Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Sonnet 5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#121

Post by energy123 »

doctoboggan wrote: post #29

The cost per task chart is telling me that I should _never_ use Sonnet 5 above medium effort level - Opus always performs better for a given cost. So I guess the takeaway is that if Sonnet 5 medium isn't good enough for you, switch models, not effort levels.

The arguable caveat is Sonnet may run faster (although this isn't known for sure, due to more tokens being used for the same task), so you can potentially get more done in a synchronous iterative workflow

I don't really believe this however, because so much time is spent fixing up after models, that a slower but more intelligent model is a net time saver in my experience.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#122

Post by [deleted] »

goalieca wrote: post #103
secretslol wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

That’s not even close to true. Unless you’re vibe coding trash that a better model might catch.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#123

Post by gs17 »

xpct wrote: post #68
microtonal wrote: post #31

Claude Sonnet 5 is built to be the most agentic Sonnet model yet. It can make plans, use tools like browsers and terminals, and run autonomously at a level that, just a few months ago, required larger and more expensive models. I have been using Sonnet 4.6 more than Opus, because I'm mostly doing agent-assisted development and not fully agent-driven development. This announcement does not make me positive, I have fou…

I've been largely disappointed how much the Claude models ignore custom instructions, and sometimes even prompts on the chat interface. It sometimes feels like talking to a wall, or as if there was a third person in the chatroom whose messages I can't see. I can't help but feel this is intentional towards the 'Agentic' workflow.

> or as if there was a third person in the chatroom whose messages I can't see.

If you set off a classifier, that's how it looks to Claude.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#124

Post by johnfn »

satvikpendem wrote: post #26

> 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…

> 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.

What exactly do you want Anthropic to say here? "This model, the one we are about to give to the entire world for cheap, is really good at hacking"? Saying Sonnet is terrible at cybersecurity is the most reasonable thing they can say, out of a lot of bad options.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#125

Post by gverrilla »

copperx wrote: post #18
andai wrote: post #10

Opus 4.8 beats Sonnet 5 on the pareto frontier in several of their graphs (Agentic Search, Agentic Computer Use). In other words, for certain tasks, Opus 4.8 is cheaper than Sonnet 5, and does better than Sonnet 5. I've noticed this pattern on a lot of benchmarks. You can try to emulate a bigger model by ramping up the test time compute (max reasoning, more turns, model fusion etc.), but you can't reach the same qual…

And Claude Code penalizes you for using Sonnet on the subscription plan, so there's little reason to use it.

How so?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#126

Post by thewebguyd »

epolanski wrote: post #120
microtonal wrote: post #31

Claude Sonnet 5 is built to be the most agentic Sonnet model yet. It can make plans, use tools like browsers and terminals, and run autonomously at a level that, just a few months ago, required larger and more expensive models. I have been using Sonnet 4.6 more than Opus, because I'm mostly doing agent-assisted development and not fully agent-driven development. This announcement does not make me positive, I have fou…

I've been saying for ages that since Opus 4.6 models are increasingly smarter but further unhelpful as assistants. Fable was amazing as a vibecoder but as an assistant it can't resist jumping into implementation and filling chats of pointless jargon. It's really grim if you're looking for assistance instead of an implementor. GPT 5.5 Pro and Fable are gorgeous bullshitters that pretend to be right (often convincingly…

By design, unfortunately. If they are just assistants, they can't sell the dream of "we're going to replace human labor completely" to the C-suite.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#127

Post by energy123 »

johnfn wrote: post #119
doctoboggan wrote: post #29

The cost per task chart is telling me that I should _never_ use Sonnet 5 above medium effort level - Opus always performs better for a given cost. So I guess the takeaway is that if Sonnet 5 medium isn't good enough for you, switch models, not effort levels.

That's just one benchmark, though. Tab to the next one and Sonnet 5 performs better as effort goes up just as you'd expect. I imagine the suggestion is that performance vs effort tradeoff is task dependent.

No it doesn't? It's worse than Opus across the whole shared frontier on both plots.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#128

Post by bluepeter »

satvikpendem wrote: post #26

> 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…

Flowers for Algernon. And, sadly, expect this from now on. You saw it with OpenAI releasing Sol/Terra/Luna with a chart showing how they weren't quite as good as Mythos. It's all messaging to the USG to try to avoid/minimize arbitrary review from multiple agencies. 'Hey, it's smart, but look how stupid it is at "cyber."'

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#129

Post by Brendinooo »

microtonal wrote: post #31

Claude Sonnet 5 is built to be the most agentic Sonnet model yet. It can make plans, use tools like browsers and terminals, and run autonomously at a level that, just a few months ago, required larger and more expensive models. I have been using Sonnet 4.6 more than Opus, because I'm mostly doing agent-assisted development and not fully agent-driven development. This announcement does not make me positive, I have fou…

Yeah, there's a real opportunity for one of these companies to invest time in a model that's tuned for, to use your term, agent-assisted developement.

Trouble is, everyone inside their buildings seems to believe that no one will be working like that in a year or two.

Post reply on HN