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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#631

Post by jatins »

helloplanets wrote: post #414
jatins wrote: post #51

Better than Fable 5 on all but 3 evals. Has Anthropic ever mentioned how do Opus and Fable differ? It used to be Haiku < Sonnet < Opus in terms of params. Where does Fable fit in this?

Pretty sure Mythos and Fable have way more params, but they've just been able to use the synthetic data off of them to get the leap in quality from Opus. So, not a distilled version of Mythos or Fable, but those models likely helped a lot in the post training phase of Opus.

> they've just been able to use the synthetic data off of them to get the leap in quality from Opus.

> not a distilled version of Mythos or Fable

isnt distilled == trained on synthetic data and reasoning traces?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#632

Post by throw03172019 »

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…

How does model routing work if the prompt is static? Do the routers attempt to tweak the prompt to make it the best version for that model? For example, reading the “migration” guides for Claude Opus 4.6 -> Opus 5 is exhausting. Adding in all of the other models complicates it even more. Especially across vendors.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#633

Post by californical »

arizen wrote: post #483
Kwpolska wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fable might be using those phrases less, but its writing is still terrible and exhausting to read.

Could these complex/hard to read Fable outputs be sign of some kind of industrial level of intelligence, which us humans may have a hard to comprehend, while it may be also hard for machine to use simpler texts to properly outline all nuances and complexities of concepts it output?

Two things tell me this isn’t the case:

(1) it’s not that I can’t understand their output, it’s just written in a way that is very homogenous and same-y, with very boring cliches and phrases that don’t quite match their context

(2) a pretty strong sign of intelligence is being able to explain complex things in simple terms

Re: Claude Opus 5

#634

Post by [deleted] »

abidlabs wrote: post #556
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 was curious to see how open weight models would do on this task so I passed in a screenshot of your source of truth and here's what 2 of the best code-generation models that allow image inputs do: Inkling (not too great): https://cdn-uploads.huggingface.co/production/uploads/608b8b... Kimi 2.7 (really well, esp. note that this is the predecessor model, not the latest Kimi3): https://cdn-uploads.huggingface.co/produ…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 5

#635

Post by sjs382 »

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…

Just leaving this for anyone that says a design like this doesn't work: https://riceboxed.com/

Re: Claude Opus 5

#636

Post by I_am_tiberius »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #460
I_am_tiberius wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe I am biased, but the person in control of that specific company is by far the most untrustworthy.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#637

Post by Omniusaspirer »

arizen wrote: post #483
Kwpolska wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fable might be using those phrases less, but its writing is still terrible and exhausting to read.

Could these complex/hard to read Fable outputs be sign of some kind of industrial level of intelligence, which us humans may have a hard to comprehend, while it may be also hard for machine to use simpler texts to properly outline all nuances and complexities of concepts it output?

If you feed Fable or Opus primarily handoff documents from a previous context instead of human written prompts and are working on something sophisticated it rapidly reaches a level where it's hard to actually comprehend for a non expert. I've received incredibly obtuse outputs that contain more mathematical formulas than English words with programming workloads.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#638

Post by jofzar »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #460
I_am_tiberius wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but grok has the literal track record of our of the box uploading your whole codebase, secrets included to a remote box.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#639

Post by bgroins »

bellowsgulch wrote: post #22
mcast wrote: post #11

Interesting timing to release this on the same day Jensen makes a statement on open source AI.

It does make me wonder if these firms, some or all, are saving some announcements to coincide with others that hit venues like HN. Companies like Nvidia surely aren't waiting, but OpenAI and Anthropic have unusual timing.

There are trillions of dollars at play, so probably

Re: Claude Opus 5

#640

Post by kelnos »

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?

Sometimes you can get an equivalent result in a fraction of the time using a less capable model.

The problem is of course knowing ahead of time that the faster model can give you the same result.

Post reply on HN