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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#411

Post by drewnick »

smartmic wrote: post #366
colonCapitalDee wrote: post #32

"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…

> This is a refreshing attitude! Well, I think the attitude is that costs are allowed to escalate faster and more steeply than the features delivered. From that perspective, semantic versioning is a handy tool for adjusting pricing strategies. IMHO, it (versioning) only makes sense for open-source projects, where you can clearly see the actual changes made with each version upgrade. Anything else is more than a littl…

While all these models are nondeterministic a feature bump is still necessary as the same input can have wildly different output on a new model. For API users being able to pin a model is a necessity.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#412

Post by silisili »

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 vast majority (if not all) of these make it impossible to turn, among other fun things. Only out of curiosity, have you tried prompting further with how a bike must operate to see if it does the right thing?

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#413

Post by dyauspitr »

827a wrote: post #394

Frontier models are mostly past the point of human ability to discern whether they are actually better or worse than predecessors and competitors. I suspect the benchmarks may also be saturated, or at least past their usefulness. I personally feel that Anthropic doesn't understand what this means for the frontier labs, and moreover that they might be the only frontier lab that doesn't. 1. Google dropped Gemini 3.5 Fl…

The Chinese stuff is good enough for up to 80% of the frontier on most text tasks but they are significantly worse at code. They just don’t “get” what you’re asking for like Codex and Claude and require so many more iterations to get close to what you need.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#414

Post by sourcecodeplz »

phainopepla2 wrote: post #320
lordmauve wrote: post #181

Given DeepSWE just blew apart the SWE-Bench Pro benchmark and handed a 14-point lead to GPT-5.5, it looks pretty bad that they've listed SWE-Bench first in the model release and no DeepSWE. Like, this isn't obviously an answer. Or maybe it is, but publish the DeepSWE numbers so we can see for ourselves.

I'm highly skeptical of DeepSWE. It rates GPT-5.4-mini as three times better than deepseek-v4-pro, but every time I use GPT-5.4-mini I find that it completely sucks at following directions.

It is the extra-high thinking, in artificialanalysis.ai it uses 240m tokens vs 40 GPT5.4/5, not worth it even with low price.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#415

Post by bachmeier »

raincole wrote: post #154
wg0 wrote: post #104

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 G…

I had been saying this on HN repeatedly: people are going to use the smartest models for coding. They don't care how cheap your tokens are if they don't have the highest probability of solving your programming tasks. And I was dead wrong. Now I mostly use DeepSeek Pro myself.

Your comment is a slice of the reasoning underlying the "AI will take all the jobs" claim. I would constantly see references to what AI could do and how fast it was improving. Never a word about cost. We should anticipate that there will always be demand for human labor, for cheap models, for local models, and probably even frontier models.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#416

Post by mariopt »

wg0 wrote: post #104

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 G…

I’ve been using Kimi 2.6, GLM 5.1 , Minimax 2.7 and lately deepseek. I only spend 40$ a month and I don’t see the point in paying for Opus/Codex.

Chinese models are really quite good at a lot of stuff.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#417

Post by WarmWash »

robertkarl wrote: post #399

I can't get excited about these benchmarks they're leading with. I've looked at the Terminal-Bench questions and I just think they're irrelevant. And SWE-Bench has serious flaws, even the big boys say so: https://openai.com/index/why-we-no-longer-evaluate-swe-bench... > Please train a fasttext model on the yelp data in the data/ folder. The final model size needs to be less than 150MB but get at least 0.62 accuracy o…

DeepSWE has been making the rounds and at least seems to making an honest effort

https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#418

Post by chis »

827a wrote: post #394

Frontier models are mostly past the point of human ability to discern whether they are actually better or worse than predecessors and competitors. I suspect the benchmarks may also be saturated, or at least past their usefulness. I personally feel that Anthropic doesn't understand what this means for the frontier labs, and moreover that they might be the only frontier lab that doesn't. 1. Google dropped Gemini 3.5 Fl…

I think it's probably too soon to say. I certainly still feel that large coding tasks are getting better and better with each model. I'd guess lawyers, doctors, etc feel similarly.

It feels like the only way to push the limits of newer models is with really long context questions that require reasoning. Any short request will naturally just be within the distribution of all the recent models so there isn't a performance difference there.

I think the near future is looking like a bunch of business-critical tasks that scale infinitely with better reasoning, all being done on whatever the most advanced model is at a high cost. Trading stocks, running a business, looking for tax dodges, writing high-performance code. These are all things where there's a tangible return on each jump in reasoning.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#419

Post by thefounder »

zuzululu wrote: post #377
thefounder wrote: post #373

>> As part of Project Glasswing, a small number of organizations are currently using Claude Mythos Preview Just f** off! I can’t wait for the Chinese models to catch up and bring these entitled as** holes down.

you mean after they scrape American LLMs ?

I don’t mind if they scrape the scrappers.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#420

Post by dakolli »

Reminder the only benchmark that really matters is the one that measures the ability for the model to do real world tasks that someone would pay for on Upwork that would take ~12 hrs for a human to do.

The best model has a https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/rli

Stop frying your brain with these useless tools, reducing your output to the mean. You people are betting your competency on the quality and quantity of tokens you'll have access to.. which guess what, so that will be the same as everyone else.

There are handmade watchmakers in Switzerland, and mass manufacturers of watches in Asia. Who is more valuable as individual, the guy who knows how to push the buttons on a conveyor belt in Vietnam or the guy who makes one watch a month in Switzerland?

Your vibe coded slop isn't impressive either, sorry. None of it.

Post reply on HN