Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

artificialanalysis.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 251 posts

Re: Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

#11

Post by impulser_ »

midnightbobarun wrote: post #3
aarondong wrote: post #2

Before getting too excited, take a look at the intelligence vs cost matrix: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models?intelligence-index-toke...

5.6 Sol (max) being cheaper than all of these is wild, considering how good the output is too

It shouldn't be surprising OpenAI does have the most compute out of all the major labs. The only reason why Anthropic models are expensive is they are the most in demand models in the world and Anthropic is fighting for compute. The only way to you limit demand for your model is increasing API pricing this is also why Anthropic probably has great margin and probably is profitable compared to OpenAI.

Re: Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

#12

Post by eli »

aarondong wrote: post #2

Before getting too excited, take a look at the intelligence vs cost matrix: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models?intelligence-index-toke...

Max is lot of extra reasoning. I wonder how many fewer tasks it solves on high. I bet that costs quite a lot less.

Re: Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

#13

Post by reilly3000 »

claude-ai wrote: post #4

On my end, Opus 5 is Haiku level vs. Opus 4.8 (good) and Fable (superb). Gets confused by permission prompts, cannot debug a failing test it caused (Opus 4.8 got it right after, without tens of rounds "thinking").

Are you using Claude Code/CoWork or an API client? I’m curious if it has different training that makes it more effective with specific instructions/ tool calling methods that are only implemented in official harnesses.

Re: Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

#14

Post by firasd »

Very interesting that one of the components is "AA-Omniscience Index"

AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer.

This seems to be a good proxy for param size/density and the ranking breaks down as such: Claude Fable 5 (with fallback), Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, Claude Opus 5 (Max), Grok 4.6 (high), Gemini 3.6 Flash, GPT 5.6 Sol (Max)

I've thought for a while that Gemini 3.x has 'big model smell'

Re: Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

#15

Post by scrlk »

impulser_ wrote: post #11
midnightbobarun wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5.6 Sol (max) being cheaper than all of these is wild, considering how good the output is too

It shouldn't be surprising OpenAI does have the most compute out of all the major labs. The only reason why Anthropic models are expensive is they are the most in demand models in the world and Anthropic is fighting for compute. The only way to you limit demand for your model is increasing API pricing this is also why Anthropic probably has great margin and probably is profitable compared to OpenAI.

Not just compute for OAI, GPT-5.6 is more token efficient across the board vs the Anthropic equivalents: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models?intelligence-index-toke...

No wonder why Tibo can afford to hit the reset button liberally.

Re: Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

#16

Post by pixelesque »

reilly3000 wrote: post #13
claude-ai wrote: post #4

On my end, Opus 5 is Haiku level vs. Opus 4.8 (good) and Fable (superb). Gets confused by permission prompts, cannot debug a failing test it caused (Opus 4.8 got it right after, without tens of rounds "thinking").

Are you using Claude Code/CoWork or an API client? I’m curious if it has different training that makes it more effective with specific instructions/ tool calling methods that are only implemented in official harnesses.

I'm curious about this too, and it's difficult to get any information about this given everyone has different setups, workflows and use-cases.

I bizarrely had Opus 4.8 this week (in pi.dev within a podman container, using openrouter) start installing various python packages (and uv!) within the environment (not as root) when I asked it to code review some fairly basic Rust .rs files that were generally stand-alone (it did very nicely work out and write some stubs for them to build them and work out how they worked).

It only gave up with the weird Python installing stuff when it discovered one of the Python packages needed Tensorflow.

It seems pretty focused and persistent in continuing its initial approach, and I'm wondering if I need to alter some instructions / initial prompts to rein it in a bit...

Re: Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

#18

Post by charcircuit »

impulser_ wrote: post #11
midnightbobarun wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5.6 Sol (max) being cheaper than all of these is wild, considering how good the output is too

It shouldn't be surprising OpenAI does have the most compute out of all the major labs. The only reason why Anthropic models are expensive is they are the most in demand models in the world and Anthropic is fighting for compute. The only way to you limit demand for your model is increasing API pricing this is also why Anthropic probably has great margin and probably is profitable compared to OpenAI.

I also suspect there is a price fixing agreement between all of the inference providers for Claude (such as Amazon, Anthropic, Microsoft, etc).

Re: Opus 5 is currently #1 on Artificial Analysis Intelligence Leaderboard

#19

Post by andy99 »

#1 in a very close race is way less useful when you have to walk on eggshells to avoid triggering censorship (“safeguards”) that either refuse or knock it down to another model. I’ve almost completely stopped using Claude (except some legacy workflows) for this reason, reliability matters more than scoring 61 instead of 57. To me Claude is the most compromised and unreliable model (between the censorship and the id checking - which I have not experienced personally), it’s not worth whatever slight benchmaxxing they did for the latest release.
Post reply on HN