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

341–350 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#341

Post by marcus_holmes »

mannanj wrote: post #329
shepherdjerred wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought AI safety was dumb/unimportant until I saw this dataset of dangerous prompts: https://github.com/mlcommons/ailuminate/blob/main/airr_offic... I don't love the idea of knowledge being restricted... but I also think these tools could result in harm to others in the wrong hands

I once heard a devils advocate say, “if child porn can be fully AI generated and not imply more exploitation of real children, and it’s still banned then it’s about control not harm.” Attack away or downvote my logic.

I think this is a serious question that needs serious thought.

It could be viewed as criminalising behaviour that we find unacceptable, even if it harms no-one and is done in private. Where does that stop?

Of course this assumes we can definitely, 100%, tell AI-generated CSAM from real CSAM. This may not be true, or true for very long.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#342

Post by nojs »

simonw wrote: post #100

Notes and two pelicans: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/24/claude-opus/

> Thinking blocks from previous assistant turns are preserved in model context by default

This seems like a huge change no? I often use max thinking on the assumption that the only downside is time, but now there’s also a downside of context pollution

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#344

Post by unsupp0rted »

roywiggins wrote: post #339
zsoltkacsandi wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean The way this works is: 1) x% of users have an exceptional first experience by chance. Nobody who has a meh first experience bothers to try a second time. 2) x²% of users also have an exceptional second experience by chance 3) So a lot of people with a great first experience think the model started off great and got suddenly worse Suppose it's 25% that have a re…

If by "second" and "third" experience you mean "after 2 ~ 4 weeks of all-day usage"

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#345

Post by mscbuck »

stavros wrote: post #11

Did anyone else notice Sonnet 4.5 being much dumber recently? I tried it today and it was really struggling with some very simple CSS on a 100-line self-contained HTML page. This never used to happen before, and now I'm wondering if this release has something to do with it. On-topic, I love the fact that Opus is now three times cheaper. I hope it's available in Claude Code with the Pro subscription. EDIT: Apparently…

Yes, I've absolutely noticed this. I feel like I can always tell when something is up when it starts trying to do WAY more things than normal. Like I can give it a few functions and ask for some updates, and it just goes through like 6 rounds of thinking, creating 6 new files, assuming that I want to write changes to a database, etc.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#346

Post by esperent »

nickandbro wrote: post #324

"Create me a SVG of a PS4 controller" Gemini 3.0 Pro: https://www.svgviewer.dev/s/CxLSTx2X Opus 4.5: https://www.svgviewer.dev/s/dOSPSHC5 I think Opus 4.5 did a bit better overall, but I do think eventually frontier models will eventually converge to a point where the quality will be so good it will be hard to tell the winner.

I can only see the svg code there on mobile. I don't see any way to view the output.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#347

Post by nostrademons »

jsnell wrote: post #336
nostrademons wrote: post #163

Earlier 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…

Nobody subsidizes LLM APIs. There is a reason to subsidize free consumer offerings: those users are very sticky, and won't switch unless the alternative is much better. There might be a reason to subsidize subscriptions, but only if your value is in the app rather than the model. But for API use, the models are easily substituted, so market share is fleeting. The LLM interface being unstructured plain text makes it s…

LLM APIs are more sticky than many other computing APIs. Much of the eng work is in the prompt engineering, and the prompt engineering is pretty specific to the particular LLM you're using. If you randomly swap out the API calls, you'll find you get significantly worse results, because you tuned your prompts to the particular LLM you were using.

It's much more akin to a programming language or platform than a typical data-access API, because the choice of LLM vendor then means that you build a lot of your future product development off the idiosyncracies of their platform. When you switch you have to redo much of that work.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#348

Post by nullbio »

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…

You're forgetting the step where they write a nefarious paper for their marketing team about the "world-ending dangers" of the capabilities they've discovered within their new model, and push it out to their web of media companies who make bank from the ad-revenue from clicks on their doomsday articles while furthering the regulatory capture goals of the hypocritically Palantir-partnered Anthropic.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#349

Post by senordevnyc »

edf13 wrote: post #95
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…

I’m threw a few hours at Codex the other day and was incredibly disappointed with the outcome… I’m a heavy Claude code user and similar workloads just didn’t work out well for me on Codex. One of the areas I think is going to make a big difference to any model soon is speed. We can build error correcting systems into the tools - but the base models need more speed (and obviously with that lower costs)

Try composer 1 (cursor’s new model). I plan with sonnet 4.5, and then execute with composer, because it’s just so fast.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#350

Post by enraged_camel »

sothatsit wrote: post #290
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.

It’s not marginal in my experience. Once you spend enough time with all them you realize each model excels at different areas.
Post reply on HN