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

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#291

Post by toss1 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #232
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?

I'm not a customer of those routing systems, but I quite often use different Claude models for different tasks. While most tasks were Opus 4.8, I often used 4.8 to make a plan, prompts, and package kit to setup Fable for a bigger project, then run it on Fable. Or, for broad single-task searches Sonnet with or without "Research []" turned on seemed to work best both faster, lower overhead, and less verbose answers (when I didn't want it).

OFC, YMMV

Re: Claude Opus 5

#292

Post by baq »

HyperL0gi wrote: post #159
impulser_ wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, this makes a lot of sense, but it’s just very amusing to see. 2 months ago, the world was about to end, now not so much.

Have you been patching your systems for the past two months? It was crazy even if you completely forget the supply chain literal FUBARs and you must’ve been living under a rock to not see OpenAI (accidentally) pwning hugging face

Re: Claude Opus 5

#293

Post by persedes »

gonzalohm wrote: post #284
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…

I don't understand how the data retention works. My company has an enterprise license with no data retention but if I ask Claude about past conversations, it remembers. So surely the information is being stored somewhere

You most likely are referring to the local jsonl files where claude has your sessions etc stored.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#294

Post by collinrapp »

arrowleaf wrote: post #154
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…

> Updated over 2 weeks ago I hope we get clarification on this, I can't find anything claiming that it is compatible with ZDR.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but if you scroll to the bottom of their [1] link to the Opus 5 announcement, under “Getting started,” it explicitly says:

> Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 does not have data retention requirements for general access.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#295

Post by vinhnx »

The benchmark appears to have a mistake, as Opus 5 and Fable 5 score 53.4% and 53.5%, respectively, for the Agentic Coding row (FrontierCode v1.1). But Opus 5 is the highlight.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#296

Post by johnfn »

ai-x wrote: post #236
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

This doesn’t seem obviously true, eg an Anthropic model will never route to Kimi even if it were best suited for a particular task.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#297

Post by skeptic_ai »

reasonableklout wrote: post #235
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?

Transparency lol

Re: Claude Opus 5

#298

Post by lostmsu »

kxxx wrote: post #265
TeMPOraL wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's very common to use a lesser model for a lesser task, resulting in same quality output. End result: save money while being faster. In many cases, it's a pure win-win.

But in other many cases you have to redo the work directly or indirectly, and you are more expensive (for now) than even the most expensive models, so sounds like a total lose.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#300

Post by toephu2 »

shwaj wrote: post #97
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!

Also it scored worse on DeepSWE than chatgpt 5.6 sol
Post reply on HN