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

431–440 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#431

Post by kccqzy »

phtrivier wrote: post #383

What is the reference, unbiased, honest, reputable and trustworthy site that ranks and compare models on the couple of realistic metrics that matters ? ("Does it work for code", "no, I mean, for real", "how much does it cost", etc...) ?

It’s not really possible unless you try. Different people use models so differently. The whole model situation has made public minute differences in personal preferences in the process of coding. Some people think carefully and strive to write code that’s as bug free as humanly possible on the first try; others write something that is only approximately correct and then iterate afterwards. The former people would align with a model that thinks for 40 minutes before producing flawless code; the latter would be driven mad by this excessive thinking. Some people like to interrupt AI as soon as they see AI making a mistake, others let AI continue and tell them about the mistake afterwards.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#432

Post by [deleted] »

pigpop wrote: post #294
popalchemist wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether they believe it or not is immaterial. It is the end-goal they want to achieve, because then they own the means of production entirely.

They own the means of production for the leading models but they're far from monopolizing them since the techniques are well known. At this point it's a matter of having a head start and lots of capital to pay for the data annotation and GPU time to train them. Others are playing catch-up but they're hot on their heals which is the biggest reason for them to continue spending like crazy to keep their leads. For the n…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#433

Post by taspeotis »

> Claude Opus 4.7 and later Opus models, Claude Fable 5, Claude Mythos 5, Claude Mythos Preview, and Claude Sonnet 5 use a newer tokenizer that contributes to their improved performance on a wide range of tasks. This tokenizer produces approximately 30% more tokens for the same text. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and earlier models use the previous tokenizer.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#436

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

boc wrote: post #203
DonsDiscountGas wrote: post #150

I'd love if they would include speed (though I know there are difficulties involved). At this point the quality of Opus 4.8 is no longer my limiting factor, it's the speed, so a faster model would be great.

Have you tried Opus on fast mode?

I haven't because I'm not made of money but maybe I will

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#437

Post by matheusmoreira »

AquinasCoder wrote: post #138
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.

While I appreciate, they publish this information, it's increasingly hard to keep track of it all. I've lost the mental model of how different models at different effort levels perform and what tasks they are good at. In practice, I tend to just use the default on Claude Code that works well enough. But I wonder to what degree other users really play around with these settings to optimize for their project.

I always use Opus 4.8 at max effort for everything. The $20 subscription didn't have enough tokens, but the $100 one had too many of them. So now I just max out Opus in order to maintain 100% weekly utilization.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#438

Post by Readerium »

goldenarm wrote: post #356
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.

It's funny the exact same thing happened to Gemini 3.5 flash. Cheaper and more agentic model that ends up worse and more expensive than 3.5 pro low.

3.5 Pro not yet launched, you mean 3.1 pro?

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#439

Post by riverbirch »

kolinko wrote: post #382
energy123 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From my benchmarks, sadly, it doesn't seem to be the case much. Surprisingly. I found Sonnet comparable in speed to Opus (sic), but perhaps I was testing it wrong?

I can confirm this, I too I'm not seeing much of a difference in practice

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#440

Post by WhyIsItAlwaysHN »

popalchemist wrote: post #370
WhyIsItAlwaysHN wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no nefariousness in owning all the means of production, it's the endgame of maximizing profit. However the result is exactly the same, concentration of power.

No nefariousness other than the subjugation of the majority of humanity? You're insane

What I meant is that nefariousness from people is not a prerequisite. It's a machine that wants to maximize all profit and all the evil is a natural product. If you magically put saints in charge they would be eaten and replaced by the same kind of people very quickly if the end goal remains.
Post reply on HN