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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#451

Post by kccqzy »

bottlepalm wrote: post #345
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…

I just clicked your links and then read your comment after - my first impression was the Fable version looks way nicer.

Same. I like the Fable version better. Better colors, better choice of font sizes, better column sizing. Also small things like the “Experience” section header being orange rather than gray, which Fable got right and Opus got wrong.

It seemed to me that Fable meaningfully improved on the original design more than just faithfully executing the original design.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#452

Post by krzyk »

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…

And to the guardrails of Fable: https://x.com/cheatyyyy/status/2080693704290140330

Re: Claude Opus 5

#453

Post by einsteinx2 »

bonoboTP wrote: post #363
einsteinx2 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I am familiar with the terms, but I also can see how it can be confusing for a lot of people.

Arguably the complaint was more valid for those older GPT models you mentioned.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#455

Post by winwang »

jjcm wrote: post #382
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…

Here's another test of a cyberpunk ramen shop website. One thing I've found LLMs have a lot of difficulty with is angular cuts / elements that aren't easily representable with CSS. Cyberpunk aesthetics are generally a great test of that, since they have a lot of microglyphs / window decoration. Design source of truth: https://image.non.io/9d5fed20-b476-49d3-841b-37eb553fb88e.we... Opus 5 build: https://html.non.io/ne…

Several other commenters have disparaging the design seemingly mostly due to its AI-generated nature, or maybe they actually do dislike cyberpunk.

Personally, I think being able to have these design languages be easily prototypable is fucking awesome. Great tests! (But a tad low-performance/janky, somehow). Though, I also like the cyberpunk aesthetic. Very on-brand(?) that AI generates it, hah.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#456

Post by gonzalohm »

bathtub365 wrote: post #289
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

Likely in memory files stored locally

I'm talking about the website. It's not local because I can see my chats in any device

Re: Claude Opus 5

#457

Post by wuhhh »

It really feels as though my 20 year career as a front end developer is coming to a very abrupt end; at least as I have know it these past two decades.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#458

Post by tripleee »

wuhhh wrote: post #457

It really feels as though my 20 year career as a front end developer is coming to a very abrupt end; at least as I have know it these past two decades.

I'm envious you got to enjoy it for 20 years

Re: Claude Opus 5

#459

Post by duplessitous »

ianberdin wrote: post #448
deet wrote: post #446

I compared the writing style of Opus 5 vs Fable 5, and Opus 5 continues many of the "Claude-isms" of its 4.8 predecessor in a way that Fable broke away from. Opus 5 still uses "carry the argument", "worth stating plainly", ", and the trap", "The X matters more", the use of "move" We need an "annoying English" benchmark. - Fable 5 Max: https://gist.github.com/deet/3d97f854b48eac6658d642fa18bb24d... - Opus 5 Max: https…

I’m pretty sure Opus 5 is adapted to tricks from long reasoning in Kimi K3 and based on original Opus 4.8. It is not fable in any form.

Seems unlikely they adapted anything from K3 given the timeline of releases, similar to how K3 was obviously not distilled from fable

Re: Claude Opus 5

#460

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

I_am_tiberius wrote: post #337
guybedo wrote: post #277

Looking at intelligence vs cost: - Opus 5 is 10% smarter than Grok 4.5 for 10x the cost. - Opus 5 is a bit smarter than Gpt 5.6 Sol for 2.75x the cost ref: https://artificialanalysis.ai/?cost=intelligence-vs-cost-per...

With Grok you can be sure that you're data ends up in the next model (derived or anonymized, but still).

You can opt out of training.

If you don't believe checking the opt-out box actually opts you out, then this sentence could be said about literally any provider.

Post reply on HN