Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.5

anthropic.com

491–500 of 525 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#491
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like that for this brief moment we actually have a competitive market working in favor of consumers. I ditched my Claude subscription in favor of Gemini just last week. It won't be great when we enter the cartel equilibrium.

Literally "cancelled" my Anthropic subscription this morning (meaning disabled renewal), annoyed hitting Opus limits again. Going to enable billing again. The neat thing is that Anthropic might be able to do this as they massively moving their models to Google TPUs (Google just opened up third party usage of v7 Ironwood, and Anthropic planned on using a million TPUs), dramatically reducing their nvidia-tax spend. Whi…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#492
post #482

All the users in the comments here complaining about API limits and usage limits have missed the boat. You're not the target audience. This AI is not for you. It's not for consumers and end users. This AI is for the multi-billion and trillion-dollar businesses who are signing massive contracts to get these models enabled for their entire company. I've been using Sonnet 4.5 for months and never had a usage limit ever.…

How could price per token not be a concern for any “multi-billion” or “multi-trillion dollar” business? Do they just burn money to remain profitable?

You'd be surprised.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#493

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…

Using AI in production is no doubt an enormous security risk...

Where's the argument? Or we're just asserting things?

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#494

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…

It was already viable pricing before. You have to remember this is for business use. Many companies will pay 20% on top of an engineer's salary to have them be 200% as effective. Right?

I am truthfully surprised they dropped pricing. They don't really need to. The demand is quite high. This is all pretty much gatekeeping too (with the high pricing, across all providers). AI for coding can be expensive and companies want it to be because money is their edge. Funny because this is the same for the AI providers too. He who had the most GPUs, right?

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#495

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…

Also it's really really good. Scarily good tbh. It's making PRs that work and aren't slop-filled and it figures out problems and traces through things in a way a competent engineer would rather than just fucking about.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of tokens in the docs is pretty much a worthless metric for these models. Only way to go is to plug it in and test it. My experience is that Claude is an expert at wasting tokens on nonsense. Easily 5x up on output tokens comparing to ChatGPT and then consider that Claude waste about 2-3x of tokens more by default.

This is spot on. The amount of wasteful output tokens from Claude is crazy. The actual output you're looking for might be better, but you're definitely going to pay for it in the long run. The other angle here is that it's very easy to waste a ton of time and tokens with cheap models. Or you can more slowly dig yourself a hole with the SOTA models. But either way, and even with 1M tokens of context - things spiral at…

Composer 1 from Cursor does a great job of distilling this stuff out...

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

base64 specifically is something that the original GPT-4.0 could decode reliably all by itself.

I could also decode it by hand, but doing so is stupid and will be unreliable. Same with an LLM - the network is not geared for precision.

You don't know what it's geared for until you try. Like I said, GPT-4 could consistently encode and decode even fairly long base64 sequences. I remember once asking it for an SVG image, and it responded with HTML that had an tag in it with a data URL embedding the image - and it worked exactly as it should.

You can argue whether that is a meaningful use of model capacity, and sure, I agree that this is exactly the kind of stuff tool use is for. But nevertheless the bar was set.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#498
post #472
post #469

Interesting that the number of hn comments on big model announcements seems to be dropping. I recall previous ones easily surpassing 1k Maybe models are starting to get good enough/ levelling off?

It's fatigue. This is the third major model announcement in the last week. On the other hand, this is the one I'm most excited by. I wouldn't have commented at all if it wasn't for your comment. But I'm excited to start using this.

It's not fatigue. It's just our new normal that we have a tool that gets % better every few month. Which is fairly insane but we don't have to sweat it.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was pretty disappointed to learn that the METR metric isn't actually evaluating a model's ability to complete long duration tasks. They're using the estimated time a human would take on a given task. But it did explain my increasing bafflement at how the METR line keeps steadily going up despite my personal experience coding daily with LLMs where they still frequently struggle to work independently for 10 minutes w…

It makes perfect sense to use human times as a baseline. Because otherwise, the test would be biased towards models with slower inference. If model A generates 10 tokens a second and model B generates 100 tokens a second, then using real LLM inference time puts A at a massive 10x advantage, all other things equal.

But it doesn't evaluate the area that I am most eager to see improvements in LLM agent performance: unattended complex tasks that require adapting to unexpected challenges, problem solving and ambiguity for a long duration without a human steering them back in the right direction before they hit a wall or start causing damage.

If it takes me 8 hours to create a pleasant looking to-do app, and Gemini 3 can one shot that in 5 minutes, that's certainly impressive but doesn't help me evaluate whether I could drop an agent in my complex, messy project and expect it to successfully implement a large feature that may require reading docs, installing a new NPM package, troubleshooting DB configuration, etc for 30 min to 1 hr without going off the rails.

It's a legitimate benchmark, I'm not disputing that, but it unfortunately isn't measuring the area that could be a significant productivity multiplier in my day-to-day work. The METR time horizon score is still susceptible to the same pernicious benchmaxxing while I had previously hoped that it was measuring something much closer to my real world usage of LLM agents.

Improvements in long duration, multi-turn unattended development would save me lot of babysitting and frustrating back and forth with Claude Code/Codex. Which currently saps some of the enjoyment out of agentic development for me and requires tedious upfront work setting up effective rules and guardrails to work around those deficits.

Re: Claude Opus 4.5

#500
post #443
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They are nerfed and there is actually a very simple test to prove otherwise: 0 temperature. This is only allowed with the API where you are billed full token prices. Conclusion: It is nerfed unless Claude can prove otherwise.

I don’t understand how you get from the first paragraph to the conclusion.
Post reply on HN