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

Claude Opus 4.5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#281

Post by astrange »

tekacs wrote: post #60
llamasushi wrote: post #30

The 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…

This is also super relevant for everyone who had ditched Claude Code due to limits: > For Claude and Claude Code users with access to Opus 4.5, we’ve removed Opus-specific caps. For Max and Team Premium users, we’ve increased overall usage limits, meaning you’ll have roughly the same number of Opus tokens as you previously had with Sonnet. We’re updating usage limits to make sure you’re able to use Opus 4.5 for daily…

Just avoid using Claude Research, which I assume still instantly eats most of your token limits.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#282

Post by lxgr »

827a wrote: post #12

I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5. I've also had some problems that only Claude Code has been able to really solve; Sonnet 4.5 in there consistently performs better than Sonnet 4.5 anywhere else. I think Anthropic is making the right decisions with their models. Given that software engineering is probably one of the very few domains of AI…

> I've played around with Gemini 3 Pro in Cursor, and honestly: I find it to be significantly worse than Sonnet 4.5.

That's my experience too. It's weirdly bad at keeping track of its various output channels (internal scratchpad, user-visible "chain of thought", and code output), not only in Cursor but also on gemini.google.com.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#284

Post by verdverm »

alwillis wrote: post #276
verdverm wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not the way these agents are not up to the task of writing production level code at any meaningful scale looking forward to high paying gigs to go in and clean up after people take them too far and the hype cycle fades --- I recommend the opposite, work on custom agents so you have a better understanding of how these things work and fail. Get deep in the code to understand how context and values flow and get…

> these agents are not up to the task of writing production level code at any meaningful scale This is obviously not true, starting with the AI companies themselves. It's like the old saying "half of all advertising doesn't work; we just don't which half that is." Some organizations are having great results, while some are not. From the multiple dev podcasts I've listened to by AI skeptics have had a lightbulb moment…

Not a skeptic, I use AI for coding daily and am working on a custom agent setup because, through my experience for more than a year, they are not up to hard tasks.

This is well known I thought, as even the people who build the AIs we use talk about this and acknowledge their limitations.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#285

Post by gigatexal »

Love the competition. Gemini 3 pro blew me away after being spoiled by Claude for coding things. Considered canceling my Anthropic sub but now I’m gonna hold on to it.

The bigger thing is Google has been investing in TPUs even before the craze. They’re on what gen 5 now ? Gen 7? Anyway I hope they keep investing tens of billions into it because Nvidia needs to have some competition and maybe if they do they’ll stop this AI silliness and go back to making GPUs for gamers. (Hahaha of course they won’t. No gamer is paying 40k for a GPU.)

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#286

Post by energy123 »

futureshock wrote: post #93

A really great way to get an idea of the relative cost and performance of these models at their various thinking budgets is to look at the ARC-AGI-2 leaderboard. Opus 4.5 stacks up very well here when you compare to Gemini 3’s score and cost. Gemini 3 Deep Think is still the current leaders but at more than 30x the cost. The cost curve of achieving these scores is coming down rapidly. In Dec 2024 when OpenAI announce…

A point of context. On this leaderboard, Gemini 3 Pro is "without tools" and Gemini 3 Deep Think is "with tools". In the other benchmarks released by Google which compare these two models, where they have access to the same amount of tools, the gap between them is small.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#287

Post by sqs »

tmaly wrote: post #267
sqs wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's super interesting is that Opus is cheaper all-in than Sonnet for many usage patterns. Here are some early rough numbers from our own internal usage on the Amp team (avg cost $ per thread): - Sonnet 4.5: $1.83 - Opus 4.5: $1.30 (earlier checkpoint last week was $1.55) - Gemini 3 Pro: $1.21 Cost per token is not the right way to look at this. A bit more intelligence means mistakes (and wasted tokens) avoided.

what is the typical usage pattern that would result in these cost figures?

Using small threads (see https://ampcode.com/@sqs for some of my public threads).

If you use very long threads and treat it as a long-and-winding conversation, you will get worse results and pay a lot more.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#288

Post by conception »

lukev wrote: post #154
unsupp0rted wrote: post #46

This 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 only time Ive seen benchmark nerfing is I saw one see a drop in performance between 2.5 march preview and release.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#289

Post by jasonthorsness »

diego_sandoval wrote: post #221
jasonthorsness wrote: post #61

I used Gemini instead of my usual Claude for a non-trivial front-end project [1] and it really just hit it out of the park especially after the update last week, no trouble just directly emitting around 95% of the application. Now Claude is back! The pace of releases and competition seems to be heating up more lately, and there is absolutely no switching cost. It's going to be interesting to see if and how the fronti…

What IDE/CLI tool do you use?

I used Gemini CLI and a few rounds of Claude CLI at the beginning with stock VSCode

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#290

Post by sothatsit »

bnchrch wrote: post #5

Seeing these benchmarks makes me so happy. Not because I love Anthropic (I do like them) but because it's staving off me having to change my Coding Agent. This world is changing fast, and both keeping up with State of the Art and/or the feeling of FOMO is exhausting. Ive been holding onto Claude Code for the last little while since Ive built up a robust set of habits, slash commands, and sub agents that help me squee…

The benefit you get from juggling different tools is at best marginal. In terms of actually getting work done, both Sonnet and GPT-5.1-Codex are both pretty effective. It looks like Opus will be another meaningful, but incremental, change, which I am excited about but probably won’t dramatically change how much these tools impact our work.
Post reply on HN