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

Claude Opus 5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#41

Post by paxys »

Looking at all these releases it’s not a surprise that model routing is the fastest growing segment in AI right now.

There are 10+ LLM companies, each with dozens of models of different modalities, each model with multiple size variants, then different “thinking” levels, then agentic modes, “pro” modes, a “fast” option, standard vs flex vs batch execution. And of course each end combination has a different input/output/cache token price.

Companies that say “give me a prompt and I’ll route it to the most ideal and cost effective model and setting for you” are capturing a ton of value from a gap that model developers don’t seem to understand exists.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#42

Post by Sol- »

How does it perform on HuggingFaceExploit bench? Suspiciously absent, so not sure if I can take the model seriously.

On a serious note, I hope they improved their extremely sabotaging and unspecific bio safeguards, which prevented Fable from being used in any codebase that ever so slightly grazed medical terminology or data and made me switch to 5.6 Sol.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#44

Post by himata4113 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #30

> Opus 5’s safeguards match those of Claude Fable 5’s, with one change: it now permits source-code vulnerability discovery at all access levels. This means that the model can support defensive cybersecurity work while still blocking vulnerability discovery in compiled binaries, which is more commonly used offensively Why can't they also allow Fable to do so also? Why is source-code vulnerability discovery limited to…

I found the biggest problem with fable is the random reasoning_extraction refusals as well as cyber refusals when it sees hex because only hackers use hex.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#45

Post by ddxv »

"Cybersecurity. Opus 5’s cyber classifiers are proportionally less restrictive than those on Fable 5. They allow Opus 5 to find vulnerabilities in source code, but block “binary-based” vulnerability scanning (a method more likely to be associated with malicious actors), penetration testing, and exploit generation."

Nice of them to be more explicit for what is blocked. Will be interesting to see if this is true or not.

Also, a notable lack of mention of open source models. They only compare themselves to ChatGPT.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#46

Post by acmnrs »

From the prompting guidehttps://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt...>:

> Claude Opus 5's default user-facing responses run longer than prior Opus models'.

The benchmarks do show Opus 5 as slightly more expensive than 4.8, although the scores are much higher.

This still feels like a step in the wrong direction, though, especially with OpenAI making so much progress with the efficiency of their models. Fable's token efficiency made it seem like Anthropic would start following OpenAI's approach but that doesn't seem to have carried over to their other models.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#48

Post by foota »

thewebguyd wrote: post #30

> Opus 5’s safeguards match those of Claude Fable 5’s, with one change: it now permits source-code vulnerability discovery at all access levels. This means that the model can support defensive cybersecurity work while still blocking vulnerability discovery in compiled binaries, which is more commonly used offensively Why can't they also allow Fable to do so also? Why is source-code vulnerability discovery limited to…

Because their model previously got blocked by the government for this and they don't want a repeat?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#50

Post by cmrdporcupine »

datakan wrote: post #6

> Claude Opus 5 is not more capable overall than our most capable general-access model, Claude Fable 5 Ok then so what's the point?

To have an answer to "Sol" GPT 5.6 which is far more cost effective and available than Fable.
Post reply on HN