Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now THAT is great news
From the HN guidelines: > Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.
[deleted]
Claude Opus 4.5
191–200 of 525 posts
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#192This is gonna be game-changing for the next 2-4 weeks before they nerf the model. Then for the next 2-3 months people complaining about the degradation will be labeled “skill issue”. Then a sacrificial Anthropic engineer will “discover” a couple obscure bugs that “in some cases” might have lead to less than optimal performance. Still largely a user skill issue though. Then a couple months later they’ll release Opus 4…
There are two possible explanations for this behavior: the model nerf is real, or there's a perceptual/psychological shift. However, benchmarks exist. And I haven't seen any empirical evidence that the performance of a given model version grows worse over time on benchmarks (in general.) Therefore, some combination of two things are true: 1. The nerf is psychologial, not actual. 2. The nerf is real but in a way that…
I'm pretty sure this isn't happening with the API versions as much as with the "pro plan" (loss leader priced) routers. I imagine that there are others like me working on hard problems for long periods with the model setting pegged to high. Why wouldn't the companies throttle us?
It could even just be that they just apply simple rate limits and that this degrades the effectiveness of the feedback loop between the person and the model. If I have to wait 20 minutes for GPT-5.1-codex-max medium to look at `git diff` and give a paltry and inaccurate summary (yes this is where things are at for me right now, all this week) it's not going to be productive.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? They just closed a $13B funding round. Entirely possible that they're selling below-cost to gain marketshare; on their current usage the cloud computing costs shouldn't be too bad, while the benefits of showing continued growth on their frontier models is great. Hell, for all we know they may have priced Opus 4.1 above cost to show positive unit economics to investors, and then drop the price of Opus 4.5 to spur…
Eh, I'm testing it now and it seems a bit too fast to be the same size, almost 2x the Tokens Per Second and much lower Time To First Token. There are other valid reasons for why it might be faster, but faster even while everyone's rushing to try it at launch + a cost decrease leaves me inclined to believe it's a smaller model than past Opus models
It could be a combination of over-provisioning for early users, smaller model and more quantisation.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#194Oh that's why there were only 2 usage bars.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#195Would love to know what's going on with C++ and PHP benchmarks. No meaningful gain over Opus 4.1 for either, and Sonnet still seems to outperform Opus on PHP.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#196This is great. Sonnet 4.5 has degraded terribly.
I can get some useful stuff from a clean context in the web ui but the cli is just useless.
Opus is far superiour.
Today sonnet 4.5 suggested to verify remote state file presence by creating an empty one locally and copy it to the remote backend. Da fuq? University level programmer my a$$.
And it seems like it has degraded this last month.
I keep getting braindead suggestions and code that looks like it came from a random word generator.
I swear it was not that awful a couple of months ago.
Opus cap has been an issue, happy to change and I really hope the nerf rumours are just that. Undounded rumours and the defradation has a valid root cause
But honestly sonnet 4.5 has started to act like a smoking pile of sh**t
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#197This is gonna be game-changing for the next 2-4 weeks before they nerf the model. Then for the next 2-3 months people complaining about the degradation will be labeled “skill issue”. Then a sacrificial Anthropic engineer will “discover” a couple obscure bugs that “in some cases” might have lead to less than optimal performance. Still largely a user skill issue though. Then a couple months later they’ll release Opus 4…
There are two possible explanations for this behavior: the model nerf is real, or there's a perceptual/psychological shift. However, benchmarks exist. And I haven't seen any empirical evidence that the performance of a given model version grows worse over time on benchmarks (in general.) Therefore, some combination of two things are true: 1. The nerf is psychologial, not actual. 2. The nerf is real but in a way that…
> The nerf is psychologial, not actual
Once I tested this, I gave the same task for a model after the release and a couple weeks later. In the first attempt it produced a well-written code that worked beautifully, I started to worry about the jobs of the software engineers. Second attempt was a nightmare, like a butcher acting as a junior developer performing a surgery on a horse.
Is this empirical evidence?
And this is not only my experience.
Calling this phychological is gaslighting.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree that this is what's happening. I'm quite convinced after about a year of using all these tools via the "pro" plans that all these companies are throttling their models in sophisticated ways that have a poorly understood but significant impact on quality and consistency. Gpt-5.1-* are fully nerfed for me at the moment. Maybe they're giving others the real juice but they're not giving it to me. Gpt-5-* ga…
y’all hallucinating harder than GPT2 on DMT
[deleted]
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#199This is gonna be game-changing for the next 2-4 weeks before they nerf the model. Then for the next 2-3 months people complaining about the degradation will be labeled “skill issue”. Then a sacrificial Anthropic engineer will “discover” a couple obscure bugs that “in some cases” might have lead to less than optimal performance. Still largely a user skill issue though. Then a couple months later they’ll release Opus 4…
There are two possible explanations for this behavior: the model nerf is real, or there's a perceptual/psychological shift. However, benchmarks exist. And I haven't seen any empirical evidence that the performance of a given model version grows worse over time on benchmarks (in general.) Therefore, some combination of two things are true: 1. The nerf is psychologial, not actual. 2. The nerf is real but in a way that…
Or, 2b: the nerf is real, but benchmarks are gamed and models are trained to excel at them, yet fall flat in real world situations.
Re: Claude Opus 4.5
#200The burying of the lede here is insane. $5/$25 per MTok is a 3x price drop from Opus 4. At that price point, Opus stops being "the model you use for important things" and becomes actually viable for production workloads. Also notable: they're claiming SOTA prompt injection resistance. The industry has largely given up on solving this problem through training alone, so if the numbers in the system card hold up under a…
3x price drop almost certainly means Opus 4.5 is a different and smaller base model than Opus 4.1, with more fine tuning to target the benchmarks. I'll be curious to see how performance compares to Opus 4.1 on the kind of tasks and metrics they're not explicitly targeting, e.g. eqbench.com
Probably more sparse (MoE) than Opus 4.1. Which isn't a performance killer by itself, but is a major concern. Easy to get it wrong.