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

311–320 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#311

Post by IgorPartola »

localhost wrote: post #258
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.

Totally agree with this. I have seen many cases where a dumber model gets trapped in a local minima and burns a ton of tokens to escape from it (sometimes unsuccessfully). In a toy example (30 minute agentic coding session - create a markdown -> html compiler using a subset of commonmark test suite to hill climb on), dumber models would cost $18 (at retail token prices) to complete the task. Smarter models would see…

For me this is sub agent usage. If I ask Claude Code to use 1-3 subagents for a task, the 5 hour limit is gone in one or two rounds. Weekly limit shortly after. They just keep producing more and more documentation about each individual intermediate step to talk to each other no matter how I edit the sub agent definitions.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#312

Post by Mkengin »

viraptor wrote: post #24

Has there been any announcement of a new programming benchmark? SWE looks like it's close to saturation already. At this point for SWE it may be more interesting to start looking at which types of issues consistently fail/work between model families.

I like this one: https://swe-rebench.com/

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#313

Post by lossolo »

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 had problems solved incorrectly and edge cases missed by Sonnet and by other LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini) and the other way around too. Once they saw the other model's answer, they admitted their "critical mistake". It's all about how much of your prompt/problem/context falls outside the model's training distribution.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#314

Post by vagab0nd »

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…

I did not know this but it's consistent with the behaviors of the CEO.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#315

Post by Mkengin »

jascha_eng wrote: post #68
GodelNumbering wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes it sound like a one trick pony

Anthropic is leaning into agentic coding and heavily so. It makes sense to use swe verified as their main benchmark. It is also the one benchmark Google did not get the top spot last week. Claude remains king that's all that matters here.

I am eagerly awaiting swe-rebench results for November with all the new models: https://swe-rebench.com/

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#316

Post by consumer451 »

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 have a side-project prototype app that I tried to build on the Gemini 2.5 Pro API. I have not tried 3 yet, however the only improvements I would like to see is in Gemini's ability to:

1. Follow instructions consistently

2. API calls to not randomly result in "resource exhausted"

Can anyone share their experience with either of these issues?

I have built other projects accessing Azure GPT-4.1, Bedrock Sonnet 4, and even Perplexity, and those three were relatively rock solid compared to Gemini.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#317

Post by [deleted] »

lxgr wrote: post #282
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.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#318

Post by Wowfunhappy »

Aeolun wrote: post #299
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the reminder from GP was fair and I'm disappointed that it's downvoted as of this writing. One thing I've always appreciated about this community is that we can remind each other of the guidelines. Yes it was just one word, and probably an accident—an accident I've made myself, and felt bad about afterwards—but the guideline is specific about "word or phrase", meaning single words are included. If GGP's sin…

THIS, FOR EXAMPLE. IT IS MUCH MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF HOW ANNOYING IT IS TO READ THAN A SINGLE CAPITALIZATION OF that.

But again, if that is what the guideline is referring to, why does it say "If you want to emphasize a _word or phrase_". By my reading, it is quite explicitly including single words!

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#319

Post by consumer451 »

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…

Related:

> Claude Opus 4.5 in Windsurf for 2x credits (instead of 20x for Opus 4.1)

https://old.reddit.com/r/windsurf/comments/1p5qcus/claude_op...

At the risk of sounding like a shill, in my personal experience, Windsurf is somehow still the best deal for an agentic VSCode fork.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#320

Post by koolala »

throwuxiytayq wrote: post #144
blurbleblurble wrote: post #101

Earlier 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

Do you not believe that Intelligence Throttling exists what-so-ever? It's a lot like overworking a person in real life with too many tasks at once except its a supercomputer.
Post reply on HN