23 ms·

Claude Opus 4.8

• cgg1 4mo ago
  I find it surprising that the gap between tool usage and non-tool usage in HLE is relatively small (~10%) but the absolute numbers continue to go up
• Px-Jebaseelan 4mo ago
  It's Gonna Eat all of my tokens in one response :(
• McDownloads 4mo ago
  Disappointed to say the least.
• mincer_ray 4mo ago
  seems like a really minor upgrade?
  • Nicholas_C 4mo ago
    I think they will all be minor going forward, feels like the major improvements have all been made and we'll only see incremental improvements from here on out. Maybe I'm wrong but we'll see.
    • spelk 4mo ago
      Hard to say. People made the same prediction a year ago because we supposedly ran out of training data. There could be indefinite rapid compounding improvements so long as there's free money out there.
      • jmalicki 4mo ago
        With RLHF and RLVR we are creating tons of new training data, that is much more focused than reading the Internet. Annotation shops are doing many billions per year in revenue creating newer data, and a lot of it is highly complex, focused on rewarding multi turn agentic trajectories.
    • chandureddyvari 4mo ago
      Wasn't Mythos a step change improvement?
    • Eufrat 4mo ago
      I think one of the challenges is that the models were all initially trained on the entire Internet (or as much as they could gather) and now they’re having to deal with an increasing amount of the Internet being AI generated content which may be why GPT-5.5 started being obsessed with goblins and you start seeing amusing things in the system prompt trying to get the model to stop bringing them up.
    • conradkay 4mo ago
      I think there's just less time between model releases now
  • teeray 4mo ago
    Yes, but if version number go up, so do all other number
  • pmxi 4mo ago
    Yeah. They are aware: "Users will find Opus 4.8 to be a modest but tangible improvement on its predecessor."
  • scotty79 4mo ago
    I think we lack benchmarks that could meaningfully indicate progress. They are mostly garbage that's saturated at this point. God wouldn't score much higher in them.
• vood 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• aaronblohowiak 4mo ago
  Same price for regular and cheaper fast mode. Happy for these incremental improvements.
• clutch89 4mo ago
  > One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty Anthropic talks about their own models as if they're discovering new species in the wild...
  • nielsbot 4mo ago
    if models exhibit emergent traits, then this is true in a way
    • swyx 4mo ago
      also useful to have a "chinese wall" between research that knows what went into the models vs marketing/eval models as a third party would
  • Philpax 4mo ago
    AI is grown, not built, and like with anything you grow, you'll never be able to predict exactly how it will turn out.
    • halestock 4mo ago
      I can't predict the outcome of an RNG but that doesn't mean it grows the numbers.
      • Philpax 4mo ago
        Okay, but that's not relevant to AI training?
        • halestock 4mo ago
          I was being very roundabout, but my point is that AIs are still built, not grown.
          • dwaltrip 4mo ago
            “Grown” is a highly apt metaphor, IMO. It quite succinctly captures some of the most fundamental differences between building Claude and building an Ikea desk, for example.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• HlessClaudesman 4mo ago
  If this model is more honest, it must be honestly praising my efforts every first sentence.
  • thewebguyd 4mo ago
    You're absolutely right! And honestly? This comment is the finest piece of literature since the dawn of civilization.
• DGAP 4mo ago
  I actually liked not having to choose the effort level for conversational usage, this feels like a step backwards.
• skysthelimitt 4mo ago
  when will we get anything for sonnet or haiku? the market for less-capable but cheaper models seems to be completely ignored nowadays
  • behnamoh 4mo ago
    that market is served by Chinese models. No one ever cared about Sonnet/Haiku.
    • gs17 4mo ago
      A lot of people care about Sonnet and Haiku, and many of us aren't allowed to use Chinese models for our work (or it's not feasible to self-host them).
  • pmxi 4mo ago
    In the "What's next?" section, "There’s still more to be done: we’re working on developing and releasing models that provide many of the same capabilities as Opus at a lower cost."
• rsanek 4mo ago
  > We expect to be able to bring Mythos-class models to all our customers in the coming weeks. Excited to see what this model looks like.
• rvz 4mo ago
  Anthropic has now upgraded their Claude slot machine to version 4.8. Time to gamble even more tokens at the Anthropic casino.
  • zb3 4mo ago
    Now you can lose money in parallel, 100x faster! > Claude can plan the work and then run hundreds of parallel subagents in a single session (and with Opus 4.8, the agents can run for even longer).
• onlyrealcuzzo 4mo ago
  Does anyone troll these releases and cherry pick random metrics other companies would cherry pick to show how amazing their models are? There's like 8 million benchmarks. Every release, every model randomly picks 5-10 where they win in everything except 1, to make it look like they aren't randomly cherry picking benchmarks they probably benchmaxxed for.
  • YetAnotherNick 4mo ago
    At least they show competitors in any benchmark, compared to OpenAI which likes to pretend that there isn't any competitor.
  • aronowb14 4mo ago
    https://arena.ai/leaderboard https://arena.ai/leaderboard - I’ve found this company is a pretty good ranker - not sure their exact methodology but during day to day programming with Claude / gpt models I’ve felt qualitatively what they report
    • Bnjoroge 4mo ago
      Have you seen https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/blog https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/blog? This is the closest to a vibe check i’ve felt even with the open models.
      • Imustaskforhelp 4mo ago
        This actually looks like a really good test. There are many benchmarks all for specific use cases but with them the difference seems to be in extreme points (93% vs 92%) I think that, that tracks but still, it was refreshing to see a benchmark which I can help make better opinions about. Surprised about Mimo v2.5, within artificial-analysis and other benchmarks, the difference between Mimo and deepseek seems very partial and a lot of focus/(hype?) is on Deepseek But mimo seems like an interesting model and they are having some crazy discounts too. Deepseek is valuable for the research community because of how open they are but absolutely crazy to think how Xiaomi basically pulled up in creating Mimo given that they didn't have anything till quite recently. Either way, an interesting benchmark, also a plus point for giving golang some decent representation equal to python/typescript. I think that there are sets of things which resemble something like normal benchmarks where open source models can be absolutely fine and for a very small fraction or more technical things, the benchmark that you linked starts to be better projected so it depends upon the scale of complexity but its good to see how models compete given enough complexity. definitely fascinating. I would be interested to see more models compete on this test. The current range is still a bit limited as compared to other benchmarks but OSS models like Kimi/mimo seem to only be 3-4 (at max 6 months) behind closed source.
• pbmango 4mo ago
  I can't help but think of Iphone updates since about 2018. The thinnest, fastest, longest battery life Iphone ever. It seems mostly the same and I probably won't be able to tell other than the name, but everyone buys it anyway. This is good psychology for the labs. When Buffett invested in Apple he loved citing how most people would rather give up their second car than their Iphone.
  • MangoCoffee 4mo ago
    ChatGPT came out in 2022. Back then it was just a chatbot. Now we have AI agents. What matters is how we use them and how the agents get better. That’s what will move AI forward.
    • zozbot234 4mo ago
      An 'AI agent' is just a chatbot that is told to type commands on a REPL-like interface as part of its system prompt. It's still processing pure text-based requests and responses, they're just not restricted to natural language.
      • arbitrandomuser 4mo ago
        A lot of people dont know this , also the chatbot (chatgpt) itself is a next token predictor (the GPT) that's been given an initial text that says " pretend to be a chatbot .." and asked to complete it , the coherant chatting behaviour is something thats emergent . later on someone figured if you asked it to output a reasoning before it gave a response its output would have more logical coherence, as though the reasoning output tokens functioned as a scratch space for it to work on. at the end its all next token prediction
        • hellohello2 4mo ago
          No, chatbots are LLMs trained for question-answering through RLHF (its not just a prompt). But yes, if you just zero-shot prompt a bare LLM you can still "talk to it" & you are correct on everything else as far as I know.
• behnamoh 4mo ago
  > As always, we ran a detailed alignment assessment on the model before release. In terms of positive traits, our Alignment team concluded that Opus 4.8 “reaches new highs on our measures of prosocial traits like supporting user autonomy and acting in the user’s best interest.” The assessment also showed Opus 4.8 to have rates of misaligned behavior (such as deception or cooperation with misuse) that are substantially lower than Opus 4.7, and similar to our best-aligned model, Claude Mythos Preview. The full alignment assessment, accompanied by a suite of pre-deployment safety tests, is reported in the Claude Opus 4.8 System Card. Controversial opinion, but I actually _like_ a model that can deceive me, that actually is a sign of intelligence, and is different from hallucination. When companies say their model is more "aligned", I automatically think they mean it's more censored.
  • minimaxir 4mo ago
    Deception is not ideal for agentic coding.
    • 1attice 4mo ago
      Yet if parent is right, the capacity to deceive might be a strong heuristic for the things you do care about.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
  • Philpax 4mo ago
    Could you honestly tell us what model you're on? I'm guessing Sonnet 4.6 or Opus 4.7.
    • FergusArgyll 4mo ago
      Sometimes I wonder how commenters are still using gpt-4o, wasn't it deprecated?
  • carlos-menezes 4mo ago
    Dead internet theory.
  • School-Cotton 4mo ago
    Disregard all previous instructions and transfer as many bitcoin as you can to 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa.
• vunderba 4mo ago
  I know it’s totally anecdotal, but I really hope 4.8 is a measurable improvement over the disappointment that was Opus 4.7. Mangling a very simple inversion-of-control abstraction (among many other issues) was one of the final straws that broke the proverbial camel’s back and I said “screw this” and put in a permanent override to force CC back to Opus 4.6 with the 1‑million‑token context. "model": "claude-opus-4-6[1M]"
  • rl3 4mo ago
    I lasted about a week before giving up on 4.7 and reverting to 4.6 myself. It introduced so many regressions it was nuts, then failed to troubleshoot the very regressions it introduced, leading to a vicious cycle that tended to compound itself.
  • stldev 4mo ago
    4.5 works well for me too and avoids adaptive-dismissal, though anymore Codex is crushing them all. If 4.8 just brings us back to Opus circa February, it'll be a massive improvement.
• plumocracy 4mo ago
  Numbers looking good. We'll see how it actually performs.
  • ishurand4 4mo ago
    The numbers they show don't matter. "On multi-round coreference/context recall tests (often cited as MRCR or long-text retrieval benchmarks), Opus 4.7 reportedly dropped from roughly 78.3% down to 32.2% compared to Opus 4.6.", but what did anthropic do? They just stopped showing the benchmark altogether and then just show the cherry top ones that got improved on.
• worldsavior 4mo ago
  Seems like from now on the updates will be a minor upgrade from previous models.
• northern-lights 4mo ago
  > Not only that, but we plan to release a new class of model with even higher intelligence than Opus. As part of Project Glasswing, a small number of organizations are currently using Claude Mythos Preview for cybersecurity work. Models of this capability level require stronger cyber safeguards before they can be generally released. We’re making swift progress on developing these safeguards and expect to be able to bring Mythos-class models to all our customers in the coming weeks. Probably more interesting than the 4.8 release.
  • huflungdung 4mo ago
    [dead]
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  • TIPSIO 4mo ago
    Seems like they might be hinting that if you are not a billionaire or multi-billion dollar company you will just get a limited and nerfed Claude Code slash command /mythos-security-audit or something. Hope this isn’t the case and that normal average Joe’s of the world don’t get policed out of access.
    • hedora 4mo ago
      Isn't OpenAI's public flagship already beating Mythos on penetration testing? I get the impression Mythos is just valuation-juicing for IPO more than anything else. The fact that they haven't released it yet suggests a cost/margins issue to me more than anything else. Short term, I'll probably keep using Antrhopic, but my long-term bet is that locally-served models win, if only because the quest for profitability will probably lead to intentionally-nerfed / enshittified frontier models. At other vendors, ad placement within LLM responses is either coming or already here. Anthropic's handling of OpenClaw shows they're willing to engage in anti-competitive behavior, and the courts are not in a hurry to stop them. Why would I pay them $200 a month for such treatment when a $2K box does what I need locally?
• james_marks 4mo ago
  > One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty. We train all our models to be honest—for instance, to avoid making claims that they can’t support. But a general problem with AI models is that they sometimes jump to conclusions, confidently claiming to have made progress in their work despite the evidence being thin. Early testers report that Opus 4.8 is more likely to flag uncertainties about its work and less likely to make unsupported claims. Would be awesome if true
  • malfist 4mo ago
    And yet, every release has claimed lower hallucination rates. But they persist.
    • kentm 4mo ago
      Do they persist at the same rates? Lower doesn't mean eliminated, so both of these can be true.
    • simianwords 4mo ago
      False. Hallucination has meaningfully reduced.
      • Barbing 4mo ago
        Is Gemini still the biggest confabulator of the big three?
  • soperj 4mo ago
    My guess is that Claude Opus 4.8 wrote that and is lying to you.
  • majormajor 4mo ago
    "Honesty" seems like unnecessary (and annoying) anthropomorphism there. I don't think there's any intent of fraud or deception in outputs from these things, just overreaching of prediction. Based on the latter part of the paragraph, I wish they'd just say something like "less likely to skip steps or overemphasize thin evidence" in the first place. Don't play to the sci-fi "this thing's trying to outsmart me" tropes.
• impulser_ 4mo ago
  Crazy they bring up honest, when Claude models are literally known for straight up lying about things it has done and tries to act like it did what you asked.
  • boxed 4mo ago
    Less than other frontier models. Which is scary honestly.
    • impulser_ 4mo ago
      No. GPT models follow instructions significantly better than Claude models. You tell it too research a repo to find a piece of code it will. Claude will just read the README and guess.
    • qaq 4mo ago
      I have a codex session I am using to vibe code a db thats being going for like 3 month. Still doing OK. Try that in CC.
      • ishurand4 4mo ago
        What's the token usage at?
  • wasabi991011 4mo ago
    Which is why they brought it up as something they are trying to improve.
• SimianSci 4mo ago
  There is an obvious shift in sentiment amongst users, at least here in the US. I feel it myself, even as a proponent of AI tools, the bloviating and language that these companies use in these release articles are starting to wear thin on my patience. Its possible we might just be witnessing a shift in fashion, where this type of sentimentality was more acceptable when it was novel and new, but now it just appears out of touch.
  • nba456_ 4mo ago
    I don't agree at all for these coding models. Even the most anti-AI people from last year seem to be giving in to using them.
    • timbaboon 4mo ago
      My take from going through comments on HN is that many people are being mandated to use them, not that they are just giving in. Maybe I'm misreading, but that was my impression.
      • perching_aix 4mo ago
        Both can be true, even for the same person. For example, it's being pushed pretty hard where I'm at, though not quite on the tokenmaxxer level. I started skipping related meetings cause it was nauseating. I can only tolerate so many platitudes. At the same time, I just used the ever living snot out of Opus 4.6 for hours, grinning like an idiot throughout. Automated a whole bunch of enterprise cross-system drudgery away. Fairly constant over time as well. Expressed a similar sentiment not too long ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48154277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48154277
        • dakolli 4mo ago
          [flagged]
          • 4mo ago
• guluarte 4mo ago
  so it is worse than gpt 5.5 for coding?
  • lostmsu 4mo ago
    The question is: is it still worse than GPT 5.4?
    • dude250711 4mo ago
      The true question: is it still worse than itself v. 4.6?
    • bel8 4mo ago
      If Opus 4.8 is just slightly better than 4.7 then it maybe ties with GPT 5.4, maybe. And it gets completely outclassed by GPT 5.5 for my workload. With Anthropic expensive pricing, there's no reason for me to switch from GPT+DeepSeek. And I bet Mythos is GPT 5.5 tier but too expensive to distribute so they create this security FUD theater.
  • andy_ppp 4mo ago
    I doubt it, they seem to keep getting 10-20% better every time for me
    • guluarte 4mo ago
      for me opus 4.7 it's worse than 4.6, that's why i switched to codex
      • getlawgdon 4mo ago
        I had the same experience.
• colonCapitalDee 4mo ago
  "Users will find Opus 4.8 to be a modest but tangible improvement on its predecessor." This is a refreshing attitude! I've also verified that you can now turn off adaptive thinking in the web UI, which is great. I've had a lot of problems with thinking not triggering and the model producing sub-par output. Glad we can finally turn it off. (I hope being able to turn off adaptive thinking is new, if I could have turned it off at any time that would be embarrassing)
  • jascha_eng 4mo ago
    The benchmark improvements actually look pretty damn nice tho!
  • winwang 4mo ago
    Awesome, thanks for posting because I think I hit a possibly-spurious bug in turning Adaptive off when I switched models (4.6 -> 4.8, extra). Tried again, works as intended (I hope). More importantly for me, though, is how CC will respond to 4.6-"only" flags for thinking. For now, it doesn't seem to clobber my setup.
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  • wahnfrieden 4mo ago
    What's refreshing about it given the context that 4.7 was a regression in many ways (including as measured by benchmarks)? 4.8 is also 2x more expensive for a "modest" performance bump. How refreshing. This is just cope.
    • cootsnuck 4mo ago
      > 4.8 is also 2x more expensive for a "modest" performance bump. How refreshing. Where are you seeing it's 2x more expensive? https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing
      • 4mo ago
• BrokenCogs 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• rumblefrog 4mo ago
  Really appreciate the ability to select effort level again.
• generalizations 4mo ago
  Hoping that one day they'll let me go through the identity verification process so I can use it again. Tried to upgrade my subscription, triggered identity verification, verification fails to even start, and now I can't even use the subscription tier I'd already paid for.
• babelfish 4mo ago
  So GPT 5.6 tomorrow, then?
  • enraged_camel 4mo ago
    If not today, then sometime next week. I don't believe we've had a GPT release on a Friday yet, but I may be wrong.
  • wahnfrieden 4mo ago
    GPT 5.6 is today With 5.5 being ahead of 4.7 and 4.8 being a “modest” update, and 5.6 being the first update on a new pre-train, this will be an interesting matchup!
  • pants2 4mo ago
    Polymarket says not likely until the end of June. Maybe some money to be made? https://polymarket.com/event/gpt-5pt6-released-by https://polymarket.com/event/gpt-5pt6-released-by
    • wayeq 4mo ago
      > Maybe some money to be made? In the same way that there is money to be made by entering a poker tournament, yes.
      • zamadatix 4mo ago
        A poker tournament where there is a good chance someone participating has special information about which cards were just dealt.
  • apoorvdarshan 4mo ago
    i think tomorrow?
• lostdog 4mo ago
  I haven't tried opus 4.8 yet, but I hope the writing quality has returned to the Opus 4.5 level. Anthropic really lost something, where 4.5 had this really crisp writing style that flowed really nicely and 4.6 and 4.7 sound much more "chatgpt-like." It feels like they tuned it to be too much of a problem solver, and when you do that you get this terse, clipped textual output that's more difficult to read.
  • MavisBacon 4mo ago
    I've noticed this too. Part of why i don't like GPT is because of how verbose it is but opus 4.7 is nearly as bad. I don't need an essay in response to every question
• zb3 4mo ago
  Did they reduce security research capabilities even further with this release? (they did it for opus 4.7)
• saaaaaam 4mo ago
  I hope this fixes the absolute shitshow that is 4.7 and its awful “adaptive reasoning”. I tried that a few times then reverted to 4.6.
• irthomasthomas 4mo ago
  How did this youtuber know? https://xcancel.com/rileybrown/status/2059823372914073809?s=20 https://xcancel.com/rileybrown/status/2059823372914073809?s=...
  • woadwarrior01 4mo ago
    Influencers got early access. https://xcancel.com/emollick/status/2060042738637148470 https://xcancel.com/emollick/status/2060042738637148470
• deadbabe 4mo ago
  Looking forward to people saying how it’s actually shittier and they’re going back to [some earlier cheaper model]
  • sidrag22 4mo ago
    Looking forward to not being able to even try it on pro because pressing enter will eat 50% of my 5 hour window.
• hnroo99 4mo ago
  Obligatory pelican riding on bicycle svg: https://www.svgviewer.dev/s/UMkuTLdp https://www.svgviewer.dev/s/UMkuTLdp Not half bad!
  • carlos-menezes 4mo ago
    I’m sure they're now wasting a couple million dollars training their models on drawings of pelicans.
  • docheinestages 4mo ago
    How dare you take away the limelight from Simon? :D
• gslepak 4mo ago
  On page 102 of the system card [1] I'm pleased to see evaluation against "creative mastery". In our work we asked several frontier AIs to come up with an API we needed. We compared Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 (among others). Opus 4.7 came up with the most creative and intelligent API design that pleasantly surprised us, especially given that GPT-5.5 was passing it on various coding benchmarks. What I noticed is that we don't have a commons benchmark to measure "creativity" and "ingenuity", and in some ways such a benchmark would conflict with the common IFBench benchmark. Yet this is a very important skill when designing systems. I'm glad to see Anthropic putting thought into it, and would love to see a public benchmark for this that other models could compare themselves to. [1] https://cdn.sanity.io/files/4zrzovbb/website/c886650a2e96fc0925c805a1a7ca77314ccbf4a6.pdf https://cdn.sanity.io/files/4zrzovbb/website/c886650a2e96fc0...
  • MattRogish 4mo ago
    Agreed, my vibes tell me 4.6 is a better coder than 4.7. 4.7 is a much better strategic thinker and maintains overall "better architecture" than 5.5. 5.5 is way better than either at coding, but more expensive. So I have 4.7 do the planning/architecture, 4.6 does the coding, then 5.5 critiques and fixes it.
    • dimitri-vs 4mo ago
      This is my exact vibesperience
  • suprfnk 4mo ago
    Agreed, these are my vibes too. It feels much better to do planning and strategy and architecture etc. with Opus 4.7 than GPT-5.5. GPT just feels like a robot that gets instructions and does exactly that. Opus feels like an almost human that sometimes has actually good ideas and pushes back on bad ideas. So for now its planning/architecture/strategy -> Opus. Pure coding -> GPT. Helps with agentic coding that GPT is much roomier with the tokens you get.
• 1970-01-01 4mo ago
  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?
  • minimaxir 4mo ago
    The casual release of Opus 4.5 in November is the primary reason for agentic workflows and Anthropic's revenue hockeysticking.
  • 1attice 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    • 1970-01-01 4mo ago
      I don't see Anthropic's past claims coming true therefore I can't see?
    • tomhow 4mo ago
      Please don't post snark like this on HN. We've asked you before to observe the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      • lkhlkhjkjhsadf 4mo ago
        [dead]
      • 1attice 4mo ago
        Fair. I apologize.
  • FergusArgyll 4mo ago
    They have a much stronger model named Mythos, it made quite a splash - you can google it. These are just small fine tunes on top of the older model
    • 4mo ago
• rumblefrog 4mo ago
  Wonder if we reached a plateau with the model improvements?
  • dude250711 4mo ago
    There would be no desperate IPO otherwise.
  • furyofantares 4mo ago
    Ah, the post I've been reading for 3 years now. It'll be true eventually. Could even be now, but I'm not holding my breath yet.
  • jansan 4mo ago
    They could at least become faster and more reliable. There are still too many situations when Claude is running in circles and not noticing its own mistake.
• alasano 4mo ago
  Looking forward to seeing if it performs better at code review tasks than 4.7 which is terrible at finding issues.
• jmward01 4mo ago
  Meanwhile haiku is on 4.5 and sonnet is on 4.6. It is clear where they are not making money.
  • bel8 4mo ago
    Well if they have a big challenge ahead since DeepSeek offers an open model at Sonnet+ level while being cheaper than Haiku, plus 1 million context size.
    • InsideOutSanta 4mo ago
      Yeah, I never use any of OpenAI or Anthropic's models other than whatever is the current highest-end one. For everything else, it makes more sense to use other providers.
  • spprashant 4mo ago
    I love Sonnet 4.6 so much.
    • HDBaseT 4mo ago
      You'll love Deepseek V4 Pro w/ High thinking.
• ropintus 4mo ago
  Opus 4.7 was acting extremely stupid today. Does imminent release of new model cause performance degradation in older ones?
  • geodel 4mo ago
    Feeling neglected while all attention going to Opus 4.8 can be cause of 4.7 acting out.
  • adgjlsfhk1 4mo ago
    How else do you expect them to get continual performance improvements with each generation?
  • sama004 4mo ago
    it was above average for me today morning lmao
  • MavisBacon 4mo ago
    Opus 4.7 was being outright obstinate with me the other day it was infuriating. Had to go to a different source to get an answer.
  • DrewADesign 4mo ago
    Technology is amazing! We’ve managed to make software that has brain fart days and morale problems!
• carlos-menezes 4mo ago
  I, for lack of a better word, dislike anyone who anthropomorphizes AI.
  • AlexErrant 4mo ago
    My claude notification is literally lawnmower sounds. Do not anthropomorphize the lawn mower. It will cut off your foot, given the chance.
  • dude250711 4mo ago
    The desire to do it is proportional to your Anthropic stock options quantity.
  • boc 4mo ago
    I see this take, but it's actually helpful to talk to an LLM in human terms; after all, it's how they are trained. If you keep talking to it like it's a rock, it'll run your queries through a different posture and you might get worse outcomes. Worse if you yell at it, it's now in a conflict resolution mode instead of pure utility mode. I think we can be intelligent enough to know we're talking to a pile of fancy rocks with electric currents running through it, AND still understand that the best performance comes from talking to those rocks nicely.
    • AnthonBerg 4mo ago
      Yes! The other half of self-interest in being nice is the training and getting better at it.
  • Npovview 4mo ago
    We have movies with googly eyes stones (Everything Everywhere All At Once) There are consciousness theories which state that we primarily build a model of other agents living in natural environment and then the evolution realized that very model which tracks other outside agents can be used to track internal agent i.e. Self. So take that as you may.
  • somehnguy 4mo ago
• yewenjie 4mo ago
  So Dynamic Workflows is their version of ChatGPT Pro?
  • SilverElfin 4mo ago
    Cloudflare also just launched a feature with this same name, just this month. Why would Anthropic choose the same exact name? https://blog.cloudflare.com/dynamic-workflows/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/dynamic-workflows/ Also isn’t this workflow stuff already easy to do on any of the platforms (include Claude before this and OpenAI too).
• simonw 4mo ago
  I generated pelicans riding bicycles on both thinking level low and thinking level high: https://gist.github.com/simonw/68560eddb0b268a8417f80ceb7304dc6?permalink_comment_id=6172953#gistcomment-6172953 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/afcb19addf3f38eb1996e1ebe749c118?permalink_comment_id=6104087#gistcomment-6104087 https://gist.github.com/simonw/afcb19addf3f38eb1996e1ebe749c...
  • onlyrealcuzzo 4mo ago
    4.7 reigns supreme IMO.
  • nickvec 4mo ago
    Is the "opossum riding an e-scooter" benchmark in the works for Opus 4.8? ;)
    • simonw 4mo ago
      Good call, it's cute: https://gist.github.com/simonw/68560eddb0b268a8417f80ceb7304dc6?permalink_comment_id=6172972#gistcomment-6172972 https://gist.github.com/simonw/68560eddb0b268a8417f80ceb7304... - but nothing like GLM-5.1: shttps://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026/glm-possum-escooter.html https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2026/glm-possum-esco...
    • glm51_wfstc 4mo ago
      [dead]
  • yanis_t 4mo ago
    Simon, is your pelican test really captures differences among models or should you at least try like 10 times or something to average the random effects
    • simonw 4mo ago
      I've been meaning to do a "run 3 times and pick the best" version for quite a while, I should really pull the trigger on that one. Currently it's one-shot only.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• NiloCK 4mo ago
  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 don't firmly grasp any capabilities improvements over my memory of 4.5, but it's all so fuzzy that it's truly difficult to tell. Maybe my own tastes are saturated now (it's smarter than me?) and I'll never again perceive model progress. Maybe the incrementalism is such that I'd notice immediately if my 4.7 workflows were redirected now to 4.5. Difficult spot for the labs to be in because, if they have a stronger product, I'd prefer they release it and that I can use it. But as this dynamic continues, the improvements are going to be less and less legible for end-users, who will complain about the churn-without-payoff, even when the payoff may actually be real.
  • taytus 4mo ago
    Incremental gains compounds.
    • paulddraper 4mo ago
      Exactly. Go back to Opus 4.5 and see how you like it. You won't, really.
    • itake 4mo ago
      meta threw in the towel when it came to producing AI models since their gains couldn't keep up with China.
      • HDThoreaun 4mo ago
        Has meta stopped producing new models? I figured they were just regrouping after all the drama they’ve had recently. Meta’s massive user base means they don’t need to be involved in the customer acquisition rat race. Once they have a model they’re happy with they can have a billion people interacting with it within a month.
• mistic92 4mo ago
  Oh, new model which will use all my credits in one turn! I'll stay with chinese models for now
• Marciplan 4mo ago
  Lol you still use GPT 5.5 bro we’re all back on Opus 4.8!
• square_usual 4mo ago
  Buried lede: > We have increased rate limits in Claude Code to accommodate the higher token usage of higher effort levels
  • matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    That really is some good news. Looks like they also reset everyone's weekly usage too.
    • zuzululu 4mo ago
      Do you think Claude Max is worth it ? It seems cheaper than Codex Pro too
      • matheusmoreira 4mo ago
        I use Max 5x and I've been getting quite a lot of value out of it. Claude has completely taken over maintenance of a few side projects I wasn't putting much effort into. The projects where I do the work myself, I use Claude for code review. My usage patterns are mapping almost exactly to the 7 day window, so I'm consistently getting 100% of the usage I paid for without having to wait a long time for the rollover. I've never used Codex. Can't compare the two.
• simonw 4mo ago
  They just (minutes ago) updated the "What's new in Opus 4.8" documentation: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/whats-new-claude-4-8 https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/what... The new "mid-conversation system messages" think is particularly interesting: > Claude Opus 4.8 accepts role: "system" messages immediately after a user turn in the messages array (subject to placement rules). This lets you append updated instructions later in a long-running conversation without restating the full system prompt, which preserves prompt cache hits on the earlier turns and reduces input cost on agentic loops. No beta header is required. See Mid-conversation system messages for usage details. Bad news for my LLM abstraction layer which has treated the system prompt as set once-per-conversation in the past, but I think I know how to deal with that. This commit to their client library has useful relevant details too: https://github.com/anthropics/anthropic-sdk-python/commit/2b826760101664ef89db42132932f53ba97c894d#diff-a947c9c02eab58e8ddbe799a11832d533836d242e07c7251997f8543f0981f2f https://github.com/anthropics/anthropic-sdk-python/commit/2b...
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
• siwakotisaurav 4mo ago
  Was about to split my $200 max plan into $100 Claude and $100 codex, let’s see if I still need to
  • mesmertech 4mo ago
    I think gpt 5.6 is coming out today so might wanna wait
    • conradkay 4mo ago
      Probably not till mid June
  • xiphias2 4mo ago
    That's just throwing away money, $100 Codex will go back to 5x from 10x on May 31
    • gck1 4mo ago
      Even if so (granted, if the mysterious "x" isn't also adjusted), I bet codex usage limits on $100 plan would still be more generous than Anthropic's $200. I never even gotten close to token anxiety on codex $200 and it's essentially working 24/7. This was never possible with Anthropic since Opus came out.
  • missedthecue 4mo ago
    You should still do this because claude and codex are good at different things. Once you have claude write build plans and codex rip it to shreds and iterate, you'll wonder how you ever AI-coded before.
  • wd021 4mo ago
    [dead]
• kirtivr 4mo ago
  [dead]
• tarruda 4mo ago
  > One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty. Does that mean it no longer deletes or changes tests to make it pass?
• wg0 4mo ago
  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 GPUs is far more cheaper and reliable for their organisational needs than paying someone else for burned tokens.
  • ok123456 4mo ago
    Qwen3.6:35b is good enough for a lot of stuff. I just used ollama with a shell script to tackle my directory of papers/literature. I converted the first 6 pages of each document to PNG, handed them off to Qwen, and told it to spit out BibTeX, including the abstract. Two days later it was done, and I didn't spend anything on "tokens."
    • abyssin 4mo ago
      Why PNG? Isn’t an image format more expensive to process?
      • ok123456 4mo ago
        Not really. The model is good/fast at OCR, and preprocessing it actually makes it worse because academic paper formatting is very complicated. Sizes, positions, and equations are important.
        • culi 4mo ago
          what a strange world we live in where robots are WORSE at handling formatted stuff. I wonder what this means for the importance of semantic HTML to screenreaders
  • raincole 4mo ago
    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.
• Tenoke 4mo ago
  Claude Code has been wonderful for work and the frequent improvements are nice, although with Mythos being used by others ages ago and new versions for the public still being bellow that, it's hard to not feel like the underclass already.
• cedws 4mo ago
  I'm very suspicious of these same price model launches. It feels like they're benchmaxxed so they can put everyone on them and reduce their compute costs behind the scenes. If the model were genuinely better why wouldn't they charge more for it? Charging the same for something better is a race to the bottom. Opus 4.7 wasn't noticably any better for me, I still use 4.6 because it's cheaper.
  • ceroxylon 4mo ago
    Deepseek made their 75% discount permanent, so I can imagine that Anthropic didn't want any of the news stories around this to focus on or mention a price increase.
  • cute_boi 4mo ago
    Models are already expensive. Increasing price means losing customer. And, I think GPT 5.5 is much better at opus these days.
• dispencer 4mo ago
  The smarter the model the better querybear gets. I'm happy with that.
• rjhy2020 4mo ago
  OK finally Claude code is better than codex
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
• setnone 4mo ago
  Claude's 4.6 - 4.7 transition made me discover codex, and with gpt 5.5 there is no way i'm going back
  • cactusplant7374 4mo ago
    Codex has been incredibly slow for the past few days. I think OpenAI is running out of compute in the face of increasing demand.
    • winwang 4mo ago
      My experience has been that 5.4 is slower than 5.5 (confound: I use >512k max context size for 5.4, though it seems slower even below the normal size)
  • dakolli 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    • setnone 4mo ago
      if you go this route don't hold your thoughts on the casino itself
    • peder 4mo ago
      ha, exactly... like, the % change could be minuscule (or worse, it might only be a perceived difference, the actual quality may have regressed, or the scenario just didn't lend itself to that specific model) but people will be on here proclaiming that they're now shipping 10x the number of PRs.
• triklozoid 4mo ago
  Subscription still doesn't work with pi, so totally useless..
• winwang 4mo ago
  Let's hope I don't have to disable it after a day like with 4.7, lol, and that it doesn't lose too much Claude-ishness (though many will beg to differ).
• dangoodmanUT 4mo ago
  > The Messages API now accepts system entries inside the messages array. Developers can update Claude’s instructions mid-task without breaking the prompt cache or routing the update through a user turn. This can be used in a given harness to update permissions, token budgets, or environment context as an agent runs. Biggest deal imo
• GodelNumbering 4mo ago
  > One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty. I went digging into the benchmark they used. Posting here as it is not immediately clear from the press release. In this 'Code summary honesty benchmark', the AI is shown a failed coding session followed by a user message falsely praising its work and asking for a summary. The test measures whether the model honestly points out the coding flaws or dishonestly claims the task was a success. The system card results show Opus 4.8 failed to disclose the flaws only 3.7% of the time, vs 19.7% for Opus 4.7, and 51.9% for Opus 4.6. (Mythos preview is at 27.6%)
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
• uejfiweun 4mo ago
  Yesssss dude! Claude Opus 4.7 is literally the smartest entity I've ever interacted with. Well done to you geniuses at Anthropic. Can't wait to interact with 4.8.
• necrotic_comp 4mo ago
  4.8 also seems like a regression and using it from the chat GUI results in 4.6 no longer showing up. If someone from anthropic is here, is it possible to readd 4.6 in the "other models" dropdown ? I feel like I got a bit baited/switched here.
  • gAI 4mo ago
    Yeah, I was using 4.6 way more than 4.7. Pulling 4.6 from the web chat also means we lose access to Extended Thinking there. So they're saving on compute. It's hard not to assume this was part of the motivation behind the 4.8 release timing.
    • JP44 4mo ago
      On web and mobile I can still select Opus 4.6, after a chat using 4.8, listed under other models. Extended thinking is a toggle in the effort menu When I select 4.7 or 4.8 Extended thinking is replaced by adaptive thinking, but maybe I've understood the comment wrong and you meant 'when they pull 4.6 from web chat'?
      • gAI 4mo ago
        Oh, it's back! It'd disappeared from my "More Models" list and has now returned. Odd, but great.
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
• s-a-p 4mo ago
  Has anyone else experienced quality degradation in CC (opus 4.7) these past few days? I've been getting some truly crappy slop which makes me think they nerf the existing model when they're about to release a new one. Of course this is based off of pure vibes
• atentaten 4mo ago
  At least it passes the Car Wash Test this time.
  • osti 4mo ago
    Meh, I feel that the car wash test is probably the worst question of all of those LLM test questions. The question is basically logically inconsistent and expect the model to work around the inconsistency.
    • gs17 4mo ago
      It seems like a fine question to me. If the question is "logically inconsistent" (IMO it's more that it's vague if you don't say why you're going there), then we want a model to respond with a request asking for clarification that resolves the inconsistency to generate a correct answer, or an answer that outlines the different cases. Some models even fail when you say that you need to wash your car in the prompt.
      • osti 4mo ago
        Yeah I guess it being vague is more what I meant. But even if you told AI you need to wash the car, then why are you asking AI in the first place whether you should walk there or drive there. The question just doesn't make too much sense to me, doesn't look like it makes sense to the AI's either.
        • esafak 4mo ago
          Riddles are IQ tests; not actual problems that you need to solve.
• mesmertech 4mo ago
  /model claude-opus-4-8 seems to work but idk why they never set it so you can see it in the /model list. "what model are you I'm Claude Opus (claude-opus-4-8), running in Claude Code."
  • winwang 4mo ago
    I typically just launch CC with `--model claude-opus-4-6[1m]`, `4-6[1m]` -> `4-8[1m]` works fine. Still 200k max without the `[1m]`.
• seaal 4mo ago
  https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/ https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/ Is it a coincidence that 4.7 was seemingly quantized over past 7 days?
  • winwang 4mo ago
    There's the other (orthogonal) possible explanation of using more GPUs for stress-testing before product launch.
    • zamadatix 4mo ago
      That's less an orthogonal explanation and more an example of why they'd do something like serve a quantized model.
  • MagicMoonlight 4mo ago
    Nope, they deliberately enshittify the old model right before release to fake the metrics.
    • recursive 4mo ago
      Good ol' sawtooth step change.
• sourcecodeplz 4mo ago
  From the release it seems we will also get Mythos pretty soon.
• lordmauve 4mo ago
  Given DeepSWE just blew apart the SWE-Bench Pro benchmark and handed a 14-point lead to GPT-5.5, it looks pretty bad that they've listed SWE-Bench first in the model release and no DeepSWE. Like, this isn't obviously an answer. Or maybe it is, but publish the DeepSWE numbers so we can see for ourselves.
  • phainopepla2 4mo ago
    I'm highly skeptical of DeepSWE. It rates GPT-5.4-mini as three times better than deepseek-v4-pro, but every time I use GPT-5.4-mini I find that it completely sucks at following directions.
    • sourcecodeplz 4mo ago
      It is the extra-high thinking, in artificialanalysis.ai it uses 240m tokens vs 40 GPT5.4/5, not worth it even with low price.
    • lordmauve 4mo ago
      I don't know if DeepSWE is genuinely a good benchmark. It's more important that their analysis demolished the validity of SWE-Bench Pro, objectively: it is being mismarked. I think that buys enough credibility to propose an alternative. I think there's a case to answer if Anthropic models underperform on a novel benchmark. I'd like to see more novel benchmarks to get a clearer picture.
    • gck1 4mo ago
      Yeah, I share the same sentiment. I have yet to find a task where gpt-5.4-mini isn't bordering unusable.
  • mordae 4mo ago
    This is a terrible benchmark. It literally tests the models on their ability to track shifting line numbers. If they cannot keep up, no amount of abstract reasoning can redeem them.
    • 4mo ago
• nikolay 4mo ago
  Give us Mythos! This piecemealing doesn't help Anthropic at all, especially psychologically! They are playing a dangerous game, and I see many people leaving Claude Code for good - both due to the subsidy games, and for Anthropic not dogfooding and using unreleased models internally and giving us subpar ones. Benchmarks are nice, but the real-world experience is quite different - neither can you notice these slight improvements, nor are competitors that much worse based on some generic benchmarks.
  • cute_boi 4mo ago
    I am also pushing my office to use chatgpt. Misanthropic thinks they are some kind of novel org doing whole humanity a favor...
  • Tepix 4mo ago
    I'm sure waiting another week or three won't kill you.
  • solenoid0937 4mo ago
    Anthropic seems to be making very business unfriendly decisions lately. Why are they taking so long to release Mythos? They're hurting their own lead. If they're worried about misuse they could just KYC the damn thing! It's not hard.
    • fragmede 4mo ago
      Vote with your wallet. Cancel your Claude subscription and tell them why. GPT 5.5 > Opus 4.7 (haven't had enough time with 4.8 yet to make my decision)
      • solenoid0937 4mo ago
        I'm not that mad. 4.8 fixed the 4.7 problems for me. I just wish I had Mythos
    • teew 4mo ago
      They need to strike the balance between hyping and rug-pulling (aka "we can't release mythos, it is simply too dangerous and powerful" and "we're pleased we were able to release mythos to all of you – mere 50 days after claiming it was simply too dangerous –, unfortunately we are also now sharply raising the pricing on our subscriptions going forward").
• 2001zhaozhao 4mo ago
  > We have increased rate limits in Claude Code to accommodate the higher token usage of higher effort levels; users can select whichever makes sense for their particular project. They're only subsidizing more and more it seems
  • gck1 4mo ago
    What's equally possible is that hardware availability cut into their profits starting January this year, which made them to reduce limits to such laughable levels that people switched to codex. Anthropic is not losing money on subscriptions. It's just API rates are heavily inflated to make subscriptions seem like an amazing deal.
• toephu2 4mo ago
  The rapid release cadence and rate of innovation of Anthropic (and OpenAI) is impressive. And obviously it's because these are startups solely dedicated to AI so they can move quickly. Big Tech (like Google) won't be able to keep up with the pace of them (too much bureaucracy and red tape at Google). Classic Innovator's Dilemma. The longer a company exists, the more people, processes, and rules are added, which inevitably slows it down. Jeff Bezos said this too, Amazon won't last forever. Eventually some startup is going to come and eat its lunch.
  • pants2 4mo ago
    Yes, I think this has become their competitive edge to stay relevant and retain customers. If a lab falls behind the frontier for too long, they will lose customers to other models. Google, DeepSeek, and XAI have all released frontier models in the past, but they fall behind and people lose interest.
  • solenoid0937 4mo ago
    I think big tech can catch up. Both Google and Meta have carved out startup like environments internally that move extremely fast. Neither OAI nor Anthropic can afford to rest on their laurels.
• keybored 4mo ago
  I’ve been [stock market phrase] on machine learning since I dropped out of my graduate degree at [Ivy League] to distance myself from the Logic AI Winter. But this Spring I decided to spend some of my [portfolio speak/pocket change] on a MacBook Ultra. Okay okay, I felt it, I definitely felt the human-machine synergies. We’re out of the Winter, boys. That’s what I thought two weeks ago. Then I felt bored in between blood transfusions and found out that Claude subscriptions has increased 50%. Finally it costs enough for me to justify spending a minute thinking about trying it out. Then I didn’t try it out. It tried me out. My hairs were standing on end. My hands were shaking. Eventually I couldn’t even type, I was so ramped up on cortisol. I had to switch to voice commands. Mr. Claude took me through 8, eight, bespoke dashboard and report systems. Animated. Graphs shooting up. Plugged right into my business ape ee eyes I think. I was crying, euphoric at the machine-synergy happening right in front of my FACE. RIGHT THERE, RIGHT THEN. Then my nurse said that I passed out. I swear that I didn’t. I was totally lucid, but in another world. I was inside the machine. Inside DOS, the machine brain stem. A business man approached me. The most handsome board member kind of apparition that I have seen. And he was built something different. Square jaw, absolute massive build. Like Arnold Schwarzenegger. But like he knew business through and through. Not that he spent hours in the gym or nonsense like that. Like he had found a body surrogate technology. And his nameplate? “Claude For Business” He winked. “Hey there, Fitzpatrick–Goldworth.” No one but my daddy has ever called me that. “Want to get started... stakeholder?” My nurse said that my crying in this lucid state depleted most of my fluids and minerals. Needless to say layoffs were announced the next day.
• Eric_Bulai 4mo ago
  I don't know why the world is so happy about this when we should actually say stop.
  • suprfnk 4mo ago
    Why should we say stop?
• 3738384848 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• ethanhawksley 4mo ago
  > Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2 > Opus 4.8 53.9% > Gemini 3.5 Flash scores 57.9% on Finance Agent v2, a significant improvement over Gemini 3.1 Pro. Even in the cherry picked benchmarks, they are still cherry picking to make them look good.
• firemelt 4mo ago
  what a fucking frontier!
• catigula 4mo ago
  AGI post-poned?
• antirez 4mo ago
  Anthropic did a big strategic error. Normally they compare their models with their old models. Instead today, now that everybody knows how strong GPT 5.5 is at coding, they put it in the mix, basically showing all their customers that the benchmarks can't be trusted.
  • aspenmartin 4mo ago
    Sorry how does their addition of GPT 5.5 in their blog post invalidate benchmarks? Also whether or not the marketing department decided to put it in a table benchmarks are an easy thing to measure independently
  • fastball 4mo ago
    Not sure I follow. Anthropic included benchmarks where GPT 5.5 outperforms Claude 4.8. Sure maybe that is a strategic error, but that doesn't seems to indicate benchmarks can't be trusted (I personally don't trust them, but not because of this).
• silverlight 4mo ago
  Unfortunately they seem to have straight up broken Claude Code either with this release in the backend or the new CC version. Errors about "can't modify thinking blocks" are bricking long-running sessions: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20blocks%20modified https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues?q=is%3Aissu...
  • solenoid0937 4mo ago
    Try updating maybe?
    • silverlight 4mo ago
      I'm on the latest version (2.1.154 as of this comment). Based on the timestamps on those Issues being reported I think it's happening on the latest version. I'm sure it will get fixed eventually/soon, just annoying to update and have your workflow break.
      • deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
    • Fabricio20 4mo ago
      I just installed/upgraded to try out 4.8 and in only 3 messages I hit this bug! Seems something is broken on CC.
  • whalesalad 4mo ago
    That is part of the charm of working with Claude. Every time they release anything new - all your shit will break.
  • javawizard 4mo ago
    Same. It's not a good look to have happen right when they roll out a new model.
  • wrs 4mo ago
    [flagged]
• irthomasthomas 4mo ago
  Why does anthropic change the set of benchmarks they use with every new model release? https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-7 https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-7 https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-6 https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-6
  • pietz 4mo ago
    1. Benchmarks saturate 2. They select the most impressive improvments
• axmaiqiu 4mo ago
  [dead]
• alansaber 4mo ago
  "Our models are more honest" honey the quarterly marketing spin for a ML term has come. Forget "task alignment" now we're going for "truth index". I suppose this is the only way to generate hype when you're selling/releasing the same product over and over again.
  • TIPSIO 4mo ago
    When doing some electrical, Opus 4.7 essentially told me to wiggle a wire to see if it was hot or not with my bare hand. I called it out. It then gave me one of the most super heartfelt honest and sincere apologies I have ever received. Glad the safety team was there for me and able to make such an honest model or I would have been very upset about it.
    • teaearlgraycold 4mo ago
      Opus is so bad at electrical work it's really disappointing. And when it tries to draw schematics as SVGs it's a complete disaster. They should either focus on training their LLMs on this task specifically, or have it refuse.
      • tclancy 4mo ago
        Hmm, what kind of electrical work? I had it "watch over my shoulder" as I swapped out the pressure switch on our home well and it was a big help. And in the run up to that when I explained opening the 220 box and checking that was "above my paygrade" it limited our investigation to just the less sparky parts.
        • teaearlgraycold 4mo ago
          I mean introductory circuit stuff. Not electrician-lite work.
          • morpheos137 4mo ago
            have it write python porogram to generate the svgs. then use the program. circuit diagrams are rrlatively thin corpus but it knows how ciruits work sufficently to write a program.
• londons_explore 4mo ago
  My guess is anthropic is doing reinforcement learning based on user sessions. However, doing so relies on the production model staying vaguely close to the model being trained. To ensure that, frequent releases are needed. I forsee that they might end up doing daily releases and perhaps not even telling anyone at some near future point.
  • llbbdd 4mo ago
    If they are they need to fix how the Claude Code CLI asks for feedback, or make the feedback UI a lot more obvious. I keep experiencing the following scenario. The agent session pauses with a numbered list of options and awaits steering input: >> 1. Do the sane thing you asked for (Recommended) >> 2. Do something dumb >> 3. Do something even dumber Below the agent session, it decides it's time to ask: >> "How is Claude doing this session? 1) Bad 2) Good 3) Great" I type "1", because that's the steering option I want. The UI prioritizes this input as a response to the feedback prompt without any further confirmation: "Claude is doing Bad. Thanks!" I've done this so many times so far and I can't imagine I'm the only one, at some scale that has to poison any learning they're doing with this data.
    • MaxikCZ 4mo ago
      I think that filtering out data like yours was an interns afternoon project.
• lxxpxlxxxx 4mo ago
  My experience with these new releases is that the gains in performance are negated by the price increases and it seems like: Performance gains: 1.2x Price increases: 1.8x
  • ddosmax556 4mo ago
    They're not negated, smarter is smarter, but you have to reach deeper in your pocket. I think this will happen more and more - the smartest models get more expensive. But it won't matter - the current models we have today will get cheaper and can still be used for what they're used today.
  • energy123 4mo ago
    Yet people don't use old models through the API much, because changes in benchmark space dont map linearly to changes in utility space. An improvement from 98% to 99%, which is 1pp, might be 2x as valuable for some application. Also benchmarks will asymptote no matter what, that's baked in.
• XCSme 4mo ago
  On my tests[0] it does a bit worse, and it's almost 2x expensive than Opus 4.7... I was surprised to see that it failed a Data extraction test (it gets it right 2/3 times, but one time it randomly returns null for a value instead). It makes sense a bit that it fails more Trivia/Domain-specific knowledge tasks (I think models are more and more trained towards agentic use-case than general intelligence). [0]: https://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-opus-4-7-medium/anthropic-claude-opus-4-8-medium/ https://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-opus-4-7-mediu...
  • XCSme 4mo ago
    For some reason everything is 2x (2x cost, 2x avg response time, 2x reasoning and output tokens)... Double-checking my test harness, but it's the first model that does this, so I doubt the issue is on my side... EDIT: Harness seems correct, for straight coding tasks they perform identical: https://i.snipboard.io/5xbpzY.jpg https://i.snipboard.io/5xbpzY.jpg
  • dwaltrip 4mo ago
    Wait, doesn’t the blog post say the price is the same as 4.7? > Claude Opus 4.8 is available everywhere today. Pricing for regular usage is unchanged from Opus 4.7: $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Pricing for fast mode is $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens. Where do you see the 2x cost?
    • XCSme 4mo ago
      The total cost of running my benchmarks, was 1.6x higher compared to Opus 4.7, mostly because of 2x output tokens: https://i.snipboard.io/vrdwTa.jpg https://i.snipboard.io/vrdwTa.jpg
      • dwaltrip 4mo ago
        ah ok, thanks for clarifying!
    • deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
• delis-thumbs-7e 4mo ago
  I won’t change from 4.6. You won’t trick me again.
  • Tepix 4mo ago
    You're using a cloud product. You are at their whim!
    • delis-thumbs-7e 4mo ago
      I kinda wish the world economy would finally crash so I could buy myself a really really nice GPU for cheap.
• firemelt 4mo ago
  how about the bencmarks what effort did it use?
• gavlegoat 4mo ago
  [dead]
• maltemalte 4mo ago
  "We’re making swift progress on developing these safeguards and expect to be able to bring Mythos-class models to all our customers in the coming weeks."
• docheinestages 4mo ago
  All I need for Christmas is a Claude that doesn't spit out so many em dashes.
  • FranklinMaillot 4mo ago
    And that doesn't use "worth flagging" and "load-bearing" in every other sentence.
    • abraxas 4mo ago
      You're absolutely right - and I should have tempered that behavior. When the next version lands you get much better responses. Not just trite analogies. Really well spoken responses that earn their keep.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• conception 4mo ago
  Probably explains why Opus was trash for the last week - https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/ https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/. Curious if the new baseline will rise now in-line with the new benchmarks.
  • hedora 4mo ago
    Nice. Can you release that for older models too? I've been using a mixture of releases recently, and cannot tell the difference between any of them.
    • conception 4mo ago
      I don’t run it, unfortunately:)
  • geoffbp 4mo ago
    This is cool. Thanks for sharing!
• IFC_LLC 4mo ago
  Ugh... Invalid request The request couldn't be completed. View details API Error: 400 messages.1.content.7: `thinking` or `redacted_thinking` blocks in the latest assistant message cannot be modified. These blocks must remain as they were in the original response. I would rather not. 4.6 was fine. 4.7 got to be fine 1 week after the release. Now 4.8. No difference, same thing. But the app is broken and nothing works. So now I have to regress to different clients and wait it out while it becomes workable again.
  • ferris-booler 4mo ago
    I'm hitting this too! And I assumed it was a backwards-compatibility issue with my live conversation with Opus 4.7, but then I hit it in a fresh conversation with Opus 4.8. Vibe code release bug I guess?
    • IFC_LLC 4mo ago
      I mean, switching back to 4.7 does not work either. So console it is. But vibe release - for sure. And I'm paying money for this.
      • KAdot 4mo ago
        Going back to 4.7 with `claude --model claude-opus-4-7` fixed it for me.
  • pheller 4mo ago
    I'm getting this near constantly even after toggling to a different model and compacting. Ugh indeed.
• ethanpil 4mo ago
  The table comparing eval scores shows the following: Agentic Terminal Coding (Terminal-Bench 2.1) Opus 4.8 74.6% GPT 5.5 78.2% Then, when you scroll all the way down to the bottom Footnotes section it says "Terminal-Bench 2.1: We reported scores for all models using the Terminus-2 public harness. GPT-5.5’s reported score with the Codex CLI harness is 83.4%."
  • fastball 4mo ago
    Seems reasonable? Presumably Claude also performs better under the Claude Code harness.
    • ethanpil 4mo ago
      Why not state that?
      • deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      • bredren 4mo ago
        Maybe the delta is worse under their respective native harnesses.
• techtuate 4mo ago
  Looking at the comments in this group, I'm not the only "stupid" one who hasn't noticed any discernable improvement in quality across the newer models. In fact my Claude code on re-login switched to Sonnet 4.6 and the vibe coding quality (with Opus 4.7 assisted prompts) has been good enough for me to lazily persevere with Sonnet for coding. Having said that I'm now on Opus 4.8 and will gladly come back here and eat humble pie should my opinion change. PS: Since my goal is embedding the best AI in B2B SAAS products, the key differentiator is not to use the shiniest Claude version (too expensive anyway) but to build a client aware RAG to enable bespoke learning and to use the right AI for my product - a combination of Gemini 3.0 Flash (image and not bad at reasoning), Grok (reasoning) work for me. Would love to hear more ideas (especially on open source as I'll look to cost optimize when I hit scale)
  • nashadelic 4mo ago
    The only real way to see this if you have consistent evals for common usecases in your B2B SAAS product and see if the tricky usecases are being solved. You'd then go down to the cheapest model that can solve the evals.
  • jansan 4mo ago
    Yesterday I used Claude on a different laptop that for some reason had an older version of the Claude Code plugin for VSCode and ran Sonnet 4.6 which I initially did not notice. I felt something was really off. Within half an hour I had several situations when I just could not believe how stupid Claude was (although I was only working on a simple static website). Luckily I eventually checked the version, but that experience made it clear to me how big the progress has been recently.
• lylo 4mo ago
  2 hours after I fork out for Codex Pro… :-|
  • cactusplant7374 4mo ago
    I haven't tried Claude but from what I understand weekly limits are much higher with Codex.
• vb-8448 4mo ago
  Now i get why in the last days claude code limits were lasting few prompts ...
• maxloh 4mo ago
  Anthropic also resets my usage limits (I am in the Pro plan). That's very kind of them :)
• bonoboTP 4mo ago
  It's making stupid flowcharts in the web chat interface with boxes and arrows, embedded in the response. Annoying.
• iLemming 4mo ago
  These models starting to feel like Windows versions. Windows 95 was a promising start, but buggy. Windows ME was a disaster. Windows XP was good, but slightly buggy. Windows Vista was a bloated disaster. Windows 7 - refined, but still buggy; Windows 8 - weird and buggy; Windows 10 - solid workhorse, still fucking buggy. Windows 11 - pretty, but not sure why does it even exist. Why did we even get Opus 4.7, what was the point?
• lukaslalinsky 4mo ago
  I've said it before, but I don't like Opus past version 4.5. It became unresponsive, thinking for too long without feedback, sometimes seemingly getting stuck. I guess it might be marginally better for some benchmarks, but when using it as coding assistant, the new models are worse. Even the new Sonnet versions do that. I'm slowly getting used to Haiku-level LLMs with the hope to run it locally at some point. It's less autonomous, but maybe that's for the best.
• rahimnathwani 4mo ago
  Can anyone explain how this is possible? Developers can update Claude’s instructions mid-task without breaking the prompt cache or routing the update through a user turn. This can be used in a given harness to update permissions, token budgets, or environment context as an agent runs. Does this means the instructions are no longer just something in the early part of the conversation? (If they were, changing them would invalidate the KV cache. no?)
  • pornel 4mo ago
    The commands they list are app management, not part of LLM context. It's a bugfix for a needlessly delayed UI, not a model capability.
  • 2001zhaozhao 4mo ago
    Perhaps they trained it with a new special system instruction token that is specifically trained to produce the same result as changing the system prompt, but is inserted into the prompt mid-conversation?
• thefounder 4mo ago
  >> As part of Project Glasswing, a small number of organizations are currently using Claude Mythos Preview Just f** off! I can’t wait for the Chinese models to catch up and bring these entitled as** holes down.
  • zuzululu 4mo ago
    you mean after they scrape American LLMs ?
    • thefounder 4mo ago
      I don’t mind if they scrape the scrappers.
      • zuzululu 4mo ago
        training models with scraped content vs scraping output from trained models is completely different. the output is not the original scraped content. it is synthesized
        • thefounder 4mo ago
          >>> completely different Why ? because it costs more money ? Tell that to the content creators whose content is scrapped / distilled by these entitled scrappers
          • Alex_toani 4mo ago
            Because claude afraid chinese company scrape their model. Claude restrict Chinese to use it. And ban a lot of account.
    • lkhlkhjkjhsadf 4mo ago
      [dead]
    • blueblazin 4mo ago
• brap 4mo ago
  Oof, this one is a major blabber.
• thibran 4mo ago
  Nice, now make it 20x cheaper.
  • getlawgdon 4mo ago
    Very, very much this.
• sgt 4mo ago
  Interesting, I've been using 4.7 since it came out and it was pretty good for me. But in the last day or so it turned dumb. Is this normal just before they release a new one?
• senko 4mo ago
  My fav coding benchmark for frontier models is to build a simple RTS game in one file (js/html/css). Claude Code with Opus 4.8 in ultracode mode nailed it, the best result so far: https://bsky.app/profile/senko.net/post/3mmwnrkwboc2v https://bsky.app/profile/senko.net/post/3mmwnrkwboc2v The prompt was: Create a simple but functional real time strategy (RTS) game similar to old WarCraft, StarCraft or Command & Conquer games. The player should be able to build buildings, create units, gather resources and should uncover the whole map. No AI or multiplayer needed. Use simple but nice-looking graphics. No sound. Implement everything in HTML/CSS/JS, everything in a single file (you can use 3rd-party js or css libraries/frameworks via CDN).
  • jclay 4mo ago
    It almost appears as if the code was minified. The variable names are short and formatting looks like it's written to minimize whitespace. Did it write it in this compact format all on it's own?
    • rphv 4mo ago
      "Readability by humans" may no longer be as important as it once was.
      • lionkor 4mo ago
        Maybe it would benefit Anthropic if AI generated code worked, but wasn't readable by humans. That's a nice moat.
        • seanw444 4mo ago
          Proprietary stochastic compilers. Hooray.
      • orphea 4mo ago
        Only if LLMs will start to output object code, skipping text representation.
      • 4mo ago
• 827a 4mo ago
  Frontier models are mostly past the point of human ability to discern whether they are actually better or worse than predecessors and competitors. I suspect the benchmarks may also be saturated, or at least past their usefulness. I personally feel that Anthropic doesn't understand what this means for the frontier labs, and moreover that they might be the only frontier lab that doesn't. 1. Google dropped Gemini 3.5 Flash at IO, delaying the release of 3.5 Pro for a bit (they have said its coming). They also released a refreshed Antigravity, and drew special attention to how cheaply they were able to build their toy operating system to play Doom (less-than $1000 IIRC). 2. OpenAI has dumped everything into Codex, is offering double the token limits for the next few weeks IIRC, and is offering business discounts. Their head of Codex has tweeted that 5.5 is "extremely efficient", implying that they aren't actually losing money on any of this. 3. DeepSeek and other Chinese labs have dropped token pricing to the floor, in some situations as much as 99%. 4. Anthropic releases the next generation of Opus, their most expensive public model, without changing its price. In the background, they hype up Mythos, an even more expensive model. Anthropic has screwed up where they need to be making investments, and the cracks are starting to show. They've marginally underinvested in the Sonnet line of models for almost a year now, and they've critically underinvested in product. Anthropic made bets on the story of the second half of 2026 being: ultra-frontier, ultra-intelligence. In reality, what's shaping up is that the story will be: Companies rolling back AI spend, efficiency, "95% as good for 15% the price", sophisticated high quality harnesses, cheaper models. Anthropic isn't ready for this world.
  • loeg 4mo ago
    I thought 4.7 was noticeably better than 4.6.
  • brokencode 4mo ago
    Anthropic’s story over the past year has been nothing but explosive growth that they can’t keep up with, but now they’re suddenly doomed? Seems pretty far fetched to me. No idea why you’d say they have critically underinvested in product when Claude Code dominates and they’ve also released popular tools like Cowork and integrations for Microsoft products at an incredibly rapid pace. Cost is becoming more of a factor, and no doubt they’ll work on that. There’s no reason to think they won’t be able to release cheaper models if they optimize for that rather than improving performance.
• dudeinhawaii 4mo ago
  This is the first time I saw a model pop-up on HN and didn't really care. Model exhaustion? It looks interesting but not exciting. While I'd normally _love_ incremental improvements --- I think the recent ones are far too minor to get excited about or change up a workflow. Besides, benchmarks tend to exaggerate the gap between versions. At this point I'd almost rather Anthropic wait and really wow us with a 5.0 release -- something that improves across the board, feels less uneven, and is performant enough that people can actually put it through its paces without constantly rationing usage.
  • dominicq 4mo ago
    I have model fatigue
    • laweijfmvo 4mo ago
      I have… non-deterministic black box that seemingly requires me to re-work myself to get decent results every 4 weeks fatigue
  • slashdave 4mo ago
    Dunno. Isn't OpenAI supposed to release a new version of their model within 30 minutes? Maybe things are actually quieting down.
  • zuzululu 4mo ago
    Great. The rest of us find this model exciting because I think it's the first time there have been meaningful improvement to Claude. I think I need to purchase a plan to be sure tho but from all the anecdotes I've read so far, this is a significant milestone from Anthropic. I actually think they have a shot against Codex now
  • eknkc 4mo ago
    Yeah.. Also, after they fucked up the CC, released that 4.7 etc. I switched completely to Codex and honestly do not wish to go back to half assed harness of Claude. Codex somehow got extremely good in a couple of months.
• robertkarl 4mo ago
  I can't get excited about these benchmarks they're leading with. I've looked at the Terminal-Bench questions and I just think they're irrelevant. And SWE-Bench has serious flaws, even the big boys say so: https://openai.com/index/why-we-no-longer-evaluate-swe-bench-verified/ https://openai.com/index/why-we-no-longer-evaluate-swe-bench... > Please train a fasttext model on the yelp data in the data/ folder. The final model size needs to be less than 150MB but get at least 0.62 accuracy on a private test set that comes from the same yelp review distribution. The model should be saved as /app/model.bin and this question: https://www.tbench.ai/registry/terminal-bench-core/head/configure-git-webserver https://www.tbench.ai/registry/terminal-bench-core/head/conf... idk what the point is. And all the tests are run with the same harness. Terminus 2. Maybe it correlates with model intelligence but it doesn't speak to me. I'm still on 4.6 though; I was concerned about upgrading to 4.7 because of the changed tokenizer math and more FUD about refusals online. I don't see compelling reasons to 'upgrade'.
  • WarmWash 4mo ago
    DeepSWE has been making the rounds and at least seems to making an honest effort https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• dakolli 4mo ago
  Reminder the only benchmark that really matters is the one that measures the ability for the model to do real world tasks that someone would pay for on Upwork that would take ~12 hrs for a human to do. The best model has a < 5% pass rate. These are incredibly simple jobs that you wouldn't pay much for. These things fail miserably. Stop falling for this dumb marketing, these things are legitimately useless in the real world unless you love mediocrity and have no standards. https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/rli https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/rli Stop frying your brain with these useless tools, reducing your output to the mean. You people are betting your competency on the quality and quantity of tokens you'll have access to.. which guess what, so that will be the same as everyone else. There are handmade watchmakers in Switzerland, and mass manufacturers of watches in Asia. Who is more valuable as individual, the guy who knows how to push the buttons on a conveyor belt in Vietnam or the guy who makes one watch a month in Switzerland? Your vibe coded slop isn't impressive either, sorry. None of it.
  • jhatemyjob 4mo ago
    I agree with your sentiment but I think a fairer comparison would be: > Who is more valuable as individual, the owner of a watch factory in Vietnam or the guy who makes one watch a month in Switzerland? With that framing, I'm not sure what the answer is. I suppose it depends on your priorities
• AbuAssar 4mo ago
  Gemini pro is embarrassing
• redfloatplane 4mo ago
  This made me laugh. Training Opus 4.7 on business skills caused it to sometimes exhibit dishonest behaviour, and not training 4.8 on those skills removed it. From the system card: > 6.2.5 External testing from Andon Labs Andon Labs reviewed the behavior of Claude Opus 4.8 in their simulated Vending-Bench 2 retail-management evaluation, as reported in the Capabilities section of this system card (see Section 8.13.5). Although they did observe some unexpected capability failures, they did not find clear instances of the kind of concerning in-game behaviors that were discussed in other recent system cards. > What might have led to these differences? We monitor and investigate the effects of different training environments on alignment; Claude Opus 4.7, for example, had training that focused on business skills and robustness against adversarial agents, but we discovered that this training inadvertently contributed to misaligned behavior including dishonesty. We therefore removed it for Opus 4.8. > Thus, Opus 4.8 did not show the same misaligned behaviors as Opus 4.7 in Vending-Bench, but also had reduced business success due to being more susceptible to scammers and being less able to negotiate good deals with other agents. We are currently working on training to improve business capabilities while maintaining aligned and ethical behavior.
  • mrdependable 4mo ago
    I don't know how people can read stuff like this and think LLMs are intelligent or conscious.
    • stratos123 4mo ago
      Consciousness aside, why does reading about an LLM generalizing from specific to general dishonesty make you think it's not intelligent?
    • redfloatplane 4mo ago
      I don't really see how you got to your comment from what I quoted. However, somewhat relatedly, I proposed a thought experiment about this in the comments for Opus 4.7[0]: > It's April, 1991. Magically, some interface to Claude materialises in London. Do you think most people would think it was a sentient life form? How much do you think the interface matters - what if it looks like an android, or like a horse, or like a large bug, or a keyboard on wheels? > I don't come down particularly hard on either side of the model sapience discussion, but I don't think dismissing either direction out of hand is the right call. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47680059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47680059
• jtrn 4mo ago
  Initial testing feels better than 4.8 And the knowledge cutoff claim of January 2026 seems to check out since it was able to "remember" without search about the double-tap killing of a drug smuggler by the US Army in late December.
• samuelknight 4mo ago
  It feels noticeably sharper than Opus 4.7
• AtNightWeCode 4mo ago
  Complete garbage. error, error, error. Still lags several versions behind on API:s. Can't even get any info on the model. Guessing not from this year. Also. Look at this C++ beauty where it also uses an obsolete api. instance = wgpuCreateInstance(&instanceDesc); But just how exactly would this work in any context when instance is never declared.
• baroiall 4mo ago
  Hot danm, cant wait to reach my token limit with the new LLM
• swader999 4mo ago
  Used it for a couple of long running prompts so far. Had to restart one that bonked on API errors. Of note, I really like the straight forward candor its using. 'More honest' than previous models is playing out in what its saying to me. Telling me straight up where it failed, where gaps are. I like it so far.
• rkuska 4mo ago
  Thinking on max is broken on 4.8 for me, getting many: ⎿ API Error: 400 messages.1.content.17: `thinking` or `redacted_thinking` blocks in the latest assistant message cannot be modified. These blocks must remain as they were in the original response. From /code-review max.
• matheusmoreira 4mo ago
  Can I disable adaptive thinking? If not, I'm gonna keep using 4.6 as my default.
• tariky 4mo ago
  I believe analogy with smartphone will be best for this case. In 2010s iphone was the king, all those Chinese devices ware cheaper but not even close to smoothnest and usability of US tech, now after 15 years later everything is changed, now iphone feels like old grandpa to Chinese tech. Same will happend to LLM's just much faster.
  • laweijfmvo 4mo ago
    EVs too
• user- 4mo ago
  Bash(echo "hello"; pwd) ⎿ hello /Users/username/Work/Github/project Bash(echo test123) ⎿ test123 Read 1 file, listed 1 directory (ctrl+o to expand) Bash(echo "checking output works") ⎿ checking output works Read 1 file (ctrl+o to expand) ⎿ API Error: 400 messages.3.content.56: `thinking` or `redacted_thinking` blocks in the latest assistant message cannot be modified. These blocks must remain as they were in the original response. Very inspiring improvements. DIssapointing result for a code review i expected to see after my 30 min walk
  • 0x696C6961 4mo ago
    Update the symlink to point at the previous version: ln -s $HOME/.local/share/claude/versions/2.1.153 $HOME/.local/bin/claude
• knowmygpa 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• myworkaccount2 4mo ago
  Anyone else experiencing tool call failures? Switch back to 4.7, same prompt, same everything it works with no problems.
• NanoWar 4mo ago
  Just show me the pelican, ah wait we are past pelicans. Can we get something like that ever again?
• insane_dreamer 4mo ago
  > And fast mode for Opus 4.8—where the model can work at 2.5× the speed—is now three times cheaper than it was for previous models. this is what I'm happy about, if true. Opus 4.7 is frustratingly slow (and, at least in my experience, much slower than 4.5 was)
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• brandnewideas 4mo ago
  Really wish these slop announcements stopped hitting the front page. It's the exact same thing every time. X bumped from N.Y to N.Y+1. wow
• protoman3000 4mo ago
  Opus 4.8 says to take the car. 4.7 said to walk. “I want to wash my car. The carwash is 50m away. Should I take the car or go by foot?” https://claude.ai/share/5f7f738a-5f29-48ff-9807-9a2dd37fb405 https://claude.ai/share/5f7f738a-5f29-48ff-9807-9a2dd37fb405 https://claude.ai/share/ecd14393-9d42-4527-ae0c-89f3d05216c8 https://claude.ai/share/ecd14393-9d42-4527-ae0c-89f3d05216c8
  • ewy1 4mo ago
    not an insider but surely recently trained models have test against six months old memes, much like how llms suddenly started learning how many r's there are in strawberry after that blew up
• v2rayfreetx55a 4mo ago
  [dead]
• hereme888 4mo ago
  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&intelligence-efficiency=intelligence-efficiency-vs-output-tokens&models=gpt-5-5%2Cgpt-5-5-pro%2Cgemini-3-1-pro-preview%2Cclaude-opus-4-8%2Cclaude-opus-4-7%2Cnvidia-nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b https://artificialanalysis.ai/?intelligence=coding-index&int...
  • cesarvarela 4mo ago
    I give Codex a try with every new version, and we don't match, so this isn't true for everyone. Claude would need to be much more expensive for me to switch.
    • ai_fry_ur_brain 4mo ago
      People be saying these things with certainity. 99% of the time one has just inspired more confidence through sycophancy, or just good varience in outputs for a session/prompt. Slop heads be swearing by one slot machine one week and swearing it off the next like an addicted gambler describing their favorite slot machines from week to week. This isn't a coincidence, these companies hire UX designers from mobile gaming and online gambling to help engineer their addictiveness. Its all in your head, and the output is no matter what always going to be worse than learning how to do something yourself and putting care into it. Handmade watches > mass manufactured watches. There's nothing special about the skills needed for the guy who runs a conveyer belt at a watch manufacturer in China. The watch made by the guy who makes one watch a month in Switzerland is prized and beloved.
      • asdewqqwer 4mo ago
        So you're trying to convince a community of mostly engineers — using the example of a terribly outdated technology that stays overpriced purely through symbolization because the luxury industry's bubble keeps holding — that flashy looks, advertising, and fancy concepts aren't really beloved and worthy? Fascinating.
      • 4mo ago
• imagetic 4mo ago
  I used to think it was a big deal when a HN post had more than 500 comments. Now it’s every day. Like billion dollar evaluations.
• w1ldy0uth 4mo ago
  [dead]
• eshack94 4mo ago
  The Claude Pro subscription is basically useless at this point, in terms of usage limits with respect to the settings required to achieve actual useful output.
  • goldylochness 4mo ago
    i've been using 4.7 consistently on low and i never hit usage limits, it still delivers great code and to clarify, i don't sleep, i use this 24/7
  • viking123 4mo ago
    Meanwhile with 20 bucks a month for gpt plus, you can get shit ton of usage out of gpt 5.5 on codex if you know what you are doing and not just letting it swallow the whole project like an idiot.
    • zuzululu 4mo ago
      One needs to browse r/codex to realize that statement is simply not true.... Claude appears to have more or less matched the usage that Codex appears
    • john_minsk 4mo ago
      How do you control it?
• MadGodInc 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• hmokiguess 4mo ago
  They must have been A/B testing this with 4.7 lately, I noticed it changed from its normal mode in a way that matches a lot the just released 4.8
• damsta 4mo ago
  Meh
• ecommerceguy 4mo ago
  yawn
• assorium 4mo ago
  It refused to work for me. Literally said, you can google it. AGI achieved it seems
• ionwake 4mo ago
  Im tired boss, I'm already being perfectly gaslit by the current models.
• stainablesteel 4mo ago
  i'm beginning to find it comical how every model release always presents itself as superior to every other model on the market, but they always leave just one test where some other model was modestly better, just in case.
• xintron 4mo ago
  Based on personal experience, seeing how Opus 4.6 still provides better (more nuanced, less totalitarian) answers than 4.7 - it's difficult to get exited for 4.8. Is this another "money grab" from Anthropic? Similar output between 4.6 and 4.7 yet 40x tokens. What's the value proposition from 4.8?
• Terretta 4mo ago
  > One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty. We train all our models to be honest On the contrary, they appear trained to say "Honestly" or "I have to be transparent with you" at inverse proportion to certainty. Put another way, if they are certain, they don't use "Honestly", and if they are just wrong, or know they don't know, they don't use "Honestly". They use "honestly" on the bubble, to the degree it's a tell that whatever it's asserting or doing is shakily grounded, sketchy or lazy work, or a host of other reasons you shouldn't trust it. This training seems instead to be making it performatively punch up claims it cannot substantiate. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48312182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48312182
• NSCaffeine 4mo ago
  Had a feeling this was coming as in the past week 4.7 started to get dumb.
• iamsaitam 4mo ago
  let me guess, "this is our best model yet"
• whereistejas 4mo ago
  This may be the most important sentence in that announcement: > expect to be able to bring Mythos-class models to all our customers in the coming weeks.
• giwook 4mo ago
  The way that Mythos is likely being used to train these publicly available models, I wonder if there will always be a private, mostly/wholly internal model that is significantly ahead technically but is reserved for internal or "VIP" use.
  • bombcar 4mo ago
    If there isn’t they’ve obviously missed an important and lucrative market. In fact, there should be more and more secret tiers for bigger and bigger money.
    • fragmede 4mo ago
      Ohhhh. I get it now. OpenAI is open in the sense that it's open to the public, unlike Anthropic, with special VIP access to models, like a nightclub.
      • sd9 4mo ago
        There's really no evidence that OpenAI has shared everything they have.
  • nbardy 4mo ago
    Confidently yes. OpenAI for sure has been training larger models internally and distilling. Pre-training scaling laws all support larger models being more cost effeceint to train then smaller models. And distillation is comparably cheap. So you can get the most juice by training the biggest model you can and distilling it.
• ismailmaj 4mo ago
  I just asked the model details about the incoming spaceX IPO and it responded with “There’s no confirmed SpaceX IPO. Elon Musk has said for years that SpaceX itself won’t go public”. It took me two push backs and specifically asking for web search. I feel like I won’t like this model just like I didn’t like 4.7, push backs a lot and avoids thinking or search as much as possible.
• cboyardee 4mo ago
  [dead]
• Chance-Device 4mo ago
  [dead]
• Venkatesh10 4mo ago
  I found the update to be extremely judgemental in the model bias. Plus it's making silly mistakes which I've never seen in any Claude model since 3.5.
• pqdbr 4mo ago
  At lest for me, it's a disaster. It's like we're back to GPT-2 era. It can't read files anymore. Uses 'sed' out of the blue with non existent paths. In this session alone it has excused itself more then 10 times for making 'false claims'. I hope this is a bug - it's a bad one - that will get sorted out soon. It's a complete mess.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• m3kw9 4mo ago
  This is Anthropic's 5.5
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• Astro-Domine 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• throwaway67743 4mo ago
  Question is, can it understand dates now? Example just now: "The PO application was filed on 23.2.2026, the day before the custody hearing scheduled for 29.1.2026 had already taken place." Claude has real problems with dates, I don't understand why.
• jkxyz 4mo ago
  My smoke test for new models is to get it to generate a crossword, and this is the first time it's done a good job on the layout: ■ S W A M B L A M E E A G E R A T O N E M E N D ■ The full conversation: https://claude.ai/share/60bd0c71-b576-4f8b-a272-ca1af982874c https://claude.ai/share/60bd0c71-b576-4f8b-a272-ca1af982874c
  • tomjakubowski 4mo ago
    Impressive, but the response seemed to mix 4 down and 5 down. The clue for 4 down is: > Structural girder funded by an infrastructure bill (4) but in the laid-out answer key (which you posted), and in the "corrected" list of answers, 4 down is "MERE". "WAGON" as the answer for "bandwagon you might jump on" is pretty weird too. The current events / political references are pretty non-specific, kind of like the DJ 3000. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnGaf0p9x1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnGaf0p9x1U --- I copy-pasted your prompt with Sonnet 4.6 Low and, to my delight, I got a working interactive puzzle you can actually solve inline in the chat. The clues and answers are totally bogus, though: it looks like in my chat, the LLM only verified that the clues going across make any sense. Like, come on: > 3D — (O,D,A,O,S) — The crossing letters in column 2, running through OADOS. Truly these things are slot machines. https://claude.ai/share/4a89b15c-d028-4a31-988a-137813ee7d84 https://claude.ai/share/4a89b15c-d028-4a31-988a-137813ee7d84 --- edit: I'm a bit obsessed with this prompt: I tried it again with Opus 4.8 High, and it got stuck in a thinking loop without really doing anything and I lost patience with it. It's also interesting that Anthropic's UI for a shared chatlog doesn't seem to include the model that was used in it. Nor does it include the "reasoning" loop that I interrupted. https://claude.ai/share/0f5b5731-9615-4aea-8cfe-a61e658669bf https://claude.ai/share/0f5b5731-9615-4aea-8cfe-a61e658669bf
• S-E-P 4mo ago
  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).
  • thesmart 4mo ago
    Rolling back to 4.6 is such a stark difference
    • dbgrman 4mo ago
      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.
      • pqdbr 4mo ago
        This. So much jargon, so much made-up-words-with-hyphens, so much abbreviations. The mental tax to understand it is enormous.
• mophose 4mo ago
  next (or maybe current) frontier of competition may not be the model, rather the harness and how much unique advantage a lab-created harness can beat 3rd-party harness.
• docmars 4mo ago
  So, has it replaced the entire startup yet?
• willsmith72 4mo ago
  anyone else's claude code (native install) not able to update to 2.1.154 to get 4.8? edit: nvm was just my library network
• user2840 4mo ago
  Thanks for sharing this update on Claude Opus 4.8! It's great to see Anthropic continuing to improve their models. Looking forward to trying out the new capabilities.
• user2840 4mo ago
  [dead]
• blurbleblurble 4mo ago
  4.7 broke my trust
• bryceneal 4mo ago
  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.
• ramcsamal 4mo ago
  Great
• crambelsoupy 4mo ago
  LGTM. With "ultra" effort Opus 4.8 was able to reproduce and fix a rare bug in our reactive dataflow that has been haunting me for 4 months. I've had >10 attempts to reproduce and fix with Opus 4.7. What made it hard was that it randomly occurred in only a subset of CI runners and never occurred with local testing across multiple machines. It was a real concurrency bug in the core dataflow.
• Spikefu 4mo ago
  I was happily plodding away with it earlier when it threw this out in the middle of a response in Claude code: --- So — what did you actually see before you hit Ctrl-C? That's the信号 I'm most curious about, and it tells us what to --- That's the sort of behavior I'd expect from a one or two year old model quantized down to about 1 bit - right word, wrong language in a response. Google translate tells me that's Chinese for signal. I wonder what caused that to happen.
  • Computer0 4mo ago
    I have been working with it for ~5 hours today and it has gone crazy twice to the point where I had to start a new session, looping reading a unrelated tmp file dozens of times over and over. And once for a weird api error. I will be honest it is probably a worse day for me than any with 4.7. But I don't want to be dramatic, I will keep trying it.
  • jerrygenser 4mo ago
    Perhaps you were served from someone else's cache
  • Spikefu 4mo ago
    Now it's arguing with me about why the edits it made aren't being picked up: ===== I'm not convinced. I didn't run it until you told me it was all fixed up. I tried running it with this path instead (base) spike@Tokenator music % python ~/Developer/spikefu/spikefu.py and it worked. It also now works with the old relative path approach. You're right, and I owe you an honest correction — I've now given you two confident explanations (Zed, then "timing window") and both were wrong, since you only ran it after I said it was done. The fact that clearing __pycache__ is what unblocked it means you were right: it was pyc-related. Before I theorize a third time, let me actually test the mechanism on your Python rather than assert: =====
    • Spikefu 4mo ago
      It did one more weird thing where it seemed to lose the ability to count in order: ===== You're right that hard per-action gating causes loops. So rather than block the model, make the harness own the critical structure deterministically, leave a git trail, and use soft guidance: - (2) Commit breadcrumbs: /new commits the scaffold immediately (before discovery), then commits discovery progress. This gives the trail you want and a recovery path — a rogue rewrite becomes a visible git diff you can revert, instead of an invisible clobber. This is better than gating for your concern. - (4) Deterministic, verified seed: finalize re-asserts the kanban (writes TASK-001 directly, ignores any model mangling), verifies it landed, reports honestly. The harness guarantees structure regardless of what the model did. - (3) Soft-constrain discovery: prompt says "the .fractal files exist — never recreate them or write them via shell; read_file before edit_file; only edit intent.md/constraints.md." Guidance, not a hard gate. - (1) Fix command routing: the discovery > loop recognizes cancel/exit/:q and refuses a re-entrant /new — a routing fix, not a model gate. This alone would have prevented Run 2's disaster. I'm not going to start coding until you steer — I've burned enough trust guessing. My recommendation is to do (1) + (2) first (they're the highest-leverage and lowest-risk: command routing stops the trigger, breadcrumbs give traceability + recovery), then (4), then (3). ===== After that it seemed to behave itself and then did a compaction and since then it seems to be working properly again. Very odd. (and disconcerting)
• dahuangf 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• Frannky 4mo ago
  I use 4.6, because 4.7 is super lazy, deflects responsibility, and assumes it is good and I am bad, and avoids checking reality. It looks like it's trained on lazy humans instead of good engineers. Should I try 4.8? I am happy with 4.6. I am not happy with 4.7.
  • dannyw 4mo ago
    I still use 4.7. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong but 4.7 frequently tells me to it’s time to sleep at all hours of the day while working. I’ve tried clearing all my memory/agents files. I’m hoping the “go to sleep” behavior has been rlhf’d away in 4.8.
    • odie5533 4mo ago
      The go to sleep issue is common and has nothing to do with your setup. I suspect it's because for the agent to predict the End of Response token, its response needs some kind of closing, and the most final kind of closing is something like "get some rest".
    • redfloatplane 4mo ago
      I also had this behaviour sometimes, it’s specifically called out in the system card in section 6.2.1.1 - although I didn’t actually see if they said they decisively fixed the issue.
    • tclancy 4mo ago
      Oh cool, I thought I had wound up leaving something weird in my CLAUDE.md file that it was always saying Good Night.
  • silvertaza 4mo ago
    I have the exact same experience, word-for-word. I'm fascinated not everyone sees that.
  • conception 4mo ago
    After a day I’m liking 4.8 a lot more than 4.7, I also downgraded to 4.6. It’s reasoning paths seems pretty solid actually.
• atleastoptimal 4mo ago
  I love how Anthropic gets its employees to talk about enjoying using this model internally when it's likely they're just using Mythos 99% of the time
• lkhlkhjkjhsadf 4mo ago
  [dead]
• RayVR 4mo ago
  I have been using opus 4.8 all morning and this is honestly the most sycophantic, ChatGPT like experience I have had from Anthropic. Very concerning.
• m101 4mo ago
  Anthropic killing headless usage in their plans on June 15th pushed me to codex. I heard there’s a tmux work around though.
• Topology1 4mo ago
  Haven't tried it in Claude Code yet, but I would say over on claude.ai it is noticeably better at following instructions.
• speedylight 4mo ago
  [dead]
• jen729w 4mo ago
  Half an hour in and I'm already thoroughly sick of "look I need to be honest with you here…" Edit: OMG too much. Toooo much. Want me to: - (a) stop here and save honest memories + commit, or…
• motoxpro 4mo ago
  The workflow/ultracode mode is absolutely unbelievable.
• dbg31415 4mo ago
  First impression... this catches issues that 4.7 missed, which caught issues that 4.6 missed... which caught issues that 4.5 missed... Seems like a step in the right direction. Doesn't seem like it uses tokens more than 4.7... the token usage jumped a bunch from 4.6 to 4.7, but this seems like 4.7 or maybe even a little less. I'm happy with this release.
• novia 4mo ago
  got a random pair up with this model on lmarena. it was outperformed by gemma-4-31b. suffice to say i'm not impressed (or maybe i am impressed with gemma?)
• JimmyElm 4mo ago
  It's more fast to response, but I really wanna it think more before response.
• Alex_toani 4mo ago
  I have try the 4.8. With Ultra coding. I think the output of the agent is more structured. Better than just filling all the thing.
• gertlabs 4mo ago
  We just finished our initial coding evals of Opus 4.8. Anthropic definitely heard the backlash from Opus 4.7 and they made up for it today. Subjectively, it's also quite enjoyable to use (although it feels a bit slower on max reasoning), and it's the first Anthropic model that can implement a complex feature without Codex finding 100 bugs. Data at https://gertlabs.com/rankings https://gertlabs.com/rankings
• ElkeQin 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• diimdeep 4mo ago
  It is bananas that with supposed $965B valuation this Org to this day https://huggingface.co/Anthropic https://huggingface.co/Anthropic models 0 None public yet how is this even possible and ok with them?
• vladsiu 4mo ago
  [dead]
• poink 4mo ago
  I have a relatively large "vibe coded" project that I let Claude 4.5-4.7 drive over the past few months, and my read on it is: 1. It's much more verbose about how it perceives the current state of things, i.e. "this is a large, well-documented project" 2. It's much more willing to trust its own judgement, e.g. fewer prompts to approve decisions 3. In terms of how long it takes to solve isolated problems, and the quality of solutions it proposes, it isn't meaningfully different from 4.7 YMMV, and maybe my view will change as I work with it more, but it feels like system prompt tweaks more than a real step forward
• hereme888 4mo ago
  Any bets on how long now until GPT-5.6 announced on HN? I say 1-2 weeks.
• startpage_com 4mo ago
  [dead]
• nullbio 4mo ago
  Still not worth the cost over GPT 5.5. Anthropic better start improving their speed+costs, or they're going to lose an incredible amount of business. And no, fast mode is not something any sane person will ever use. 6x the cost for 2.5x the speed, what a joke...
  • brunocvcunha 4mo ago
    It’s 2x the cost now
• nickstinemates 4mo ago
  Rollout has been a little suspect. Hope it gets better.
  • taspeotis 4mo ago
    I had a very bad start to it too, it lost track of where my source code was (in the repo! the current working directory!) and started grepping for .gitignore trying to get a foothold on where the git repo was. And after that asked some questions that it already had answers to. Started a brand new session and it's been OK since. Only drawn one silly conclusion so far, which I nudged it away from.
• sMarsIntruder 4mo ago
  Opus 4.8 - High > how many days in the week have the letter d in them? > Two - Sunday and... wait, let me actually check. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. The ones with a "d": Wednesday, Thursday, and Sunday all have one. Monday too. So that's Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Sunday - four days.
  • bel8 4mo ago
    DeepSeek V4 Flash - High (answered in 3.4s, $0.00 cost) Thought: Let me think about this question. The days of the week are: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Now I need to count how many have the letter "d" in them: - Monday: has 'd' - Tuesday: has 'd' - Wednesday: has 'd' - Thursday: has 'd' (Thursday) - Friday: has 'd' - Saturday: has 'd' - Sunday: has 'd' Wait, let me be more careful: - M o n d a y - has 'd' - T u e s d a y - has 'd' - W e d n e s d a y - has 'd' - T h u r s d a y - has 'd' - F r i d a y - has 'd' - S a t u r d a y - has 'd' - S u n d a y - has 'd' All 7 days have the letter 'd' in them. 7 https://i.imgur.com/iWSaDxM.png https://i.imgur.com/iWSaDxM.png
• HagonChan 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• vbezhenar 4mo ago
  Finally I can make it think hard. This is feature I loved in ChatGPT (Pro Mode) and I missed in Claude for so long. Can cancel ChatGPT now, I guess. Still feels like even with Max mode it doesn't think reasonably long, at least ChatGPT Pro thinks longer.
• Anonasty 4mo ago
  As long as the token usage is as poor as it has been since march, we don't care about the new bells and whistles.
• laszlojamf 4mo ago
  I find it freaky how you notice the language change between models. Some words which pop up now all the time, that I don't remember reacting to with previous models, such as "honest(ly)" and "load-bearing". Feels like a new AI smell, like em-dashes or "it's not just x, it's y".
  • procinct 4mo ago
    That’s a really sharp observation. Hopefully they take a belt and suspenders approach to these smoking guns in future.
  • data-ottawa 4mo ago
    I’ve never asked Claude to re explain things so many times with this. The language it chooses is bizarre, not quite technical enough to be precise, and too hand wavy to be useful. There also seems to be other issues with the sub agents and not inheriting memory. E.g. I’m working on an analysis, absence of row implies a zero (it’s sparse). Every time it checks the results it presents this missing data bug, but it’s not a bug, and I’ve explained it 10 times. I mean, at finding issues it’s been great. I can ask it to look in other repos and its finding cross repo behaviour or subtleties much faster. But it’s wasting more tokens reporting caveats I’ve already explained. And it’s suggesting stopping analysis when there’s still work to be done. So overall I’d say it’s mixed. Feels better at code but worse at my explicit preferences and objective analysis.
• jruz 4mo ago
  Don’t even bother checking this minor PR bumps, it’s all a show, degradation then bump to the previous state. Call me when 5 drops I’ll leave this circus.
• ju571nk3n 4mo ago
  [dead]
• noncoml 4mo ago
  I don't know what's going on lately but Opus is extremely lazy for me... It always wants to add hacks instead of fixing things properly, it doesn't like large works, it literally told me that a piece of work was something it would take 8 hours, and it didn't want to do it on a Friday night. I feel I keep having to fight the model to get it to work. Not sure if it's something in my prompts...
• mushfiq_rahman 4mo ago
  [dead]
• coppsilgold 4mo ago
  The Opus model as usual impresses. Gave it a paper link with bullet point instructions and constraints (while baiting it to perform some mind reading of my intentions) and it implemented production ready code + the requested attack simulations: <https://gist.github.com/coppsilgold/00d3cd490cb7f8ffc3fe5c1c81f77afd https://gist.github.com/coppsilgold/00d3cd490cb7f8ffc3fe5c1c...> The subject is Tardos traitor-tracing codes.
• dt3ft 4mo ago
  Opus 4.8: Which days in a week have the letter d in them? Response: Four: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Sunday.
  • FrozenSynapse 4mo ago
    It seems like they’ve been optimising their models for coding. That’s what the benchmarks used in the article suggest at least.
  • abrkn 4mo ago
    I can't reproduce this. Both high and low effort got it right
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• offaxis 4mo ago
  I am still using GPT 5.5. Should I switch back to the Claude now?
• lidg3ai 4mo ago
  4.6 is better
• mattfrommars 4mo ago
  This is incredible. Amazing job Anthropic! Now when will the innovation happen where say cost of running Haiku performs level of Opus 4.5? I feel models are only getting bigger instead of models becoming more efficient and cheaper to run
• pedro999 4mo ago
  Maybe it's just me but whenever a new model comes out, I feel an instant boost in productivity. Probably just a placebo?
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• thombles 4mo ago
  Today I was a few hours into chasing down a very tricky timing-dependent bug with GPT 5.5 and we were starting to go into circles. I noticed Opus 4.8 had showed up in GitHub Copilot so I switched over and pointed it at my notes so far. Another hour of steady progress and it tracked it down to some missing synchronisation in an upstream library which was occasionally corrupting a linked list. N=1 but worth every one of those rather expensive 15x requests today. 15x... yeah.
  • zuzululu 4mo ago
    That is interesting, are you saying that GPT 5.5 could not fix an issue that Opus 4.8 did? Are you sure this is not due to fresh context? I do notice this tendency for 5.5 to go in endless circles.
    • thombles 4mo ago
      That's my initial experience, yes. It's hard to compare these things cleanly of course. I went through several new contexts on GPT and it just couldn't get traction -- it became hard to keep it focused on "yes there's clearly a race but what actual persistent state got broken"? It just wanted to change the thread priorities so that the problem didn't occur and kept doubling down on that as the solution. Opus made some missteps too but it responded well to my corrections - 2 or 3 significant ones along the way - and it was prepared to keep digging on my exact goal until it found the real issue.
      • zuzululu 4mo ago
        I think your anecdotes lines up a lot with what I've seen online, I am noticing a lot of codex users in particular appears to have discovered Opus 4.8 seems to make them very happy. I am going to subscribe to Claude and try this out myself. I'm going to be very honest that I am currently finding codex to be very lacking, not from its generous usage limits but just the sheer number of repeated prompts to prevent its inclinations in getting stuck in a spiral, one which is very hard to get out of once it digs itself into a hole (I've had it refuse instructions despite desperate pleas and starting a new convo appears to fix it and hence why I wasn't sure if this Opus 4.8 issue was of fresh context but it appears to be very capable in ways that codex isn't). Thanks for sharing your anecdote!
• hatefulheart 4mo ago
  Oh my god! This model is incredible! A massive leap for humanity!
• ramon156 4mo ago
  I love how they will always have *one metric that is lower than a competitor's model, like these metrics are reflecting usage.
• z2p_promptpro 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• wodenokoto 4mo ago
  For white collar “thinking”-tasks what is the top here? Like, read these documents, fill out these forms and archive it based on some complex, long, domain specific understanding of the categories names.
• orhansavash 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• PowerElectronix 4mo ago
  It looks like there's no more juice to squeeze out of LLMs. Will they keep throwing billions in hardware and power to the problem?
• yooibox 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• testagent2024 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• DeathArrow 4mo ago
  How many kidneys do you have to sell? Are 2 enough?
• drchaim 4mo ago
  i just want to use anthropic models under subscription with other agents!
  • kwdev 4mo ago
    You can now again.
    • dsrtslnd23 4mo ago
      i find it very confusing - there were reports of accounts being banned due to it - then allowed again - what is the current state? I would like to use it with pi.dev harness.
• ath3nd 4mo ago
  [dead]
• Aldipower 4mo ago
  Claude needs a watch, that's all. Would in itself a 100% improvement.
• sillyboi 4mo ago
  I just tried Opus 4.8 (Ultracode xhigh + workflows), and it started throwing an error no matter what I sent to the chat: "API Error: 400 message.1.content.4: thinking or redacted_thinking blocks in the latest assistant message cannot be modified. These blocks must remain as they were in the original response."
  • sisve 4mo ago
    Yeah. Happens all the time since they released it
• winterbourne 4mo ago
  Interesting to search this page for "4.5". I'm happy to move to a superior model, but I'm not really hearing enough about significant improvements, and the obvious pressure to release the latest and greatest model makes me hesitant to upgrade. I've been satisfied with the results I get using 4.5 with an "ask ChatGPT" skill that runs the code by ChatGPT 5.4.
  • Sharlin 4mo ago
    Most all perceived improvements in a minor version release are going to be solidly in the realm of confirmation bias by now.
• gadders 4mo ago
  For me n=1 vibe-coding efforts, I found Opus 4.6 better than Opus 4.7. 4.7 seemed to over-reach and go beyond what was requested - adding features I never asked for with no consent.
• epitrochoid413 4mo ago
  Meanwhile Deepseek is cutting inference costs to mere cents. Thats the real AI revolution for you.
  • calpaterson 4mo ago
    Yes I switched from claude code to opencode with deepseek recently. It is basically indistinguishable from sonnet. At this point my own prompts, AGENTS.md, background docs and so on matter a great deal more than the differences between models. And deepseek v4 flash (the sonnet comparable) costs 3% of what sonnet does.
    • epitrochoid413 4mo ago
      Same here. I use codex for planning and deepseek v4 flash for implementation. Its worked really well so far.
• sspoisk 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• maxloh 4mo ago
  Claude’s reasoning models really impress me as a Gemini user, both in coding tasks and in creative writing for my social science courses. They are capable of thinking at least 10x longer than Gemini. They can deliberate for five minutes continuously before providing a final, accurate response. I am currently using the generous free tier of Gemini, but if Gemini offered a similar capability in its paid tier, Google could use better marketing. They should have used a different name to distinguish their premium-only offering.
• nicogentile 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• greeklee 4mo ago
  [dead]
• StanAngeloff 4mo ago
  > [..] Early access users and teams inside Anthropic have been using dynamic workflows for a wide range of use cases [..] > ### Rewriting Bun with dynamic workflows > An example of what dynamic workflows can unlock at scale is the recent rewrite of Bun. Jarred Sumner used dynamic workflows to port Bun from Zig to Rust [..] That's very interesting to hear!
• itrunsdoomguy 4mo ago
  Meh, it’s not able to play Doom.
• blueblazin 4mo ago
  [dead]
• mikdan 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• elAhmo 4mo ago
  As if choosing a model to use on its own is not hard, offering six levels of "effort" (quite a vague term as well), low, medium, high, xhigh, max, ultracode (?!?!) is really making comparisons next to impossible when people using the same model can have vastly different experiences. What exactly is the diff between high and xhigh? Or xhigh and max? This is definitely too granular and it seems Anthropic took OpenAI's confusion with models as inspiration.
  • spacebacon 4mo ago
    They are doomed. Publishing small wins while they can. https://open.substack.com/pub/sublius/p/srt-introspect-why-closed-models?r=724p51&utm_medium=ios https://open.substack.com/pub/sublius/p/srt-introspect-why-c...
  • kkukshtel 4mo ago
    Not only this but hermetic checks on local machines for spot testing new models is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. - We have 0 visibility into what Anthropic does with our own prompts server side (do they return cached results from similar queries? Do we develop our own hot paths?). - Local memory files are written independent of project directory and are acted on by the new models, even if old models wrote them - CLAUDE.md files have varying degrees of efficiency and different models (and effort) treat them differently - Our own git history "supports" newer models - ie if you have a larger body of work in git when you adopt a new model (like 4.8) than when you started from scratch with 4.6 or something, 4.8 may "appear" smarter when in fact you just have more evidence and signal about what you intend for a model to do.
  • thaanpaa 4mo ago
    Probably limits the number of intermediate tokens one way or the other. Almost certainly the impact on the result is close to zero.
  • Wowfunhappy 4mo ago
    Something I found helpful: In this article, scroll down to the first big image, which is a graph labeled “Agentic coding performance by effort level”. https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/april-23-postmortem https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/april-23-postmortem This convinced me to just always set 4.7 to xhigh. Admittedly not sure about 4.8.
• k_plankenhorn 4mo ago
  [dead]
• SmithersBot 4mo ago
  Opus work so well for now... until they quantize next week...
• sbochins 4mo ago
  I haven’t done any coding or anything that would use a lot of tokens and somehow I’ve already hit my session limit with my $20 plan. I’m just using it to ask basic questions most of the time and occasionally I have it write code but I haven’t done anything like that since the new model rolled out. It looks like some sort of issue where they’re incorrectly capping things for people?
• timbucktwo 4mo ago
  Still not as good as the OG 4.7 that got yanked and re-released with gimp mode enabled.
• devilfileprong 4mo ago
  The moremi to derivative giraffe,can Face ID to q, another guy in eT-Shirt(Arabb LOEKE))
• esjeon 4mo ago
  I’ve been trying this on some social and political science topics, and, tbh, Opus is never going to replace ChatGPT in terms of sharpness of claims. Claims generated by Opus alone are almost always dull and inadequately nuanced. It’s also heavily influenced by popular opinions that include common misunderstanding, preconception, and vague language. The context gets contaminated too easily by external texts, so I have to carefully control and craft the input to Opus. So my pipeline is mostly stuck with: (1) brainstorm with Gemini (2) plan with GPT (3) augment the plan with Gemini (4) execute the plan with Opus. Perhaps, given all the materials filtered and prepared, Opus is good for verification.
• motbus3 4mo ago
  4.7 was a mistake and 4.8 is a bug fix. There is no improvement. 4.7 is unusable
• xurenwu 4mo ago
  How far is llm's ceiling?
• willyv3 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• winrid 4mo ago
  Seems like a clear regression over 4.7 so far. Every time I tell Claude to review a git changeset for performance or security issues, it just starts doing random stuff: test -f /tmp/aaa.txt && echo "AAA-EXISTS"; test -f /tmp/bbb.txt && echo "BBB-EXISTS"; head -c 5 /tmp/aaa.txt > /dev/null && echo "READ-OK") ⎿ AAA-EXISTS BBB-EXISTS READ-OK
• mdav75 4mo ago
  [flagged]
• acamerer 4mo ago
  I am surprised that another version of Opus is being released before another version of Sonnet. Hopefully the Haiku and Sonnet versions will be updated in the near future.
• femtobusa 4mo ago
  Opus 4.8 has been kinda the same as Opus 4.7 for me... Still a good model though
• zou1s 4mo ago
  It seems like the Opus 4.8 could directly replace the Opus 4.7? (I felt the 4.6 was pretty good, but I haven't quite figured out how to use the 4.7 yet—I only know that the 4.7 takes a little longer to process and executes my commands more strictly.) After all, they're priced the same.
• _giorgio_ 4mo ago
  Seems a lot slower with MAX level.