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

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#91

Post by impulser_ »

HyperL0gi wrote: post #55

Isn’t it just hilarious that a model that seemed so superior to Fable but didn't get doomsay marketing from Anthropic got released without any issues? In theory, this was supposed to be AGI level according to Anthropic, yet here we are, just a normal Friday.

Go read the safeguards section in the report and you will realize why that is.

These models are heavily as safeguarded and that was the initial reason why they said they couldn't and haven't released Mythos because that model is the one without the safeguards.

OpenAI is did the same thing when they announced a model without safeguards broken into HuggingFace servers.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#93

Post by gillesjacobs »

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 fear-based marketing gave the US gov justification in blocking them for a while. They wisely didn't do that for Opus 5.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#94

Post by CaveTech »

jatins wrote: post #51

Better than Fable 5 on all but 3 evals. Has Anthropic ever mentioned how do Opus and Fable differ? It used to be Haiku < Sonnet < Opus in terms of params. Where does Fable fit in this?

Haiku < Sonnet < Opus < Fable

Re: Claude Opus 5

#95

Post by arm32 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #33
hoppp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny that a company selling an AI software developer can't use it to fix their infra. Fixing those issues still requires humans.

Let's be honest - they're also still hiring software devs. AI still requires skilled humans in the loop and that's not going away.

But the job itself may not exist in a year, according to the job posting page.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#96

Post by sebzim4500 »

not_a9 wrote: post #38

> 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. Okay so it’s worse than Opus 4.8 for my purposes I guess?

Presumably it drops back to 4.8 in those cases so it's not really worse

Re: Claude Opus 5

#97

Post by shwaj »

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 like how they highlighted Opus 5 as the best for “Agentic Coding” even though the number is slightly lower than Fable. Close enough for marketing, I guess!

Re: Claude Opus 5

#98

Post by JLO64 »

lardosaurusrex wrote: post #64
hoppp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny that a company selling an AI software developer can't use it to fix their infra. Fixing those issues still requires humans.

i know the dream for capitalists is to be able to point an llm at something and say "do and/or fix it" but we still can't even get them to not go quite literally insane if allowed to run for an extended period of time and you can only kill weyoun, awaken the next vorta clone and have him 'catch up' on all that its missed so many times before they just end up with a complete mess, so. uh. yeah. doubt they can just "fi…

That one DS9 episode where there were two Weyouns at the same time is a good analogy for two agents working on a codebase at the same time (as in they don’t work well together).

Re: Claude Opus 5

#99

Post by SubiculumCode »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #36
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 they are a private company and get to do what they want.

I do want to add, that I am pretty bummed if Opus 5 is going to refuse the tasks I have been using Opus 4.8 for (neuroimaging). Fable absolutely refuses anything close to toughing neuroscience.
Post reply on HN