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

691–700 of 822 posts

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#691

Post by matheusmoreira »

jon-wood wrote: post #663
matheusmoreira wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with Opus 4.8 I have to try pretty hard to maintain 100% weekly usage. I'm actively trying not to be efficient at this point. Now that the ban is lifted, max effort Fable 5 is gonna solve this problem quite neatly. Fable to plan and review, Sonnet for the implementation. Wait, never mind that. Subscribers will only have Fable for a week.

Why are you optimising for token use rather than getting whatever tasks you're trying to do done? Max effort Opus will happily sit there talking to itself for five minutes fixating on every tiny detail while Sonnet or even Haiku will just blast through the problem and be ready for the next one in seconds.

Because I'm paying $100/month for this, so I absolutely want to use all of those dollars. Any leftover weekly usage is a gift to Anthropic.

I am getting things done. I've made major progress on my projects, and even started new ones. My most requested tasks are: code review, brainstorming and research. The fixation on tiny details is exactly what I'm paying for.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#692

Post by ngruhn »

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #245
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #216

I'm struggling to understand why I'd ever use this instead of just using a lower effort level for opus given on many of the benchmarks listed the cost per task rises above opus at anything higher than medium effort. Only thing I can think of is for when someone is out of opus credits. Of course there are API billing use cases but I'd probably still just use opus on low.

More and more I find myself trying to stop Opus from doing something stupid, and at every turn I need to tell it to stop overcomplicating things. I think the models are being optimized for wealth extraction from users and companies, instead of solving problems. I don't know why Opus would try to create an entire library when I told it specifically to do something simple that would take 2-3 lines of Python.

> I think the models are being optimized for wealth extraction from users and companies, instead of solving problems.

I don't think so. Expect that in a market with high vendor lock-in but that's not the case here. The market is extremely competitive and switching cost are near zero. Anthropic can't afford to pull shit like this and sacrifice quality.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#693

Post by mosbyllc »

Claude is a great model for me, but unfortunately, its quota is often insufficient. It seems that many people are now considering Codex as an alternative. If the quota is sufficient, I believe many people will continue to use the Claude Code model.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#695

Post by iLoveOncall »

mosbyllc wrote: post #693

Claude is a great model for me, but unfortunately, its quota is often insufficient. It seems that many people are now considering Codex as an alternative. If the quota is sufficient, I believe many people will continue to use the Claude Code model.

Neither Claude, nor Codex, nor Claude Code are models.

Claude is a series of models (Claude Sonnet X, Claude Opus X, etc.), Claude Code is their development CLI that uses their models, and Codex is the same as Claude Code but from OpenAI.

Ultimately the quota is linked to neither of those 3 directly, rather to which specific model you invoke.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#696

Post by richardfey »

I don't know what I am doing right, or wrong, but I have access to claude and codex and I find myself giving the more serious work to codex recently. I tend to trust it more. I might try again Fable when it's back, but this Sonnet 5 didn't work well for my current projects.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#697

Post by anonzzzies »

fragmede wrote: post #656
strangegecko wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all have a health problem that puts an end date on our efforts.

Not if Bryan Johnson can help it!

He can't though. Guy looks older than me while almost 20 years younger. Under 50 most people feel immortal. Wait until he is 70. If he makes that.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#698

Post by hdjrudni »

mosbyllc wrote: post #693

Claude is a great model for me, but unfortunately, its quota is often insufficient. It seems that many people are now considering Codex as an alternative. If the quota is sufficient, I believe many people will continue to use the Claude Code model.

Codex is not better anymore. It appears they nerfed their quota a few weeks ago. I never used to hit my 5 hr limit, now I always do. Sometimes in like 2 prompts.

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#699

Post by frozeus »

theptip wrote: post #533
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #216

I'm struggling to understand why I'd ever use this instead of just using a lower effort level for opus given on many of the benchmarks listed the cost per task rises above opus at anything higher than medium effort. Only thing I can think of is for when someone is out of opus credits. Of course there are API billing use cases but I'd probably still just use opus on low.

Are we reading the same chart? They have Sonnet You have to test each task obviously but it is not a bad model on its face.

They have updated it

Re: Claude Sonnet 5

#700

Post by theshrike79 »

jurgenburgen wrote: post #664
theshrike79 wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been running about the same stack for well over a year now, Anthropic cheapest + OpenAI cheapest + z.ai coder (black friday offer). The Z.AI is a bit wonky, so now I'm moving to Openrouter for Qwen+Kimi+Deepseek?GLM My summer project is to figure out a proper agentic system where a "big" model does the planning, but automatically uses a cheaper one for the grunt work. Having Opus to config edits is just stupid :…

> My summer project is to figure out a proper agentic system where a "big" model does the planning, but automatically uses a cheaper one for the grunt work. Having Opus to config edits is just stupid :) My company pays for the tokens so I don’t care. Biggest model and max everything. The slight risk of a smaller model making a mistake is more expensive than just running the bigger model all the time.

Oh I do that at work too, for sure. I'm riding that Claude Teams subscription like I stole it.

But I'm playing the long game you see. The tokens will get expensive and the monthly subscriptions will either go away or also get too expensive.

Then companies want efficient token use and cost control - and I'll already know how to do that =)

Post reply on HN