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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#991

Post by thehamkercat »

bdangubic wrote: post #528
thehamkercat wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with opencode and gemini, it's disgusting Codex (by openai ironically) seems to be the fastest/most-responsive, opens instantly and is written in rust but doesn't contain that many features Claude opens in around 3-4 seconds Opencode opens in 2 seconds Gemini-cli is an abomination which opens in around 16 second for me right now, and in 8 seconds on a fresh install Codex takes 50ms for reference... -- If their m…

50ms to open and then 2hrs to solve a simple problem vs 4s to open and then 5m to solve a problem, eh?

The "50ms" number was measured by me and you can literally try it on your system as well. it will likely be faster than 50ms

Do you have a proof that gpt-5.2 or 5.3 codex takes 2 hours for the same problem that sonnet/opus4.5/4.6 take 5 minutes to solve? (I use both anthropic and openai models daily almost equally, and i'm not relating to what you said)

Sure codex-cli lacks way-too many features compared to claude-code (I use opencode), but your statement implies that openai models are absolute garbage (2h vs 5m to solve a problem)

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#992

Post by [deleted] »

gizmodo59 wrote: post #107

5.3 codex https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-3-codex/ crushes with a 77.3% in Terminal Bench. The shortest lived lead in less than 35 minutes. What a time to be alive!

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#994

Post by FuckButtons »

atonse wrote: post #513
krystofbe wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did some debugging on this today. The results are... sobering. Memory comparison of AI coding CLIs (single session, idle): | Tool | Footprint | Peak | Language | |-------------|-----------|--------|---------------| | Codex | 15 MB | 15 MB | Rust | | OpenCode | 130 MB | 130 MB | Go | | Claude Code | 360 MB | 746 MB | Node.js/React | That's a 24x to 50x difference for tools that do the same thing: send text to an API…

Jarred Sumner (bun creator, bun was recently acquired by Anthropic) has been working exclusively on bringing down memory leaks and improving performance in CC the last couple weeks. He's been tweeting his progress. This is just regular tech debt that happens from building something to $1bn in revenue as fast as you possibly can, optimize later. They're optimizing now. I'm sure they'll have it under control in no time…

Bold of you to assume this is a quick fix. How many software projects have you worked on that went from a buggy poorly optimized mess into a streamlined efficient system? I can think of exactly 0 from personal experience, all the ones I’ve worked on that were performant at the end had that in mind from their inception.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#995

Post by NeroVanbierv »

ck_one wrote: post #482

Just tested the new Opus 4.6 (1M context) on a fun needle-in-a-haystack challenge: finding every spell in all Harry Potter books. All 7 books come to ~1.75M tokens, so they don't quite fit yet. (At this rate of progress, mid-April should do it ) For now you can fit the first 4 books (~733K tokens). Results: Opus 4.6 found 49 out of 50 officially documented spells across those 4 books. The only miss was "Slugulus Eruc…

Just did a similar experiment but outside the harry potter universe to remove the training bias. It worked well!

> ChatGPT: "Generate a two page short story like harry potter, but don´t mention anyting harry potter related. make up 4 unique spells in the story that are used"

Response see https://chatgpt.com/share/698af9cd-f628-800d-9250-b260f1478c...

> Claude: "What unique wizarding spells can you find in this story? [story]"

Response = https://i.imgur.com/Jzzs3PC.png

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#996

Post by 8note »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #729
legitster wrote: post #72

I'm still not sure I understand Anthropic's general strategy right now. They are doing these broad marketing programs trying to take on ChatGPT for "normies". And yet their bread and butter is still clearly coding. Meanwhile, Claude's general use cases are... fine. For generic research topics, I find that ChatGPT and Gemini run circles around it: in the depth of research, the type of tasks it can handle, and the qual…

I really like that Claude feels transactional. It answers my question quickly and concisely and then shuts up. I don't need the LLM I use to act like my best friend.

as a problem, it means you need a ralph loop on top of it, if you want it to finish a problem without it waiting on a checkpoint

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#997

Post by 8note »

jsheard wrote: post #38
blibble wrote: post #17

> We build Claude with Claude. Our engineers write code with Claude Code every day well that explains quite a bit

CC has >6000 open issues, despite their bot auto-culling them after 60 days of inactivity. It was ~5800 when I looked just a few days ago so they seem to be accelerating towards some kind of bug singularity.

its really popular, and having claude code makes it really easy to sumbit issues and make wild guesses about issues.

i wonder how many are real and not duplicates. i doubt github is well setup to handle said volume

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#998

Post by ggrab »

MarcellusDrum wrote: post #825
grey-area wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the corpus Opus 4.6 ingested would include whatever reference you used to check the spells were there. I mean, there are probably dozens of pages on the internet like this: https://www.wizardemporium.com/blog/complete-list-of-harry-p... Why is this impressive? Do you think it's actually ingesting the books and only using those as a reference? Is that how LLMs work at all? It seems more likely it's predicting t…

So a good test would be replacing the spell names in the books with made-up spells. And if a "real" spell name was given, it also tests whether it "cheated".

I've run that experiment now, spoiler: It cheated with its pre-training knowledge https://georggrab.net/content/opus46retrieval.html

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#999

Post by nobodywillobsrv »

Szpadel wrote: post #823
nobodywillobsrv wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I have found that grok for example actually suddenly becomes quite sane when you tell it to stop querying the internet And just rethink the conversation data and answer the question. It's weird, it's like many agents are now in a phase of constantly getting more information and never just thinking with what they've got.

but isn't it what we wanted? we complained so much that LLM uses deprecated or outdated apis instead of current version because they relied so much on what they remembered

To be clear, what I mean is that grok will query 30 pages and then answer your question vaguely or wrongly and then ask for clarification of what it meant and then it goes and requeries everything again ... I can imagine why it might need to revisit pages etc and it might be a UI thing but it still feels like until you yell at it to stop searching for answers to summarise it doesn't activate it's "think with what you got" mode.

I guess we could call this gathering and then do your best conditional on what you found right now.

Re: Claude Opus 4.6

#1000

Post by MarcellusDrum »

ggrab wrote: post #998
MarcellusDrum wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a good test would be replacing the spell names in the books with made-up spells. And if a "real" spell name was given, it also tests whether it "cheated".

I've run that experiment now, spoiler: It cheated with its pre-training knowledge https://georggrab.net/content/opus46retrieval.html

Thanks for trying! Good to know.
Post reply on HN