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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#311

Post by aesthesia »

acmnrs wrote: post #46

From the prompting guide https://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 mod…

This is a comment about user-facing responses, which are seldom the thing you're worried about when thinking about token efficiency.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#312

Post by mh- »

persedes wrote: post #293
gonzalohm wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It could just be the memory features.

In my enterprise-seated account I see slightly different options available (vs. my personal account) in the Capabilities section:

  Search and reference chats
  Allow Claude to search for relevant details in past chats.

  Generate memory from chat history (Legacy)
  Allow Claude to remember relevant context from your chats. Memory includes your entire chat history with Claude.
The first option was defaulted to on, if I recall.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#313

Post by Slartie »

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?

And you do not have flat priced quota for Fable 5, right? Because nobody has, as far as I know. So you'll probably not route any task to the "current best available SOTA".

Also: quota. Implies you do not have unlimited access even for flat prices. Which in turn implies that as soon as you hit the quota on the most expensive flat price plan, even you will suddenly discover the magic of economically sensible behavior.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#314

Post by somenameforme »

oh_no wrote: post #187
dehugger wrote: post #76

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?

based on pricing I think it's safe to say they're different. why would they charge half price when fable has been very popular?

They just got a huge amount of customer price info over the past few days after they went token only for Fable. I suspect the conversion rate was extremely low, with consumers far less sticky than they might have hoped. In my case I was planning on swapping, probably to a Chinese model, when my sub expired this month, but the release of Opus 5 is probably enough to keep me paying rent until the next open model/closed model face-off in a couple of months.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#315

Post by awongh »

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…

what's the threshold for model routing where you're willing to trust the router?

For coding my own work I don't trust the model router, and it would have to be shown to be to save a real dollar amount.

From a buying perspective it's a hard sell to save x but lose out on bugs you are probably introducing at an unquantifiable severity and frequency. How much is it worth to hedge your bets by doing every single inference request on the frontier model?

How much will it cost to go back later and fix things, but also the meta question of how to be able to decide on a hypothetical unknowable? (You'll never know how much better or worse your code was gonna be, it's untestable at a project level)

Re: Claude Opus 5

#316

Post by hvb2 »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #288
shwaj wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Recent releases have said something to the effect (paraphrasing here): "Use for everyday tasks and . Use for complex coding tasks, refactoring large code bases, etc.". Then, the next model/release emerges and the previous "best for complex" gets demoted to "everyday". Obviously, it's all relative. But, it does beg the question: was the previous model really good for complex coding tasks or no? I mean, how is it now s…

> I mean, how is it now suddenly only good for the "easy" stuff?

Because your expectations have changed.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#318

Post by somenameforme »

tyre wrote: post #162

I'm interested in benchmarks for Claude Design. There is so much opportunity there and I hope they continue investing in it. It EATS tokens though.

In what ways have you found it better than just typical code based UI iteration? Considered checking it out but never really got around to it as I'm generally okay with Claude's UI work so far.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#319

Post by internet2000 »

msabalau wrote: post #257
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?

Not everyone is you. Other people probably have a range of tasks that can accomplished with different models. Certainly if I'm confident that I'm going to get what I need from a faster model, that's what I want to use, rather than wasting time grinding away for the sake of saying of the same answer came from a SOTA model. Given that every chatbot does offer a range of models, it seems clear people do choose among opt…

The mental effort in estimating what model would be better is so not worth it.

I just want to switch to Claude Code, tell it to turn a .csv into a BigQuery table then cmd+tab to something else while it runs. Thinking "oh this is probably an easy task, I can /model to Sonnet to save $0.0004" is silly.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#320

Post by theHocineSaad »

Opus 5 is considered the most intelligent model[0], while it's half the price of Fable 5[1], and Anthropic is still positioning Fable 5 as the most capable model[2].

Is it because maybe Anthropic engineered Opus 5 to work well on benchmarks and didn't do the same thing to Fable 5, or is there another reason?

[0]: https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence

[1]: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing

[2]: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/over...

Post reply on HN