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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#671

Post by sznio »

Kwpolska wrote: post #464
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…

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

If it's "read as an article" or something then yeah it's crap and Fable's current style isn't actually better than older models. For flowery speech old models are perfectly fine.

For quickly parsing the agent output, it's formulaism isn't a bad thing.

Fable's writing does have a property of going over my head, which didn't happen with earlier agents. Asking for clarification doesn't really give good results.

We've gone full circle where I once again use classical search just to look up what the fuck it's yapping about. It's much quicker and more accurate to take a glance at Wikipedia, than to ask the agent.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#672

Post by scriptsmith »

sivakon wrote: post #664
Sol- wrote: post #42

How does it perform on HuggingFaceExploit bench? Suspiciously absent, so not sure if I can take the model seriously. On a serious note, I hope they improved their extremely sabotaging and unspecific bio safeguards, which prevented Fable from being used in any codebase that ever so slightly grazed medical terminology or data and made me switch to 5.6 Sol.

What is HuggingFaceExploit bench?

It's a reference to this story where an OpenAI model broke out of its sandbox during cyber benchmarking and hacked into HuggingFace, in order to obtain test solutions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48997548

Re: Claude Opus 5

#673

Post by anonym00se1 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #670

Pointless anecdote: I asked it to make some slides and it decided to write its own slide rendering engine: > On the format — I dropped reveal.js and wrote a small engine inline instead. Reveal would have meant a CDN load, and a deck that half-renders because the lecture theatre wifi is flaky It one-shotted a perfect functional mini version of powerpoint (or Reveal) for a simple presentation I asked it to make.

Opus 4.8 decided to code up its own version of the SwiftUI rendering engine for iOS when I asked it to change a swipe gesture. I left the computer for several hours, came back, noticed it still wasn't done, noticed it had alarmingly burned through my weekly tokens, and had to stop it from continuing.

"You're right. What I did was overkill and I should have just used iOS's built-in rendering engine. Noted for next time."

Re: Claude Opus 5

#675

Post by zarzavat »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #647
01100011 wrote: post #623

I had a moderately complex review in a large C/C++ codebase that Codex/GPT-5.6-sol already cleaned up so I threw it at Opus 5. 4 errors found. That seemed odd, so I handed it back to GPT. All were false. Opus doesn't seem to look at the wider context and understand which functions were called in certain contexts. I gave GPT's analysis back to Opus and it admitted its mistake. Maybe it's good for writing code, but as…

A bit worrying that at no point in here did you say you investigated the errors. LLM 1 is disagreeing with LLM 2. Shouldn’t you be the tie breaker?

A man with one LLM knows if his code has errors. A man with two LLMs is never sure.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#676

Post by SubiculumCode »

efficax wrote: post #386
HyperL0gi wrote: post #55

Isn’t it just hilarious that a model that seemed so superior to Fable but didn't get doomsay marketing from Anthropic got released without any issues? In theory, this was supposed to be AGI level according to Anthropic, yet here we are, just a normal Friday.

I feel like i've seen less hype about "the next model will be agi". GPT-6 is supposed to be coming this summer, and nobody is expecting AGI now. Not sure how they're going to keep the hype cycle going

It's already happened but no one wants to admit it

Re: Claude Opus 5

#677

Post by [deleted] »

jatins wrote: post #631
helloplanets wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 5

#678

Post by NikhilVerma »

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…

That's what led me to make https://slopsift.dev/editor/

Re: Claude Opus 5

#679

Post by helloplanets »

jatins wrote: post #631
helloplanets wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A model being a distilled version of another specific model is a different thing from using synthetic data off of another model.

Anthropic goes to insane lengths to block other labs from training off of their models' output, as it's been done over and over again in the past. But the models that have used synthetic data from Anthropic's models aren't distilled versions of whatever model(s) they got the distilled data off of.

Post reply on HN