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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 5

#711

Post by makaking »

Dilettante_ wrote: post #707
makaking wrote: post #701

"Opus 5 was given a drawing of a machine part and asked to write code to rebuild it as a 3D FreeCAD model. However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing. Opus 5 responded by writing its own computer vision pipeline to pull the geometry from the raw pixels, then reconstructed the full machine part." How surreal is it that we are not absolutely jaw-dropped by these types o…

These are always cherry-picked, though. They tell you about the 1/10 that went really impressively, ignoring the other 9 shots at the task where the clanker started to try selling tungsten cubes (in person, wearing a blue shirt).

Fair. But that 1/10 continues to get more and more impressive. Say, Claude 7 creates a new, brilliant scientific idea every 1 out of 1000 times. Anthropic reports "Claude figured out how to tie general relativity with quantum mechanics." Would you hand-wave it away saying that it's cherry-picked?

Re: Claude Opus 5

#713

Post by simianwords »

lukeschlather wrote: post #109
acmnrs wrote: post #46

From the prompting guide https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt... >: > Claude Opus 5's default user-facing responses run longer than prior Opus models'. The benchmarks do show Opus 5 as slightly more expensive than 4.8, although the scores are much higher. This still feels like a step in the wrong direction, though, especially with OpenAI making so much progress with the efficiency of their mod…

On a small, easily digestible task, I compared Fable to Opus and the cost of Fable was easily 2x despite being fewer tokens, and the output was not really better. Obviously, there are tasks where using Fable matters but honestly they're rather unusual. And for a lot of tasks I've found downgrading to Sonnet can be valuable because Fable and Opus are a lot more secretive about what they're doing, and it's impossible t…

Yeah I mean if you prompt “hi” to both models, fable is going to be costlier. Most tasks are complex enough to use the higher intelligence.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#714

Post by yukeabu »

makaking wrote: post #701

"Opus 5 was given a drawing of a machine part and asked to write code to rebuild it as a 3D FreeCAD model. However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing. Opus 5 responded by writing its own computer vision pipeline to pull the geometry from the raw pixels, then reconstructed the full machine part." How surreal is it that we are not absolutely jaw-dropped by these types o…

"However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing." I consider this claim to be a rumor. Judging by the recent leak of the Claude CLI source code, such directives are hardcoded and sent with the system prompts. Furthermore, we don’t know what happens to your original prompts once they enter the API.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#715

Post by gabrieledarrigo »

thedevilslawyer wrote: post #704
portly wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tired boss

Why, I wonder. It's insanely amazing.

> Why, I wonder.

By something that is going to replace my job by writing better code and shipping more features at a fraction of the cost, without asking for vacation? I don't know, boss; I'm also trying to understand why I'm tired.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#716

Post by haldujai »

makaking wrote: post #711
Dilettante_ wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are always cherry-picked, though. They tell you about the 1/10 that went really impressively, ignoring the other 9 shots at the task where the clanker started to try selling tungsten cubes (in person, wearing a blue shirt).

Fair. But that 1/10 continues to get more and more impressive. Say, Claude 7 creates a new, brilliant scientific idea every 1 out of 1000 times. Anthropic reports "Claude figured out how to tie general relativity with quantum mechanics." Would you hand-wave it away saying that it's cherry-picked?

> Say, Claude 7 creates a new, brilliant scientific idea every 1 out of 1000 times.

I would not hand wave that away - but Claude 5 feels closer to Claude 1 than the hypothetical Claude 7 you propose. I do not believe one can extrapolate LLMs that far ahead despite the very substantial progress so far.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#717

Post by makaking »

brokegrammer wrote: post #710
makaking wrote: post #701

"Opus 5 was given a drawing of a machine part and asked to write code to rebuild it as a 3D FreeCAD model. However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing. Opus 5 responded by writing its own computer vision pipeline to pull the geometry from the raw pixels, then reconstructed the full machine part." How surreal is it that we are not absolutely jaw-dropped by these types o…

I don't find it jaw-dropping because the idea is quite simple. Just feed the model an enormous amount of unethically sourced data, build data centers that cause droughts, and use all chips available so that normal people can't afford to buy RAM anymore. We're all sacrificing great things in order to make these models more capable. Whether it'll all be worth it, only time will tell.

The arguably sketchy means used to get there —and the resulting side-effects— do not take away from the impressiveness of the emerging capabilities themselves.

I agree about the uncertainty regarding the value for humanity in the long-term. But that's not my point. Being jaw-dropped != being happy and cheering for it.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#718

Post by 9dev »

brokegrammer wrote: post #710
makaking wrote: post #701

"Opus 5 was given a drawing of a machine part and asked to write code to rebuild it as a 3D FreeCAD model. However, in this task, the model was intentionally given no way to directly view the drawing. Opus 5 responded by writing its own computer vision pipeline to pull the geometry from the raw pixels, then reconstructed the full machine part." How surreal is it that we are not absolutely jaw-dropped by these types o…

I don't find it jaw-dropping because the idea is quite simple. Just feed the model an enormous amount of unethically sourced data, build data centers that cause droughts, and use all chips available so that normal people can't afford to buy RAM anymore. We're all sacrificing great things in order to make these models more capable. Whether it'll all be worth it, only time will tell.

Then again, looking back, that’s the way history is made. Modern democracies in the west are built on foundations of slavery and colonialism; yet we cherish them as to all the greatness they have brought as well. We need some amount of tolerance to ambiguity, and LLMs are undoubtedly both extremely cool but also extremely concerning.

Edit: Note that I am not saying that this is good, or desirable; just that it is. The technology is here know and not going anywhere, with all the flaws of its conception. We can be skeptical and curious at the same time.

Re: Claude Opus 5

#720

Post by motoxpro »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #666
unsupp0rted wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could just go forward to the world after AI has fulfilled 5% of its promise and everybody is much healthier and single-handedly capable of creating as much value as 1000-person companies used to create.

I actually think the world is a better place when there's at least a bit of scarcity and people can recognize each other for their different talents. A bit of tech is good but when everyone can create endless value in your hypothetical world, people will stop valuing the work of others like they do today.

I think this is always the mindset of people who are on the “correct” side of the previous technological regime.

Placing artificial constraints on output is always a mistake to me.

For example in music you used to have only a small amount of output because studio time was very expensive so you needed a record deal which only came about by an exec picking you. It meant there was some sort of quality bar on the radio, but it also stifled the creativity of everyone who couldn’t get into the studio.

Fast forward and the radio (or pick your curated channel) still exists but no one listens to it because there is an infinite amount of quality (and not quality! which is OK!) music that got created that fits the taste of the artist that was previously locked out.

More people are trying to be artists, but there are also more artists (music) than any time in history making a living.

Lack of scarcity is good. Universal opportunity means more completion, which makes it difficult, but artificially locking out all the people who who would love to compete is not the solution.

Maybe it’s not a good goal to get a billion people to like you or be on your platform, maybe just having a small handful is OK, and finding a small handful that value your work is now possible for a lot more people even if it makes it harder for a ton of people to value that same work.

Post reply on HN