Live data from Hacker News

Claude Sonnet 5

anthropic.com

81–90 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#81

Anybody notice that they did not include Sonnet 5 Max in the "Agentic Search results", when comparing to Opus 4.8 ... Based upon the "Agentic Computer usage", Sonnet 5 Max was going to be off "Agentic Search results" chart. lol ... In short, Sonnet 5 Low/Medium is more cost efficient, if its a task below Opus 4.8 Medium. For the rest its expensive and your better off using Opus 4.8. Why even release this model?

I'd narrow that to why even allow the harness to run `high` on this model?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#82

Seems like the way to go for any smaller models is to only use the low reasoning levels, and for anything where you'd want it to reason harder, to just use a larger model. In effect, high reasoning only makes sense when you're using the frontier model and need extra performance (higher levels of reasoning are never pareto optimal unless you're at the largest model size).

My experience with using low reasoning effort has been nothing but a waste of time. Claude often keeps guessing, not calling tools to ground itself, and basically at the end I end up wasting the same amount of tokens or just switch to Opus on xhigh. It's been a terrible experience.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#84
post #8

That’s nice, but we want Fable

The reality is that Fable will eventually be obsolete and Sonnet / Opus will surpass it. Fable did cost 2x as much as Opus, so I assume it involves a much higher cost for what it did, but I wouldn't be surprised if Fable will be obsoleted by Opus or even Sonnet sooner or later at less cost.

Okay I don’t care about “eventually”, I want Fable now.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#86

> Evaluations also show that it has a much lower ability to perform cybersecurity tasks than our current Opus models. Why would they brag about something like this? It's like they know people want to use models to perform cybersecurity tasks yet knowingly deny them the ability. And Opus 4.8 is still cheaper for a higher pass rate (much less open weight models like GLM 5.2) so not sure why I'd use Sonnet except on the…

"Lower ability to perform cybersecurity-related tasks" makes me super concerned it will leave my codebase like Swiss cheese for any American granny with access to Fable 5, when we non-American Brits, or rest-of-worlders, don't have access to it to clean our codebases.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#88
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LRMs are plateauing for sure, not that there won't be gains to be had in the future, but it's not like the era of rapid progress that was the past year any more.

A great many people were predicting this would be the case a year ago and being told they were wrong and to get on the boat.

I consider myself to be in that cohort as well. :)

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#89

> Evaluations also show that it has a much lower ability to perform cybersecurity tasks than our current Opus models. Why would they brag about something like this? It's like they know people want to use models to perform cybersecurity tasks yet knowingly deny them the ability. And Opus 4.8 is still cheaper for a higher pass rate (much less open weight models like GLM 5.2) so not sure why I'd use Sonnet except on the…

There's two classes of models now - the cybersecurity ones that none of us are getting, and the 'safe' models released for general consumption. This is letting us know which side of the divide it sits on.

There's also Chinese models, which aren't trying to self-limit capabilities.
Post reply on HN