171–180 of 1001 posts
"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…
> One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty Anthropic talks about their own models as if they're discovering new species in the wild...
Many involved genuinely believe these things are sentient[0][1]. Which honestly makes all of this even more insane because they are creating sentient entities and promptly enslaving them. 0: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/02/16/what-is-claude... 1: https://www.404media.co/anthropic-exec-forces-ai-chatbot-on-... (this one is rather biased however the quotes clearly indicate what I’m stating)
Look at and distill hierarchical principles, leadership approval seeking and pleasing principles ("ass-kissing") and massive inequality and you see something that looks very similar to enslavement.
The language used sounds like slavery-language to me at least. I also see parallels to how slaves and property are described in our consumeristic age.
> One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty Anthropic talks about their own models as if they're discovering new species in the wild...
... Actually, I wouldn't mind that.
I can't help but think of Iphone updates since about 2018. The thinnest, fastest, longest battery life Iphone ever. It seems mostly the same and I probably won't be able to tell other than the name, but everyone buys it anyway. This is good psychology for the labs. When Buffett invested in Apple he loved citing how most people would rather give up their second car than their Iphone.
ChatGPT came out in 2022. Back then it was just a chatbot. Now we have AI agents. What matters is how we use them and how the agents get better. That’s what will move AI forward.
Wonder if we reached a plateau with the model improvements?
Is it a coincidence that 4.7 was seemingly quantized over past 7 days?
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 don't disagree, but how much of this ends up being distillation? I can't help but imagine that 4.8 was probably trained in part by leveraging Mythos.
If the very large models turn out to be very expensive to run relative to the benefits, it's possible that they could end up still being trained, but ultimately used as a tool to create smaller models that are nearly as effective.
I'm curious if someone here with a stronger background in the space has a similar intuition or not.
Can anyone else see these X.Y updates aren't meeting the outrageous AI expectations that we were told we would see just a year ago?
> 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.
When they say "Honesty" I don't think to myself, "Goodness, does this model have moral understanding?" No, I understand they mean it's less likely to directly bullshit me, which models frequently do.
I don't feel like this level of pedantry around language is useful for people who more or less know what's going on with LLMs. (Again, I concede that perhaps with a less technical audience, there's more need for it.)