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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#711

Post by bryceneal »

I guess Opus makes it impossible to do anything vaguely resembling security research. By chance I stumbled into an ACE for some software I had installed on my local machine after observing a strange crash. I figured I would take the time to investigate (so as to actually deeply understand what was happening myself and avoid throwing yet another hallucinated slop disclosure over the fence if it came to that), but I was completely locked out by Opus. I tried applying to their "Cyber Verification Program", but was effectively instantly denied in a way that was probably automated.

While I understand the risks that Anthropic is dealing with here, I really question whether shutting down any and all security questions in such a paranoid fashion is the right solution. At the end of the day this was a detour for me. Maybe someone special enough to have Anthropic's permission will find and disclose the vuln responsibly. Security Research is not my full-time focus. But this left a nasty taste in my mouth. Not just as a customer who's been paying for Max since launch, but there's something very odd about a model telling me that I'm not allowed to be curious about something. Even if that something is a process running on my own computer.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#712

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

gen220 wrote: post #135
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'm curious to poll HN on this issue. Do you feel like we've had meaningful/noticeable gains in terms of your programming workflows between 4.5 and 4.7? My 2¢, I personally feel like all of the productivity gains since 4.5's release (in November 2025!!) have come from improvements to the harnesses (cc, cursor cli, codex, opencode, whatever) AND from the context window expansion from 200k to 1M. But the actual "raw" i…

In my experience, 4.7 was a noticeable step down from 4.6.

I was one of these people that Claude would never finish anything and just randomly say, this is a good stopping point, I think you should go to bed.

And then I'd tell it to continue, and it would burn tons of tokens, make no progress and say, "This is a really good stopping point..."

Canceled and switched to Codex and have been pretty happy with it. It doesn't plan as well as Claude, but I think it does better implementation - and neither of them can actually come up with good plans without a ton of help...

Codex is also way faster.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#713

Post by nfw2 »

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 think the issue with legibility comes down to the fact that most users are not using LLMs for tasks where improvements to raw reasoning abilities wouldn't help much or at all. So it's not a matter of anyone's deficiency of perception but rather a lack of any benchmark to perceive.

It's kind of like how the consumer laptop market is now. I was telling my boss today that most employees wouldn't see any noticeable performance difference between a macbook pro and a neo if they are just doing admin stuff on the web.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#714

Post by 6AA4FD »

raincole wrote: post #154
wg0 wrote: post #104

There is a hole in the boat's bottom due to Chinese models. They might not be as good but they are not bad either or at least I had hard time finding any issues with Deepseekv4 Flash and Pro variants. They get their job done sometimes rarely giving up till they are done what they are after. So even for enterprise deployments, as the dust settles down, CFO/CTOs might find out that deploying on an internal cluster of G…

I had been saying this on HN repeatedly: people are going to use the smartest models for coding. They don't care how cheap your tokens are if they don't have the highest probability of solving your programming tasks. And I was dead wrong. Now I mostly use DeepSeek Pro myself.

Props for making a falsifiable claim, noticing it was falsified, and owning up to it.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#715

Post by svachalek »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #688
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…

> It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years Given how well Qwen3.6-27B performs for such a small model I think you could be right. I suspect that Google,OpenAI,Anthropic must be looking at the Qwen3.6 models (as well as Deepseek V4-flash, MiMo-V2.5) and wondering if they could make some smaller models that are specifically trained for certain activities -…

The problem is that once you reach a certain level in coding (not particularly high imo, although some would differ) the most significant improvement in your output comes from understanding requirements better and finding ways to meet requirements in productively lazy ways, bypassing busywork that seems necessary but isn't. And that's the kind of stuff you will only find from a generally intelligent model, not a code monkey that's optimized for turning requirement sheets into source code.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#716

Post by svachalek »

mickdarling wrote: post #473
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…

I effectively distill the frontier models by building whole sets of skills, personas, and other artifacts that I can then run on smaller models and get 10% even 20% improvements on models like haiku or local models. There's a lot of room for improving the smaller models at many levels of the stack.

This is a good point. It didn't really work on older small models but the latest crop are quite good at following instructions and paying attention to detail, they just lack a lot of the sophistication and nuance that the frontier models have these days. So they are often capable of doing very complex tasks, they just need more detailed and foolproof instructions than the larger models would.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#718

Post by swingboy »

gertlabs wrote: post #293
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…

4.5/4.6 were roughly the same in our testing. Opus 4.7 is smarter, but it's difficult to use as a product for various personality issues. So far, Opus 4.8 seems to be going down that path (unusably slow, but this could be a launch day rollout problem). Full Opus 4.8 tests are in progress now. Data at https://gertlabs.com/rankings

Looking forward to the results. Thanks for your work.

Re: Claude Opus 4.8

#720

Post by tomhow »

1attice wrote: post #178
1970-01-01 wrote: post #60

Can anyone else see these X.Y updates aren't meeting the outrageous AI expectations that we were told we would see just a year ago?

[flagged]

Please don't post snark like this on HN. We've asked you before to observe the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Post reply on HN