. It feels like a senior developer looking through legacy code and being like, "wtf is this??". I'm curious if this was a deliberate effort on their part, and if they found in testing it provided better output. It's still behind other mode…

Yeah it's COT is interesting, it was supposedly RL on evaluations and gets paranoid that it's being evaluated and in a simulation. I asked it to critique output from another LLM and told it my colleague produced it, in COT it kept writing "colleague" in quotes as if it didn't believe me which I found amusing

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#147

Post by adastra22 »

Does it follow directions? I’ve found Sonnet 4.5 to be useless for automated workflows because it refuses to follow directions. I hope they didn’t take the same RLHF approach they did with that model.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#148

Post by verdverm »

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…

> played around with

You'll never get an accurate comparison if you only play

We know by now that it takes time to "get to know a model and it's quirks"

So if you don't use a model and cannot get equivalent outputs to your daily driver, that's expected and uninteresting

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#149

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

sharkjacobs wrote: post #129
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…

3x price drop almost certainly means Opus 4.5 is a different and smaller base model than Opus 4.1, with more fine tuning to target the benchmarks. I'll be curious to see how performance compares to Opus 4.1 on the kind of tasks and metrics they're not explicitly targeting, e.g. eqbench.com

It seems plausible that it's a similar size model and that the 3x drop is just additional hardware efficiency/lowered margin.
Post reply on HN