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

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#421

Post by humanfromearth9 »

itay-maman wrote: post #204

Impressive results, but I keep coming back to a question: are there modes of thinking that fundamentally require something other than what current LLM architectures do? Take critical thinking — genuinely questioning your own assumptions, noticing when a framing is wrong, deciding that the obvious approach to a problem is a dead end. Or creativity — not recombination of known patterns, but the kind of leap where you r…

You would be surprised about what the 4.5 models can already do in these ways of thinking. I think that one can unlock this power with the right set of prompts. It's impressive, truly. It has already understood so much, we just need to reap the fruits. I'm really looking forward to trying the new version.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#422

Post by BosunoB »

surajkumar5050 wrote: post #396

I think two things are getting conflated in this discussion. First: marginal inference cost vs total business profitability. It’s very plausible (and increasingly likely) that OpenAI/Anthropic are profitable on a per-token marginal basis, especially given how cheap equivalent open-weight inference has become. Third-party providers are effectively price-discovering the floor for inference. Second: model lifecycle econ…

Dario said this in a podcast somewhere. The models themselves have so far been profitable if you look at their lifetime costs and revenue. Annual profitability just isn't a very good lens for AI companies because costs all land in one year and the revenue all comes in the next. Prolific AI haters like Ed Zitron make this mistake all the time.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#423

Post by krzyk »

georgeven wrote: post #356
ifwinterco wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On benchmarks GPT 5.2 was roughly equivalent to Opus 4.5 but most people who've used both for SWE stuff would say that Opus 4.5 is/was noticeably better

Interesting. Everyone in my circle said the opposite.

It probably depends on programming language and expectations.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#424

Post by pluralmonad »

wavemode wrote: post #411
holoduke wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude is by far the most popular and best assistant currently available for a developer.

Okay, and Windows is by far the most popular desktop operating system. Discussions are pointless when the parties are talking past each other.

Popular meaning lots of people like it or that it is relatively widespread? Polio used to be popular in the latter way.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#425

Post by 9dev »

bityard wrote: post #329
neuronexmachina wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claude now automatically records and recalls memories as it works Neat: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory I guess it's kind of like Google Antigravity's "Knowledge" artifacts?

If it works anything like the memories on Copilot (which have been around for quite a while), you need to be pretty explicit about it being a permanent preference for it to be stored as a memory. For example, "Don't use emoji in your response" would only be relevant for the current chat session, whereas this is more sticky: "I never want to see emojis from you, you sub-par excuse for a roided-out spreadsheet"

> you sub-par excuse for a roided-out spreadsheet

That’s harsh, man.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#426

Post by beemboy »

simonw wrote: post #40

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

Isn't there a point at which it trains itself on these various outputs, or someone somewhere draws one and feeds it into the model so as to pass this benchmark?

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#427

Post by CraigJPerry »

ifwinterco wrote: post #340
wasmainiac wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumb question. Can these benchmarks be trusted when the model performance tends to vary depending on the hours and load on OpenAI’s servers? How do I know I’m not getting a severe penalty for chatting at the wrong time. Or even, are the models best after launch then slowly eroded away at to more economical settings after the hype wears off?

On benchmarks GPT 5.2 was roughly equivalent to Opus 4.5 but most people who've used both for SWE stuff would say that Opus 4.5 is/was noticeably better

There's an extended thinking mode for GPT 5.2 i forget the name of it right at this minute. It's super slow - a 3 minute opus 4.5 prompt is circa 12 minutes to complete in 5.2 on that super extended thinking mode but it is not a close race in terms of results - GPT 5.2 wins by a handy margin in that mode. It's just too slow to be useable interactively though.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#428

Post by insane_dreamer »

copilot_king_2 wrote: post #128
simonw wrote: post #40

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

I'm firing all of my developers this afternoon.

Too late. You’ve already been fired by a moltbot agent from your PHB.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#429

Post by 9dev »

elAhmo wrote: post #404
trymas wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s so simple about it?

I said relatively simple. It is mostly an API interface with Anthropic models, with tool calling on top of it, very simple input and output.

I’m pretty certain you haven’t used it yet(to its fullest extent) then. Claude Code is easily one of the most complex terminal UIs I have seen yet.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#430

Post by joshvm »

Trufa wrote: post #379
tedsanders wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't vary our model quality with time of day or load (beyond negligible non-determinism). It's the same weights all day long with no quantization or other gimmicks. They can get slower under heavy load, though. (I'm from OpenAI.)

Can you be more specific than this? does it vary in time from launch of a model to the next few months, beyond tinkering and optimization?

My gut feeling is that performance is more heavily affected by harnesses which get updated frequently. This would explain why people feel that Claude is sometimes more stupid - that's actually accurate phrasing, because Sonnet is probably unchanged. Unless Anthropic also makes small A/B adjustments to weights and technically claims they don't do dynamic degradation/quantization based on load. Either way, both affect the quality of your responses.

It's worth checking different versions of Claude Code, and updating your tools if you don't do it automatically. Also run the same prompts through VS Code, Cursor, Claude Code in terminal, etc. You can get very different model responses based on the system prompt, what context is passed via the harness, how the rules are loaded and all sorts of minor tweaks.

If you make raw API calls and see behavioural changes over time, that would be another concern.

Post reply on HN