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

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#231

Post by mcbuilder »

artninja1988 wrote: post #58

That's a crazy arc 3 score. What do people think of this? Are models actually developing fluid intelligence like what the creators claim to be measuring? Is it jus do to training for it? Is the benchmark flawed?

Have you played Arc 3? It seems like more of a simple optimization problem (think Sokoban) than anything approaching fluid intelligence. Whether a multi hundred billion dollar company would spend time benchmaxxing a highly publicized benchmark that claims to confer AGI is an exercise left to the reader, but I doubt Claude Plays Pokemon is suddenly going to get past Mt. Doom now.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#232

Post by TeMPOraL »

paxys wrote: post #41

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/outp…

Who are the customers though? Honest question, I'd like to understand it.

For me, anything other than current best available SOTA for any task is unacceptable. The only routing rule I need is "the most powerful model I still have flat-priced quota available for". I mean, why settle for less?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#233

Post by Diogenesian »

abroszka33 wrote: post #77

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.

I actually do read them. Not in severe detail, but not casually either. 150 pages is really not very long and there doesn't seem to be too much bloat. (I would cut out the moral personhood stuff but that's a political/ideological thing).

This is snarky but I am grumpy: I wonder if there's a correlation between me refusing to use LLMs and me being happy to read a novella-sized PDF about them.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#234

Post by skybrian »

StrauXX wrote: post #83

The benchmark table is manipulative, borderline lying through statistics. In every line the top performing cell is marked red. Except the line where Sol leads, there it is marked in gray.

I think that’s indicating that it’s only slightly higher.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#235

Post by reasonableklout »

abroszka33 wrote: post #77

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.

It's part of their transparency commitments? They've been doing this since 2023: https://www.anthropic.com/system-cards

And lots of folks read these. For example here's simonw's notes on the Claude 4 system card: https://simonwillison.net/2025/May/25/claude-4-system-card/

All of this seemed like utter sci-fi just a couple years ago. Do you think that frontier AI companies should be less transparent?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#236

Post by ai-x »

paxys wrote: post #41

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/outp…

Model Routing will always be done better by models themselves. Plus routing loses context making it more expensive and less reliable.

Model Routing is just Bitter lesson. The models themselves will get better at this and frontier companies will simply give that capability

Re: Claude Opus 5

#237

Post by plqbfbv »

himata4113 wrote: post #20

Rather interesting that this makes sonnet 5 look even worse! There is no reason to use sonnet over opus with low or no reasoning at all.

I daily drive Sonnet 5/medium because it gets most things right most of the time at first try, while costing a lot less than Fable.

Opus can give better results on architectural/concept tasks and I use it sparingly, but it still costs more than Sonnet 5. Opus 5 seems to achieve results very close to Fable 5 while costing less (keeps Opus 4.8 pricing IIUC), but still more than Sonnet 5 then.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#238

Post by gigatexal »

postalcoder wrote: post #135

I think the most important thing here is not absolute performance. It's that organizations now have access to a Fable-ish model without Fable's 30-day data retention requirement[0]. > "Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 does not have data retention requirements for general access."[1] On the Opus model release page, the reason why Fable doesn't have an ARC-AGI score is because of that retention policy[2]. 0: h…

insane pricing:

" Claude Opus 5 is available today on all platforms, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens (the same as Opus 4.8)"

Re: Claude Opus 5

#240

Post by llelouch »

square_usual wrote: post #223
6thbit wrote: post #164

Their communication is confusing. They say "Opus 5 is not more capable overall than Fable 5", but their blog post proceeds to list how much better Opus 5 is than Fable 5 on __most__ benchmarks listed. Then system card goes on to "Its AI R&D capabilities are comparable to those of Claude Mythos 5", which is supposed to be fable minus restrictions.

Easy enough to explain: they're benchmaxxing. Fable is intelligent but not benchmaxxed. Opus is less intelligent but benchmaxxed.

Yep , same with 5.6. Fable is still the best.
Post reply on HN