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

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#251

Post by petesergeant »

conartist6 wrote: post #168
NiloCK wrote: 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.

No question at all that a dolphin swims better than a submarine.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#252

Post by slashdave »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #136
NiloCK wrote: 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 think you are assuming training from scratch, which I doubt is happening here. Fine-tuning and RL, especially based on synthetic feedback (coding skill, in particular) can be ongoing and is where these models obtain truly useful abilities.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#253

Post by dwaltrip »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #119
NiloCK wrote: 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…

> My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that I don't firmly grasp any capabilities improvements over my memory of 4.5, but it's all so fuzzy that it's truly difficult to tell. I've actually intentionally switched back to 4.5. I hated 4.7 so much that I decided to jump back all the way to 4.5. Now that I've been using 4.5 for a few weeks, I find it significantly more reliable but a bit more forgetful than 4.6/4.7. I'm…

If you are using Claude code, just set effort to xhigh.

This one change will probably solve 80% of the problems you have noticed.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#254

Post by lxxpxlxxxx »

My experience with these new releases is that the gains in performance are negated by the price increases and it seems like:

Performance gains: 1.2x Price increases: 1.8x

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#255

Post by huflungdung »

northern-lights wrote: post #23

> Not only that, but we plan to release a new class of model with even higher intelligence than Opus. As part of Project Glasswing, a small number of organizations are currently using Claude Mythos Preview for cybersecurity work. Models of this capability level require stronger cyber safeguards before they can be generally released. We’re making swift progress on developing these safeguards and expect to be able to b…

[dead]

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#256

Post by Forgeties79 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #136
NiloCK wrote: 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.

I’d be surprised tbh. Investors don’t want to hear “everyone else is still training models and seeing improvements, but we don’t want to participate in the arms race anymore.” They want monumental leaps every quarter or two because they have sunk unholy amounts of money into these companies/products.

The whole idea of “hyper scale” doesn’t jive with caution and or otherwise slowing down.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#257

Post by vlovich123 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #136
NiloCK wrote: 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…

Took me a while to find what you were referring to by gram. Arxiv paper from 9 days ago that's not properly indexed by search engines.

(G)enerative (R)ecursive re(A)soning (M)odels. They really wanted the acronym.

https://arxiv.org/html/2605.19376v1

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#258

Post by [deleted] »

roxolotl wrote: post #48
clutch89 wrote: post #6

> 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)

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#259

Post by ddosmax556 »

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.

I would take all benchmarks with a grain of salt. I don't really use them. What's it supposed to tell me? "5% smarter", what does that mean? My experience will differ. Just try it!

I doubt Anthropic internally sets as a goal to improve this or that benchmark - it's just a way to visualize progress. They probably have much more complex metrics internally.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#260

Post by NiloCK »

conartist6 wrote: post #168
NiloCK wrote: 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.

I appreciate the generosity, but you're gonna want to meet me first.
Post reply on HN