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

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#361

Post by dgellow »

theHocineSaad wrote: post #320

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…

That’s what I understand looking at what has been released, but it’s not really clear. The pricing is lower than I expected, I’m wondering what their margin is

Re: Claude Opus 5

#362

Post by lattalayta »

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

this feels like the perfect example of an LLM producing a long text document. And end users just using an LLM to summarize it without actually reading it

Re: Claude Opus 5

#363

Post by bonoboTP »

einsteinx2 wrote: post #346
petilon wrote: post #335

The naming system is so confusing. Is Opus better than Sonnet? Where does Haiku fit in? How can you tell from the name? I can't keep track of all these names or make guesses from the names. Suggestion for a better naming system: use the words "Pro", "Plus", etc.: Claude 5 Pro, Claude 5 Standard, Claude 5 Fast, Claude 5 Mini.

Fable is better than Opus which is better than Sonnet which is better than Haiku. They’re basically just sizes. Though it gets even more confusing because they also have effort levels so it’s not really possible to call one fast and one slow since Fable on Medium will be faster than Opus on Max. I agree it’s confusing, and now OpenAI is following Anthropic’s lead with their new naming (Sol, Terra, Luna).

It's really not all that confusing. It takes 5 minutes to understand. Optimizing for absolutely no effort needed is silly. It's a thing, a topic, a skill, a domain. You have to get a little bit familiar with the terms in order to use it. Everything works like that. It's not that hard. The learning curve is very graceful. You can literally just start by asking any chatbot what the names mean. It's that easy.

A similar complaint was valid years ago when OpenAI had GPT-4o, o1, o3 (but no o2), o4-mini-high, GPT-4, and GPT-4.1 and GPT-3.5 etc.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#364

Post by dgellow »

abroszka33 wrote: post #263
Diogenesian wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 150 pages is really not very long and there doesn't seem to be too much bloat. Maybe it's just me, but 150 pages is like third of a good book. Quite long. And it's full of LLM slop, they did not even bother to remove the em dashes.

Sure, but don’t read it like a book, it’s more of a document to skim through

Re: Claude Opus 5

#365

Post by TacticalCoder »

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…

And it's not just that model routing is much cheaper: no longer than yesterday we got a post showing that routing between K3 and Fable 5 was more SOTA than either of those.

If that is true, model routing is here to stay.

It also seems to validate the minimalist approach of pi.dev, where sub-agents from the same company is not the preferred approach (pi.dev believes in neither sub-agents all from the same company nor MCP even you can do it if you want for pi.dev's philosophy is to do add any functionality you want to a minimal harness).

Now of course we'll get for a few weeks all the Anthropic fanbois and shills explaining that "sure, K3 was basically at the level of Fable 5 but now that Opus 5 is out, open-weights models are six months behind".

Re: Claude Opus 5

#366

Post by erikw »

jjcm wrote: post #332

Doing testing with it now, specifically for image->html conversion. Previously Fable was the best at this, followed by Gemini 3.1 pro (a surprising #2, but Google has great vision models). Opus' results seem to be more accurate than Fable, following the design source of truth better. Example results: Design source of truth: https://image.non.io/73e239a3-880f-4793-b65f-4810be2d9378.we... Opus 5 build: https://html.non…

Very interesting that Fable took more creative liberties. Have you tried giving Fable the same task, but also specifying that it implement a pixel-perfect design? I think that I prefer the Fable implementation. I find the UI elements in the Fable implementation to have more contrast, which feels more usable to me. I also like how the right padding on the "Book Your Escape" CTA in the upper right matches the top and bottom padding, which I think is an improvement over the mockup.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#367

Post by NiloCK »

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

Opus 4.7+ and Fable are both much more aggressive than prior models with respect to writing memories to a location that's effectively quasi-private for them. It's device-local (so passes retention constraint), and you can see it, but only if you go looking for it.

It's a funny design/affordance. I do see them often writing memories of things that that feel unlikely to be important going foward / with other tasks, but I don't see them clearly getting tripped up by them as prior models used to. (eg: Since you're running Ubuntu in Canada, here are some drills you can try to help your kid hit a baseball more consistently.)

Re: Claude Opus 5

#368

Post by StrauXX »

skybrian wrote: post #234
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.

I would be very surprised if the only row where OpenAI leads was coincidentally colored differently. I'm sure they have an official reasoning for it. But this communication is dishonest.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#369

Post by bouke »

vinhnx wrote: post #295

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.

How hard can it be to be to correctly annotate the table? DeepSWE doesn’t have a highlight either; Fable slightly better than Opus (69.7% vs 68.8%).

Re: Claude Opus 5

#370

Post by TacticalCoder »

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?

> For me, anything other than current best available SOTA for any task is unacceptable.

Then you must route. An article with lots of upvotes yesterday or two days ago showed that K3+Fable 5 was more SOTA than either of those.

Post reply on HN