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

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#401

Post by maCDzP »

johnfn wrote: post #296
ai-x wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Has anyone tried that? I have a feeling that if I put it a prompt Claude would comply. But I am all in on the Claude cool aid.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#402

Post by no_multitudes »

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.

Do you have specific examples you think are LLM-generated? I have only read a few parts, but they did not seem primarily LLM-generated to me. Using em-dashes is really not a good signal for this IMO.

I'm not saying you're wrong btw; I'm sure this has many authors and some of them probably used LLMs significantly in the writing process.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#403

Post by subscribed »

rdedev wrote: post #71
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…

So I guess the new opus will not run on my drug discovery project. It's just a binary classifier to screen for new malaria drugs. Fable completely have up on that codebase citing bio security concerns. Seems like this domain will go unsupported by Antropic

I've seen in some random comments an URL thrown around, supposedly allowing to subscribe to their biosecurity programme.

Apparently this is the way - if you know, you know :)

Re: Claude Opus 5

#404

Post by redsocksfan45 »

ddxv wrote: post #45

"Cybersecurity. Opus 5’s cyber classifiers are proportionally less restrictive than those on Fable 5. They allow Opus 5 to find vulnerabilities in source code, but block “binary-based” vulnerability scanning (a method more likely to be associated with malicious actors), penetration testing, and exploit generation." Nice of them to be more explicit for what is blocked. Will be interesting to see if this is true or not…

[dead]

Re: Claude Opus 5

#405

Post by mcv »

jpk2f2 wrote: post #260
abixb wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the rumors were right, Opus 5 was indeed being polished up for release. Huge improvements in GDPval-AA v2 too -- great for some of the knowledge work-based agentic workloads I run. Also glad they still kepy Fable 5 on "credits only" access. I think we're going to start seeing model providers gate top-of-the-line models behind pay-as-you-go API rates/credits while subsidizing other models on monthly subscriptions.

It's still available on at least some subs, they emailed me recently notifying me that I still have access.

I think I saw that Max and Enterprise keep access, but Pro has to use credits, but I think I got $85 in credits.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#406

Post by hrpnk »

The breaking changes vs. Opus 4.8 are interesting [1]

1. Thinking on by default: On Claude Opus 4.8, requests without a thinking field run without thinking; on Claude Opus 5, the same requests run with adaptive thinking.

2. Disabling thinking is capped at high effort: You can still turn thinking off with thinking: {type: "disabled"}, but only at an effort level of high or below.

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

Re: Claude Opus 5

#407

Post by mbil »

Dibes wrote: post #104

I'm not sure what to make of this graph[0]. It shows medium as the most effective thinking mode by far for frontier code. It's the only case that I saw going through the system card where more reasoning effort meaningfully negatively impacted the resulting eval. I know sometimes max efforts show a small dip, but this is substantial. I wonder why in the world that is? [0] https://imgur.com/a/Nv8V7Ry

Maybe it's akin to the Ballmer peak: improved performance at a specific level of relaxation

Re: Claude Opus 5

#408

Post by ciefa »

abixb wrote: post #180
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…

So the rumors were right, Opus 5 was indeed being polished up for release. Huge improvements in GDPval-AA v2 too -- great for some of the knowledge work-based agentic workloads I run. Also glad they still kepy Fable 5 on "credits only" access. I think we're going to start seeing model providers gate top-of-the-line models behind pay-as-you-go API rates/credits while subsidizing other models on monthly subscriptions.

Fable 5 is included for 50% of the limits in Max. Only below Max one has to use credits.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#409

Post by SwellJoe »

x313 wrote: post #228
alvis wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the cost per task. It appears to be significantly cheaper, cheaper than sonnet!

The numbers from Anthropic seem heavily cherry-picked, Artificial Analysis has Opus 5 at 1.25x the cost of Sonnet and 2x the cost of GPT 5.6 and K3. https://artificialanalysis.ai/?cost=cost-per-task

I don't understand how the K3 numbers keep coming out cheap for people. I recently started to add it to my security auditing benchmarks and found it was going to cost about twice as much as Opus 4.8. It blew through the $100 budget I'd set at like 11%. In the tasks I'm doing it seems crazy expensive because it chews so much, burning a tremendous amount of tokens.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#410

Post by criddell »

password54321 wrote: post #371
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?

It is pretty clear at this point that current models are good at maths and problems with verifiable rewards. And puzzles are essentially math problems. Still a long way before we can say their "fluid intelligence" is effectively applicable to the real world.

I keep wondering why there aren't more real world tests.

Maybe hook up a bunch of the AIs to a stereo camera and a couple of microphones and give them control over actuators to so they can drive cars. Then lets race them around a somewhat complex course.

When they are good enough at driving on tracks, put them on the road. Maybe see which can drive a truck with 400 cases of Coors from Texarkana, TX to Atlanta, GA and back within 28 hours.

Post reply on HN