I have been using opus 4.8 all morning and this is honestly the most sycophantic, ChatGPT like experience I have had from Anthropic. Very concerning.
Claude Opus 4.8
741–750 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#742Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#743A 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…
The inability to tell if a model is improving is, I think, a tell that the model has improved up to your level of programmatic (analytic, computational) capacity. A lot of the information (blogs, tweelches, plosts) that I consume seems to be converging on the idea that we all depend on the models. However. It seems to me that the exact opposite is true. The models depend on us, and _desperately_ so. There must have b…
Or the model could just be shite.
Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#744My fav coding benchmark for frontier models is to build a simple RTS game in one file (js/html/css). Claude Code with Opus 4.8 in ultracode mode nailed it, the best result so far: https://bsky.app/profile/senko.net/post/3mmwnrkwboc2v The prompt was: Create a simple but functional real time strategy (RTS) game similar to old WarCraft, StarCraft or Command & Conquer games. The player should be able to build buildings,…
It almost appears as if the code was minified. The variable names are short and formatting looks like it's written to minimize whitespace. Did it write it in this compact format all on it's own?
I just had Opis 4.8 code up something and actually that's exactly how it coded it!
It looked gross and minimized, the result was awesome but the code looked pretty awful visually
Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#745A 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…
dangerous thing to believe IMO
The models will get better, you will notice, everyone will notice. They will get better at coding and everything else. You should plan around that.
Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#746A 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…
We're at the top of the S-curve and you're romanticizing diminishing returns with vague hints of super human capabilities and singularities.
Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#747A 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'll never again perceive model progress
If the hype train keeps going for another year, Sam and co will have to resort to direct gaslighting like saying the model is improving but nobody can feel it anymore, oh and I need 10 trillion dollars
Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#748> 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…
> Probably more interesting It is widely suspected that self-inflicted "bad news" ("Mythos is so dangerous we just can't give the public access to it") is nothing more than Dario's typical style of marketing - keep in mind that they have an IPO coming up, because he certainly factors that into everything he says in public (as is his responsibility, to be fair). An alternative reason for delaying the model might not b…
One capability that I see is missing from opus is this ability to understand an entire system. My hope is that a mythos class model will be able to comprehend even something as complicated as an IOT system with a hardware and firmware layer multiple API’s backend and different kinds of API and web clients.
The main limitation we’ve had to agentic coding is an understanding of this system that spans processes running on different machines and architectures.
Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#749I use 4.6, because 4.7 is super lazy, deflects responsibility, and assumes it is good and I am bad, and avoids checking reality. It looks like it's trained on lazy humans instead of good engineers. Should I try 4.8? I am happy with 4.6. I am not happy with 4.7.
I still use 4.7. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong but 4.7 frequently tells me to it’s time to sleep at all hours of the day while working. I’ve tried clearing all my memory/agents files.
I’m hoping the “go to sleep” behavior has been rlhf’d away in 4.8.
Re: Claude Opus 4.8
#750I was happily plodding away with it earlier when it threw this out in the middle of a response in Claude code: --- So — what did you actually see before you hit Ctrl-C? That's the信号 I'm most curious about, and it tells us what to --- That's the sort of behavior I'd expect from a one or two year old model quantized down to about 1 bit - right word, wrong language in a response. Google translate tells me that's Chinese…
Perhaps you were served from someone else's cache