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

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#71

Post by rdedev »

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…

So I guess the new opus will not run on my drug discovery project. It's just a binary classifier to screen for new malaria drugs. Fable completely have up on that codebase citing bio security concerns. Seems like this domain will go unsupported by Antropic

Re: Claude Opus 5

#72

Post by layer8 »

ddxv wrote: post #45

"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…

“Proportionally”? In proportion to what?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#73

Post by kossae »

rb2e wrote: post #17

https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5 - A blog post for those not wanting to go through a 190ish page pdf

I wonder why FrontierCodev1.1's data lists Opus 5 as better than Fable 5.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#74

Post by visiondude »

The signal here is tokeneconomics are very real, price vs performance is starting to be a consideration even at the bleeding edge labs. maybe a subtle indication scaling is not all that is needed since if AGI was around the corner leading labs would still be incentivized to pour all resources into larger (smarter - or maybe not?) models

Re: Claude Opus 5

#76

Post by dehugger »

Is Fable 5 just Opus 5 with some additional long-context management modifications for extended self-directed work? Or are they actually truly different models?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#77

Post by abroszka33 »

What's the point of 150 pages description of a model that's going to be replaced in a couple months? Who even reads this? I know it's cheap to generate text with LLMs, but this is just noise at this point.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#78

Post by argee »

himata4113 wrote: post #44
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.

Hackers and people of color.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#80

Post by bellowsgulch »

atraac wrote: post #23

Great that there's a new model but they could fix their existing infra. We're considering dropping our Claude Team sub cause it's unusable recently. Constant bugs, dropped sessions, issues switching models, http errors. It's becoming ridiculous

I found the same thing funny with Computer Use from OpenAI. It struggled to open and close Spotify.

So dangerous! I can't believe they let the public use this technology! /s

Post reply on HN