[flagged]
Claude Sonnet 5
581–590 of 822 posts
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#582Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also Chinese models, which aren't trying to self-limit capabilities.
Surely the Chinese government will see US gov's intervention and say "Government control of business is stupid, our industry will have more independence from CCP control for the benefit of the world".
[deleted]
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#583$5/$25 for Opus 4.8 vs $3/$15 doesnt seem cheaper enough to be too worth it. It depends how much better it is than e.g. Mimo, but I imagine Mimo and co to be too cost efficient in the lower tier to be overtaken by Sonnet for most tasks.
it's also a lot faster I would assume
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#584Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always use Opus 4.8 at max effort for everything. The $20 subscription didn't have enough tokens, but the $100 one had too many of them. So now I just max out Opus in order to maintain 100% weekly utilization.
I'm a senior skilled developer and I find Anthropic $20 + Open AI $20 + OpenCode Go $10 offers more value than $100 on any particular service. Juggling between all different models/agents is quite simple with Zed. A caution about OpenCode Go though, the entire company seems to be run by AI so there's lot of billing related issues with zero support. I subscribe new every month as I lost money due to double payment wit…
I’m interested!
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're right, but if skills atrophy so will the efficacy of the tool.
Skills atrophying in terms of what? Remembering specific API's that you always had to look up anyway? You don't lose developer intuition, analytical thinking or technical inclination, and those are the things that matter, anyway. I recently did a fleetwide upgrade to Zig 0.16. Do I remember every single change from 0.15? No. Do I have to? Also no. Both because I can look it up if I need to, but also because the LLM a…
How do you deal with the lack of cognitive engagement? I think it is the primary driver of developing and maintaining skills as well as generating new ideas. Letting an agent do it for you will just get you average but well formatted code. Not something new.
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#586Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice I don't think any harness (happy to be corrected here!) uses the lesser capability models for writing code. The cost trade-offs are rarely worth it. They are often used for reading code though. To expand on this, while the "big model to write a plan, small model to write the specific code" idea is quite common it trips up on edge cases. In theory the flow works like this: - small fast models read lots of…
> In practice I don't think any harness (happy to be corrected here!) uses the lesser capability models for writing code. The cost trade-offs are rarely worth it. That's not something I understand very well. The less expensive models will quite happily chug away at tasks, if the codebase is well-structured (small files help a lot) and your instructions are clear. In contrast, I've never seen a large model turn bad in…
> In contrast, I've never seen a large model turn bad instructions (instructions that would cause a human to think before starting) into a result I liked
I think the distinction is here.
I expect my agent to build from product level descriptions. This might include specific special cases that I call out, but will rarely highlight existing special cases or edge cases - they already exist in the code, and I'd expect a programmer to make sure that behavior continues to work.
If a feature hits lots of these edge cases, the weaker model that is reading the code (aka Haiku) won't understand their significance, and will report back to the planning model incomplete or incorrect information.
The planning model (Opus - which hasn't actually seen the code remember!) will build a plan that is incorrect or incomplete and delegate coding to the mid level model (Sonnet) which will do it's best to make things work, without understanding the overall picture.
This is how you end up with slop - for example Sonnet reimplements things that already exist because it found one of the edge cases, but Opus had never known about it because Haiku didn't understand it.
It's possible that the new "agent teams" feature in Claude code can help with this. That keeps each agent alive with its context so they can ask each other things, but I haven't tried that enough to be sure - let alone with the specific model mix like this.
In your case, you are giving the Sonnet model specific instructions for what to implement mindlessly. I'd expect that to work well!
But that's not the same as the agentic workflow many other are using.
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this assessment, IMO my takeaway from this is "Generally run Sonnet on low, otherwise use Opus". It's kind of like an "extra low" setting of Opus. (depends on the application for sure).
It would be good if Anthropic provided some kind of feedback or even toggle to auto-route requests for models being used at thinking levels that would be a better value using a different model. Sort of like, getting an automatic upgrade at a car rental or hotel if there is availability.
They already do. Don't assume the routing will be in your favour
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#588Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think they're a net gain if you're a skilled senior I'm a skilled senior (I'm 54 and been coding since I was about 8; I've been 100% AI-generated code for at least 6 months now and have produced a combination of speed and quality that has astonished me; my velocity is apparent at https://github.com/pmarreck/ ) and this has been a massive net gain, so your claim is now officially in sheer defiance of reality…
Have you really found claude to much more more capable than eg deepseek? Anthropic has little to no chance of producing a competitive business model in the long term.
absolutely, for me the tui, ultracode agentic workflows, and streaming logic are far superior. the closest model is minimax 3.0 imo and i ended up adding a custom tui, agentic workflows, streaming logic and implementing skills to that (in typed) in order to get to an acceptable claude fallback. on their own i haven’t found one model comparable to claude, not even chatgpt.
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#589Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always use Opus 4.8 at max effort for everything. The $20 subscription didn't have enough tokens, but the $100 one had too many of them. So now I just max out Opus in order to maintain 100% weekly utilization.
I'm a senior skilled developer and I find Anthropic $20 + Open AI $20 + OpenCode Go $10 offers more value than $100 on any particular service. Juggling between all different models/agents is quite simple with Zed. A caution about OpenCode Go though, the entire company seems to be run by AI so there's lot of billing related issues with zero support. I subscribe new every month as I lost money due to double payment wit…
Would love to read that blog post. I'm toying with running local AI model with Claude and GLM as well depending on a task. Pretty decent success but it could be better.
Re: Claude Sonnet 5
#590Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer GPT 5.5 to Opus but both are absurdly expensive token hogs, I can't afford to use either as my main model at $work with the monthly spend cap we have. I use Composer (since we use Cursor) or GPT 5.3-codex as my workhorse models and only break out the big guns when I have a genuinely difficult problem to solve. IMO somewhat weirdly 5.3-codex might be the best overall coding model OpenAI have ever released. It…
Buy 5 accounts at 20usd each. It’s 100 and lasts decently on single threaded work
This is at work, we have to pay the actual cost of tokens, no way around it