Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.8

anthropic.com

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#161

"Users will find Opus 4.8 to be a modest but tangible improvement on its predecessor." This is a refreshing attitude! I've also verified that you can now turn off adaptive thinking in the web UI, which is great. I've had a lot of problems with thinking not triggering and the model producing sub-par output. Glad we can finally turn it off. (I hope being able to turn off adaptive thinking is new, if I could have turned…

Awesome, thanks for posting because I think I hit a possibly-spurious bug in turning Adaptive off when I switched models (4.6 -> 4.8, extra). Tried again, works as intended (I hope).

More importantly for me, though, is how CC will respond to 4.6-"only" flags for thinking. For now, it doesn't seem to clobber my setup.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#162
post #73

I generated pelicans riding bicycles on both thinking level low and thinking level high: https://gist.github.com/simonw/68560eddb0b268a8417f80ceb7304... The high one is notably better - the bicycle frame is the correct shape, unlike thinking level low. For comparison, here's Opus 4.7: https://gist.github.com/simonw/afcb19addf3f38eb1996e1ebe749c...

Hey simonw I love your test, do you think using thinking level "max" makes sense for this test? I would love to see the results about it.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#163

I know it’s totally anecdotal, but I really hope 4.8 is a measurable improvement over the disappointment that was Opus 4.7. Mangling a very simple inversion-of-control abstraction (among many other issues) was one of the final straws that broke the proverbial camel’s back and I said “screw this” and put in a permanent override to force CC back to Opus 4.6 with the 1‑million‑token context. "model": "claude-opus-4-6[1M…

4.5 works well for me too and avoids adaptive-dismissal, though anymore Codex is crushing them all. If 4.8 just brings us back to Opus circa February, it'll be a massive improvement.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#165
/model claude-opus-4-8

seems to work but idk why they never set it so you can see it in the /model list.

"what model are you

I'm Claude Opus (claude-opus-4-8), running in Claude Code."

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#166

> As always, we ran a detailed alignment assessment on the model before release. In terms of positive traits, our Alignment team concluded that Opus 4.8 “reaches new highs on our measures of prosocial traits like supporting user autonomy and acting in the user’s best interest.” The assessment also showed Opus 4.8 to have rates of misaligned behavior (such as deception or cooperation with misuse) that are substantiall…

Deception is not ideal for agentic coding.

Yet if parent is right, the capacity to deceive might be a strong heuristic for the things you do care about.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#167
post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

I won't be surprised if the next gen frontier models are the last. There's orders of magnitude of low hanging juice to squeeze out of smaller models. It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years (design not certain, probably unlikely). It is far less clear that a 1.2T model will be meaningfully better enough to justify training it. As far as reasoning is con…

> I won't be surprised if the next gen frontier models are the last.

the last?!? I'm excited to see :) I'll take the other side of that since llms are so new

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#168
post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

Just want to say there's no question that you're smarter than any (and every) AI.
Post reply on HN