Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic.com

131–140 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1M context is not available via subscription - only via API usage

Well this is extremely disappointing to say the least.

It says "subscription users do not have access to Opus 4.6 1M context at launch" so they are probably planning to roll it out to subscription users too.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#133
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amateur. Opus 4.6 this afternoon built me a startup that identifies developers who aren’t embracing AI fully, liquifies them and sells the produce for $5/gallon. Software Engineering is over!

Bringing me back to slashdot, this thread

In Soviet Russia, this thread brings Slashdot back to YOU!

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please drop the link to your course. I'm ready to hand over $10K to learn from you and your LLM-generated guides!

I'm waiting until the $10k course is discounted to 19.99

But only for the next 6 minutes, buy fast!

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#136

This is huge. It only came out 8 minutes ago but I was already able to bootstrap a 12k per month revenue SaaS startup!

Please drop the link to your course. I'm ready to hand over $10K to learn from you and your LLM-generated guides!

Here you go: http://localhost:8080

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#138

Does anyone with more insight into the AI/LLM industry happen to know if the cost to run them in normal user-workflows is falling? The reason I'm asking is because "agent teams" while a cool concept, it largely constrained by the economics of running multiple LLM agents (i.e. plans/API calls that make this practical at scale are expensive). A year or more ago, I read that both Anthropic and OpenAI were losing money o…

> A year or more ago, I read that both Anthropic and OpenAI were losing money on every single request even for their paid subscribers

This gets repeated everywhere but I don't think it's true.

The company is unprofitable overall, but I don't see any reason to believe that their per-token inference costs are below the marginal cost of computing those tokens.

It is true that the company is unprofitable overall when you account for R&D spend, compensation, training, and everything else. This is a deliberate choice that every heavily funded startup should be making, otherwise you're wasting the investment money. That's precisely what the investment money is for.

However I don't think using their API and paying for tokens has negative value for the company. We can compare to models like DeepSeek where providers can charge a fraction of the price of OpenAI tokens and still be profitable. OpenAI's inference costs are going to be higher, but they're charging such a high premium that it's hard to believe they're losing money on each token sold. I think every token paid for moves them incrementally closer to profitability, not away from it.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#139
post #105

Hmm all leaks had said this would be Claude 5. Wonder if it was a last minute demotion due to performance. Would explain the few days' delay as well.

Leaks were mentioning Sonnet 5 and I guess later (a combination of) Opus 4.6

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#140
post #40

The bicycle frame is a bit wonky but the pelican itself is great: https://gist.github.com/simonw/a6806ce41b4c721e240a4548ecdbe...

best pelican so far would you say? Or where does it rank in the pelican benchmark?

In other words, is it a pelican or a pelican't?
Post reply on HN