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

231–240 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#231

Post by undeveloper »

jstummbillig wrote: post #124
agentifysh wrote: post #120

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 t…

Well, that's where the price reduction comes in handy, no?

Sonnet is still $3/25M tokens, and peoples still had many many complaints

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#232

Post by llm_nerd »

tifik wrote: post #220
tekacs wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also super relevant for everyone who had ditched Claude Code due to limits: > 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…

I like that for this brief moment we actually have a competitive market working in favor of consumers. I ditched my Claude subscription in favor of Gemini just last week. It won't be great when we enter the cartel equilibrium.

Literally "cancelled" my Anthropic subscription this morning (meaning disabled renewal), annoyed hitting Opus limits again. Going to enable billing again.

The neat thing is that Anthropic might be able to do this as they massively moving their models to Google TPUs (Google just opened up third party usage of v7 Ironwood, and Anthropic planned on using a million TPUs), dramatically reducing their nvidia-tax spend.

Which is why I'm not bullish on nvidia. The days of it being able to get the outrageous margins it does are drawing to a close.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#233

Post by bwat49 »

sumedh wrote: post #164
config_yml wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I‘ve had no success using Antigravity, which is a shame because the ideas are promising, but the execution so far is underwhelming. Haven‘t gotten past an initial plannin doc which is usually aborted due to model provider overload or rate limiting.

Give it a try now, the launch day issues have gone. If anyone uses Windsurf, Anti Gravity is similar but the way they have implemented walkthrough and implementation plan looks good. It tells the user what the model is going to do and the user can put in line comments if they want to change something.

it's better than at launch, but I still get random model response errors in anti-gravity. it has potential, but google really needs to work on the reliability.

It's also bizarre how they force everyone onto the "free" rate limits, even those paying for google ai subscriptions.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#234

Post by pertymcpert »

chrisweekly wrote: post #126
edf13 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Any experience w/ Haiku-4.5? Your "heavy Claude code user" and "speed" comment gave me hope you might have insights. TIA

Not GP but my experience with Haiku-4.5 has been poor. It certainly doesn't feel like Sonnet 4.0 level performance. It looked at some python test failures and went in a completely wrong direction in trying to address a surface level detail rather than understanding the real cause of the problem. Tested it with Sonnet 4.5 and it did it fine, as an experienced human would.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#235

Post by burgerone »

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…

Using AI in production is no doubt an enormous security risk...

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#236

Post by zsoltkacsandi »

pertymcpert wrote: post #229
zsoltkacsandi wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving the same prompt resulting in totally different results is not user evaluation. Nor psychological. You cannot tell the customer you are working for as a developer, that hey, first time it did what you asked, second time it ruined everything, but look, here is the benchmark from Antrophic, according to this there is nothing wrong. The only thing that matters and that can evaluate performance is the end result. B…

The models are non-deterministic. You can't just assume that because it did better before that it was on average better than before. And the variance is quite large.

No one talked about determinism. First it was able to do a task, second time not. It’s not that the implementation details changed.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#237

Post by svnt »

bgrainger wrote: post #205
mritchie712 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 part of it is this[0] and I expect it will become more of a problem. Claude models have built-in tools (e.g. `str_replace_editor`) which they've been trained to use. These tools don't exist in Cursor, but claude really wants to use them. 0 - https://x.com/thisritchie/status/1944038…

This feels like a dumb question, but why doesn't Cursor implement that tool? I built my own simple coding agent six months ago, and I implemented str_replace_based_edit_tool ( https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/tool-us... ) for Claude to use; it wasn't hard to do.

Maybe this is a flippant response, but I guess they are more of a UI company and want to avoid competing with the frontier model companies?

They also can’t get at the models directly enough, so anything they layer in would seem guaranteed to underperform and/or consume context instead of potentially relieving that pressure.

Any LLM-adjacent infrastructure they invest in risks being obviated before they can get users to notice/use it.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#238

Post by agentifysh »

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…

wish they really bolded that part because i almost passed off on it until i read the blog carefully

instant upgrade to claude max 20x if they give opus 4.5 out like this

i still like codex-5.1 and will keep it.

gemini cli missed its opportunity again now money is hedged between codex and claude.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#239

Post by threeducks »

docjay wrote: post #189
andreybaskov wrote: post #112

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.

That all depends on what you consider to be reasonably running it. Huge RAM isn’t required to run them, that just makes them faster. I imagine technically all you'd need is a few hundred megabytes for the framework and housekeeping, but you’d have to wait for the some/most/all of the model to be read off the disk for each token it processes. None of the closed providers talk about size, but for a reference point of t…

    > (~1TB / SSD_read_speed + computation_time_per_chunk_in_RAM) = a few minutes per ~word or punctuation.
You have to divide SSD read speed by the size of the active parameters (~16GB at 4 bit quantization) instead of the entire model size. If you are lucky, you might get around one token per second with speculative decoding, but I agree with the general point that it will be very slow.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#240

Post by detroitcoder »

diego_sandoval wrote: post #190
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 personally jumped ship from Claude to OpenAI due to the rate-limiting in Claude, and have no intention of coming back unless I get convinced that the new limits are at least double of what they were when I left. Even if the code generated by Claude is slightly better, with GPT, I can send as many requests as I want and have no fear or running into any limit, so I feel free to experiment and screw up if necessary.

You can switch to consumption-based usage and bypass this all together but it can be expensive. I run an enterprise account and my biggest users spend ~2,000 a month on claude code (not sdk or api). I tried to switch them to subscription based at $250 and they got rate limited on the first/second day of usage like you described. I considered trying to have them default to subscription and then switch to consumption when they get rate limited, but I didn't want to burden them with that yet.

However for many of our users that are CC users they actually don't hit the $250 number most months so its actually cheaper to use consumption in many use cases surprisingly.

Post reply on HN