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

Claude Opus 4.8

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#101

Post by ealready_value »

james_marks wrote: post #26

> One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty. We train all our models to be honest—for instance, to avoid making claims that they can’t support. But a general problem with AI models is that they sometimes jump to conclusions, confidently claiming to have made progress in their work despite the evidence being thin. Early testers report that Opus 4.8 is more likely to flag uncertainties about its…

Opus 4.7 was already trying hard to appear honest. Most conversations I have with it about advice or focusing an opinion often include "my honest take" or "my honest opinion".

The problem is that once I asked it "I'm thinking about A or B" twice, once with "I like A more but suspect B would be best" and a second time with them reversed. Not surprisingly, both times it chose the one I said I suspected was best as it's honest opinion.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#103

Post by tarruda »

> One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty.

Does that mean it no longer deletes or changes tests to make it pass?

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#104

Post by wg0 »

There is a hole in the boat's bottom due to Chinese models. They might not be as good but they are not bad either or at least I had hard time finding any issues with Deepseekv4 Flash and Pro variants. They get their job done sometimes rarely giving up till they are done what they are after.

So even for enterprise deployments, as the dust settles down, CFO/CTOs might find out that deploying on an internal cluster of GPUs is far more cheaper and reliable for their organisational needs than paying someone else for burned tokens.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#106

Post by geodel »

ropintus wrote: post #65

Opus 4.7 was acting extremely stupid today. Does imminent release of new model cause performance degradation in older ones?

Feeling neglected while all attention going to Opus 4.8 can be cause of 4.7 acting out.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#107

Post by Tenoke »

Claude Code has been wonderful for work and the frequent improvements are nice, although with Mythos being used by others ages ago and new versions for the public still being bellow that, it's hard to not feel like the underclass already.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#108

Post by cedws »

I'm very suspicious of these same price model launches. It feels like they're benchmaxxed so they can put everyone on them and reduce their compute costs behind the scenes. If the model were genuinely better why wouldn't they charge more for it? Charging the same for something better is a race to the bottom.

Opus 4.7 wasn't noticably any better for me, I still use 4.6 because it's cheaper.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#109

Post by swader999 »

majormajor wrote: post #56
james_marks wrote: post #26

> One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty. We train all our models to be honest—for instance, to avoid making claims that they can’t support. But a general problem with AI models is that they sometimes jump to conclusions, confidently claiming to have made progress in their work despite the evidence being thin. Early testers report that Opus 4.8 is more likely to flag uncertainties about its…

"Honesty" seems like unnecessary (and annoying) anthropomorphism there. I don't think there's any intent of fraud or deception in outputs from these things, just overreaching of prediction. Based on the latter part of the paragraph, I wish they'd just say something like "less likely to skip steps or overemphasize thin evidence" in the first place. Don't play to the sci-fi "this thing's trying to outsmart me" tropes.

Just swap 'Honesty' with 'correctness in its claims' and you'll get what you need out of this aspect of the model description.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#110

Post by nerevarthelame »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #13

Does anyone troll these releases and cherry pick random metrics other companies would cherry pick to show how amazing their models are? There's like 8 million benchmarks. Every release, every model randomly picks 5-10 where they win in everything except 1, to make it look like they aren't randomly cherry picking benchmarks they probably benchmaxxed for.

It's interesting they only included 6 metrics this time. Opus 4.7 had 12, and 4.6 had 13.

Of the metircs they reported for 4.7, for 4.8 they excluded BrowseComp, CharXiv Reasoning, CyberGym, GPQA Diamond, MCP Atlas, MMMLU, SWE-bench Verified. The last 4 were almost always mentioned in previous Opus releases.

Post reply on HN