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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#321

Post by ac29 »

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…

More interesting than that to me is "we’re working on developing and releasing models that provide many of the same capabilities as Opus at a lower cost"

Sonnet and Haiku look real outclassed for the price with current Chinese competition.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#322

Post by gs17 »

osti wrote: post #222
atentaten wrote: post #164

At least it passes the Car Wash Test this time.

Meh, I feel that the car wash test is probably the worst question of all of those LLM test questions. The question is basically logically inconsistent and expect the model to work around the inconsistency.

It seems like a fine question to me. If the question is "logically inconsistent" (IMO it's more that it's vague if you don't say why you're going there), then we want a model to respond with a request asking for clarification that resolves the inconsistency to generate a correct answer, or an answer that outlines the different cases. Some models even fail when you say that you need to wash your car in the prompt.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#323

Post by Tepix »

nikolay wrote: post #182

Give us Mythos! This piecemealing doesn't help Anthropic at all, especially psychologically! They are playing a dangerous game, and I see many people leaving Claude Code for good - both due to the subsidy games, and for Anthropic not dogfooding and using unreleased models internally and giving us subpar ones. Benchmarks are nice, but the real-world experience is quite different - neither can you notice these slight i…

I'm sure waiting another week or three won't kill you.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#324

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

hellohello2 wrote: post #292
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years" What insight do you have to make this claim?

1. Context is all you need... They are heavily investing in getting better context (especially for coding tasks). This will disproportionately advantage smaller models (and benefit everyone).

A smaller model with better context today can outperform a model with 100x more parameters with bad or diluted context.

2. MoE (already abundant) + MLA (mostly memory efficiency, not quality) + Medusa (speed, not quality) + GRAM (5000-10,000x better reasoning in an extremely small model) + 1.58b (unclear if it will have the impact Microsoft first claimed - but possibly 5x).

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#325

Post by XCSme »

dwaltrip wrote: post #304
XCSme wrote: post #262

On my tests[0] it does a bit worse, and it's almost 2x expensive than Opus 4.7... I was surprised to see that it failed a Data extraction test (it gets it right 2/3 times, but one time it randomly returns null for a value instead). It makes sense a bit that it fails more Trivia/Domain-specific knowledge tasks (I think models are more and more trained towards agentic use-case than general intelligence). [0]: https://a…

Wait, doesn’t the blog post say the price is the same as 4.7? > Claude Opus 4.8 is available everywhere today. Pricing for regular usage is unchanged from Opus 4.7: $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Pricing for fast mode is $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens. Where do you see the 2x cost?

The total cost of running my benchmarks, was 1.6x higher compared to Opus 4.7, mostly because of 2x output tokens:

https://i.snipboard.io/vrdwTa.jpg

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#326

Post by mrdependable »

alansaber wrote: post #247

"Our models are more honest" honey the quarterly marketing spin for a ML term has come. Forget "task alignment" now we're going for "truth index". I suppose this is the only way to generate hype when you're selling/releasing the same product over and over again.

Gave me wrong information on my very first question. Wasn’t even complicated, and I wasn’t trying to trick it.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#327

Post by [deleted] »

dwaltrip wrote: post #304
XCSme wrote: post #262

On my tests[0] it does a bit worse, and it's almost 2x expensive than Opus 4.7... I was surprised to see that it failed a Data extraction test (it gets it right 2/3 times, but one time it randomly returns null for a value instead). It makes sense a bit that it fails more Trivia/Domain-specific knowledge tasks (I think models are more and more trained towards agentic use-case than general intelligence). [0]: https://a…

Wait, doesn’t the blog post say the price is the same as 4.7? > Claude Opus 4.8 is available everywhere today. Pricing for regular usage is unchanged from Opus 4.7: $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Pricing for fast mode is $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens. Where do you see the 2x cost?

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#328

Post by bcrosby95 »

gen220 wrote: post #135
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'm curious to poll HN on this issue. Do you feel like we've had meaningful/noticeable gains in terms of your programming workflows between 4.5 and 4.7? My 2¢, I personally feel like all of the productivity gains since 4.5's release (in November 2025!!) have come from improvements to the harnesses (cc, cursor cli, codex, opencode, whatever) AND from the context window expansion from 200k to 1M. But the actual "raw" i…

4.6 felt a bit better than 4.5 but slower. 4.7 doesn't feel better than 4.6.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#329

Post by GistNoesis »

simonw wrote: 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...

> the bicycle frame is the correct shape

No, the handlebar is wrong. The handle bar is rotating the frame instead of rotating the front wheel. The handle bar should be mounted on the same line as the front wheel is.

Hopefully 4.9 will read my comments :)

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#330

Post by toastmaster11 »

simonw wrote: 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...

I find the most miraculous thing about 4.7 to be that the pelican is facing left, wonder why the right facing everything is so ubiquitous in these images.
Post reply on HN