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

Claude Opus 4.8

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#691

Post by dbgrman »

thesmart wrote: post #682
S-E-P wrote: post #678

I haven't had the best experience with 4.7 and it felt like a substantial debuff. I've even ended up moving a lot of review to codex just because 4.7 was so dense.. Here's to hoping they figured it out since I'm not entirely sure but I would have to guess that they were experimenting with making the model lighter (although I have no concrete evidence of this).

Rolling back to 4.6 is such a stark difference

in a good way or bad way? in my experience going back to 4.6 was a breath of fresh air again. Opus 4.7 for some reason was "suffocating". Too obnoxious, tried too hard to impress and used exxagerated/pompous language.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#693

Post by bbor »

vlovich123 wrote: post #257
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't be surprised if the next gen frontier models are the last. There's orders of magnitude of low hanging juice to squeeze out of smaller models. It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years (design not certain, probably unlikely). It is far less clear that a 1.2T model will be meaningfully better enough to justify training it. As far as reasoning is con…

Took me a while to find what you were referring to by gram. Arxiv paper from 9 days ago that's not properly indexed by search engines. (G)enerative (R)ecursive re(A)soning (M)odels. They really wanted the acronym. https://arxiv.org/html/2605.19376v1

Random plug for Kagi, which got it for 'GRAM model llm' on the first try ;)

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#694

Post by [deleted] »

simonw wrote: post #484
simonw wrote: post #73

I generated pelicans riding bicycles on both thinking level low and thinking level high: https://gist.github.com/simonw/68560eddb0b268a8417f80ceb7304... The high one is notably better - the bicycle frame is the correct shape, unlike thinking level low. For comparison, here's Opus 4.7: https://gist.github.com/simonw/afcb19addf3f38eb1996e1ebe749c...

Here's pelicans in all of the thinking levels - low, medium, high, xhigh, max https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht...

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#695

Post by motza »

simonw wrote: post #484
simonw wrote: post #73

I generated pelicans riding bicycles on both thinking level low and thinking level high: https://gist.github.com/simonw/68560eddb0b268a8417f80ceb7304... The high one is notably better - the bicycle frame is the correct shape, unlike thinking level low. For comparison, here's Opus 4.7: https://gist.github.com/simonw/afcb19addf3f38eb1996e1ebe749c...

Here's pelicans in all of the thinking levels - low, medium, high, xhigh, max https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht...

low: yolo

medium: redesign bike so peli can reach bars

high: redesign bike so peli can rest on frame

xhigh: yolo

max: big peli reach bars

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#696

Post by root-parent »

NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

ChatGPT 5.5 is consistently the much better model and by a large margin.

How do I know? Because when pushing both to generate code or in independent chats to analyze projects, 5.5 will consistently find all the bugs that Claude does not find, and when challenged, Claude does agree those bugs were there. And my findings match those.

When from a blank start asking Claude to analyze project A and Project B,. Clause will consistently say project B is the better structured, more robust, and more defect free and does justify it. And project B was the one created by GPT 5.5....And also the one I judge to be the best one.

And yes, both at deep effort settings and starting from same specs...

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#697

Post by Grimblewald »

NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

I maintian a log of tasks, prompts, related information etc. So i can repeat past workflows verbatim, and I can qualitatively say each model beyond 4.5 has been a regression, and it would not surprise me 4.8 continues the trend. Each iteration has failed at more tasks previously completed succesfully. Right now it flat out refuses to answer many benign chemistry questions, or leans into shilling to hard and ignores non industry funded studies on certain topics. I'm transitioning to deepseek as a reuslt. Cheaper by far and at this stage not strictly speaking less capable.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#698

Post by keyle »

simonw wrote: post #73

I generated pelicans riding bicycles on both thinking level low and thinking level high: https://gist.github.com/simonw/68560eddb0b268a8417f80ceb7304... The high one is notably better - the bicycle frame is the correct shape, unlike thinking level low. For comparison, here's Opus 4.7: https://gist.github.com/simonw/afcb19addf3f38eb1996e1ebe749c...

It's pretty safe to say that AI will be used on the battlefield making real life and death decisions before it will be able to render a decent pelican on a bike in SVG.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#699

Post by vasco »

NiloCK wrote: post #77

A rambling comment: I think this is the first time we've had a third minor version bump on a frontier Anthropic model. (I count the 0.5s as major here, because they've been issued non-sequentially and also corresponded to massive capability leaps, eg, Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4.5). So now the Opus 4.5 family has successors 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, each posting fairly modest claimed gains. My own experience w/ 4.6 and 4.7 are that…

I can tell from hearing Feynman recordings that he was smarter than my own university's physics professor, but both were smarter than me.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#700

Post by fHr »

hereme888 wrote: post #544

Early ArtificialAnalysis.ai results show GPT 5.5 is still the better bang-for-your-buck. OpenAI solves tasks with about 50% less output tokens. https://artificialanalysis.ai/?intelligence=coding-index&int...

Codex with 5.4/5.4 is great Idk havent seen anything more crazy with claude + more expensive
Post reply on HN