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

491–500 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#491

Post by addozhang »

bazhand wrote: post #318
vtail wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating! How did you learn about this?

It was something that was used for token efficiency. Most of the settings and use cases are quite poorly communicated but asking Claude to review the latest release changelog ( https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/blob/main/CHANGELO... ) is quite useful. Combined with @"claude-code-guide (agent)" to read it's own docs for settings/configs is super helpful. The quite useful tool is to use /opusplan along with /co…

That's really a great way for the agent to understand itself.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#492

Post by tyg13 »

easygenes wrote: post #476
matheusmoreira wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm a heavy enough user that I have both the OAI and Anth $200 plans. I always use at least 50% of my weekly Opus quota at Extra setting (meaning I use double the limit of the $100 plan, at minimum). Max I rarely touch because it is twice as slow and the incremental capability gain is minimal. Usually if Opus can't sort something well at Extra, the answer isn't to use Max but to hand the issue off to GPT-5.5 at XHigh…

I too have settled into a kind of dual Claude/GPT model setup. I will often use one to review the other's work, or critique the other's plan in some way. Sometimes I'll have Claude implement a feature one way, then have GPT do it the other way, then have them both review each other's implementation. Then synthesize a final plan from the previous implementations+reviews.

I might just be having fun with models, but I have actually noticed their capabilities vary somewhat, and so my (perhaps vain) hope is that by using both, one can catch each the other's blindspots. It's still unclear to me if that's consistently happening, but I am making substantial progress in my personal and professional projects, so something seems to be working.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#493

Post by drob518 »

NorwegianDude wrote: post #367
tskj wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dario has publicly claimed each model has been profitable, even accounting for its training costs; it's just that each new model is exponentially more expensive to train than the last, so the income lags and it looks like the company is losing money overall. Now, we can't know if this is true unfortunately, but it's not directly contradicted by anything that's known publicly at least. I thought it was an interesting…

A common extreme misconception is that inference is expensive and that providers are loosing a lot of money. Inference is extremely lucrative and profitable.

Inference is the phase where they make money. But the question is whether they can be profitable overall as training continues to balloon.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#494

Post by drob518 »

sanderjd wrote: post #296
wyre wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insiders disagree because they are benefiting greatly from the insane valuations, right? Chinese models are quickly commodifying frontier inference, the US Gov is preventing domestic SOTA models access to the public and without those models why would consumers still spend $200/month to use the best models? It’s such a mess and isn’t inspiring confidence as a non-investor.

Are they benefiting from the insane valuations though? If the valuations deflate before the insiders are able to exit, I think that would be worse for them than a lower but sustainable valuation. It all comes down to whose prediction of the future is closer to correct. I think the most likely future is commodification of inference and "agent-assisted" rather than "agent-driven" workflows dominating the future of work…

It’s all about timing. This is tech bubble 2.0, Dotcom Boogaloo. If you’re able to flip it quickly, you’ll have generational wealth. If not, you could be holding a lot of worthless paper.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#496

Post by m-dot-reviews »

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've been plugging this perhaps too many times now, but I am trying to bootstrap a user-sourced corpus of exactly "what model is good at task X". So, not benchmarks, but high-level tasks. There's a bit of a ordering problem in that nobody wants to bother commenting on a site that has few comments - so PTAL and contribute if you can. https://model.reviews

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#497

Post by 4rf »

keeda wrote: post #253
everforward wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no way to justify their valuations if they get downgraded to a pair programming tool. They need fully agentic stuff to work and replace human engineers to even come close. Offhand, I’m not even certain whether a model like that could justify the constant retraining we’re doing on the agentic models. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to spend millions or billions on training to reduce hallucinations by 0.3% if yo…

Some napkin math -- total global labor compensation is about 50% of the GDP, which puts it in the USD 50 - 60 Trillion range: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-share-of-gdp This source claims that knowledge workers alone (probably because they are paid much more) account for 35 - 50 Trillion of that: https://github.com/danielmiessler/Substrate/blob/main/Data/K... If LLMs can boost their productivity even by an…

What a load of nonsense lmao.

Pls stop posting you are creating noise.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#498

Post by bearjaws »

ashvardanian wrote: post #479

Got really excited for this model and asked my Opus planners in 3 pretty different projects to use Sonnets instead of Opus subagents to help me experiment on HPC kernels faster. Not one of them ended up writing a single line of code... Sonnets just kept spinning, wasting tokens. Can't remember the last time it happened with Opus in my codebases. Reverting back.

I've seen this happen before when they launch new models. When Opus 4.7 came out it was "working" for 20+ min before I just exited entirely and waited till next day.

Went away on it's own.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#499

Post by 4rf »

tskj wrote: post #276
everforward wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no way to justify their valuations if they get downgraded to a pair programming tool. They need fully agentic stuff to work and replace human engineers to even come close. Offhand, I’m not even certain whether a model like that could justify the constant retraining we’re doing on the agentic models. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to spend millions or billions on training to reduce hallucinations by 0.3% if yo…

Dario has publicly claimed each model has been profitable, even accounting for its training costs; it's just that each new model is exponentially more expensive to train than the last, so the income lags and it looks like the company is losing money overall. Now, we can't know if this is true unfortunately, but it's not directly contradicted by anything that's known publicly at least. I thought it was an interesting…

why are you listening to these idiots who have every incentive to spin the story as much as possible

FCFF = EBIT(1-t)-Reinvestment

I dont care about your gross profit - this kind of cash profit determines the value of operating assets.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#500

Post by simonw »

bel8 wrote: post #480
simonw wrote: post #399

Claude Sonnet 5 itself described its pelican as looking like a goose: > Illustration of a white goose riding a bicycle, with one wing extended forward to grip the handlebar, set against a plain white background with a brown ground line. https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jun/30/claude-sonnet-5/

That's possibly the worst pelican I saw from all recent LLMs. Meanwhile GLM 5.2 drew a cool self-contained fully animated SVG pelican: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Jun/17/glm-52

Yeah, GLM have been beating Anthropic on the pelicans for a while now.

(I suspect that's more of an indication that Anthropic have chosen not to waste resources training on animals riding vehicles, personally.)

Post reply on HN