Top
Best
New

Posted by craigmart 4 hours ago

Claude Opus 4.8(www.anthropic.com)
892 points | 689 commentspage 2
protoman3000 1 hour 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/ecd14393-9d42-4527-ae0c-89f3d05216c8

XCSme 3 hours 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-mediu...

XCSme 3 hours 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

SupLockDef 3 hours ago|||
Releasing a new model is the new way to Jack up the price hehe.
eshack94 32 minutes ago||
That's exactly right.
dwaltrip 3 hours 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 3 hours 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

dwaltrip 1 hour ago||
ah ok, thanks for clarifying!
spprashant 3 hours ago||||
If it spends 2x tokens to achieve the same result, that's effective 2x cost in a manner of speaking
pbmango 4 hours 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.

krupan 43 minutes ago||
This in incredibly refreshing take, thank you. It's about time someone admitted that we aren't on the verge of Singularity with these LLMs. We've probably hit a local AI maxima here and it could be another 10 to 20 years before we am get another big break through.
toyetic 1 hour ago|||
This was my exact thought as well. I think mythos could still be a huge leap but especially as IPO's get closer it seems like we're getting closer to the IPhone 10 moment where anything after is just improvements at the edge.

But ( maybe because it was hardware ) that took 10ish years while it seems like the slowdown here only took about 4

MangoCoffee 4 hours 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 3 hours 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 3 hours 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 3 hours 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.
fragmede 59 minutes ago|||
At lot of people don't know this, also the human brain is a squishy lump of meat. that's been given a childhood and the prompt "act like an adult", and asked to behave. The coherant chatting behaviour is something thats emergent .

later on someone figured if you shove Adderall in it and it to think before it speaks, it gave a response its output would have more logical coherence, as though the Adderall concentration drugd functioned as a scratch space for it to work on.

in the end its a squishy lump of meat.

sigmarule 1 hour ago||||
An AI agent and a chatbot are both applications built using LLM inference as a primitive.
hellohello2 3 hours ago||||
They are chatbots trained for tool use, its not just a prompt.
furyofantares 2 hours ago|||
Yeah and a car is just an engine connected to wheels.
MattDamonSpace 3 hours ago|||
Not even 4 years old yet. This tech curve has been insane
dakolli 2 hours ago|||
Yet no productivity gained except for people who love to produce mediocre work at a rapid pace. Which is many of you I guess. I don't see any rapid progress being made in any science of importance. You people are all falling for a marketing trap.

Have fun betting your competency on the quality and quantity of tokens you have access too. Hate to break it to you, but the billionaires aren't going to keep renting you $2mm in GPUs for 5 hours a day for $200.00 a month forever.

SoftTalker 3 hours ago|||
Not even the typical lifecycle of a corporate PC or laptop. It is pretty wild.
wg0 4 hours 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.

raincole 3 hours 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.

KronisLV 58 minutes ago|||
> And I was dead wrong. Now I mostly use DeepSeek Pro myself.

I've wasted over a hundred Euros re-doing work that was done badly due to the model not being up to task (Vue with TS + wrapper components around PrimeVue, needing to handle event and property passthrough and deal with the stupid Vue SFC issues, TS made this much worse than JS would be). I think it was the GLM model through Cerebras Code at the time, in addition to some GPT and Gemini models with the API pricing.

That said, DeepSeek V4 Pro is pretty good and I can totally see myself offloading some of the work, as long as a better model reviews the work and provides suggestions/tests for it.

bachmeier 2 hours ago||||
Your comment is a slice of the reasoning underlying the "AI will take all the jobs" claim. I would constantly see references to what AI could do and how fast it was improving. Never a word about cost. We should anticipate that there will always be demand for human labor, for cheap models, for local models, and probably even frontier models.
jwitthuhn 2 hours ago||||
Yeah I've also found that models are good enough that the extra spend on premium models isn't always worth it, particularly for my small personal toy projects.

A $20 claude sub goes a long way when you plan with Opus and execute with Sonnet.

simplyluke 3 hours ago||||
The other thing that's changing is more and more CFOs are looking at the AI spend in engineering departments and hitting the brakes. Token leaderboards were cool when the spend wasn't a double-digit-percent of the entire department's budget including salaries.
weitendorf 3 hours ago||||
I pretty strongly feel the opposite way. Granted I have not used deepseek enough to “know” their model idiosyncrasies as well as Anthropic, so there is a partial skill issue. But I just find it really hard to justify using a less powerful model while I work.

The most I’ve ever spent in a month extra on API tokens for my own work is $200, and I pay for the $200/mo Claude. I use these models quite a lot, though not idly (I usually just walk around and do other stuff until I know how im going to approach the next set of problems). So it costs me about $3000/year to get as much as I want of the best model available. Already that seems low enough to not be worth stressing out too much about optimizing it, because it feels like an indisputable good value, and trying to save money with a less powerful model would be optimizing for a $1000-$2000 saving at the expense of a large portion of my work taking longer or being more frustrating and iterative.

That’s not a flex or anything, I get that in other countries $3000/yr is a lot of money for a software developer and also a lot of people would perhaps rationally be better off doing X% worse at work or spending Y% more time on tasks to save $Z, if their productivity improvements didn’t translate to more salary. Otherwise if your performance has more upside I really do think that the smartest models are better with the current pricing scheme. Deepseek and the other Chinese models spend a LOT of time thinking, and tend to be much more jagged (benchmaxxed) in performance. How can dealing with that over an entire year be worth $2k?

The only situation I can think of where sacrificing my own time/performance to save on inference is batch compute (of course, $1k vs $100k is different from $30 vs $3k) or work where the tier 2 models have crossed the “good enough” threshold. But I think Opus is not even close to that threshold generally yet. As it gets smarter I, and I think most others probably, just try to do harder things faster and hit the next wall.

59nadir 12 minutes ago|||
Not even SotA models are good enough to generate code (beyond functions or small, very simple modules) that I'd be happy shipping, so I've decided to just not have them do that. And given this, it has basically turned out that what's left is information gathering + analysis + design overview stuff.

I've just recently started trying out DeepSeek 4 Flash and I was very skeptical at first because I've had some really good experiences with GPT-5.{4,5}, and couldn't possibly believe that this model they charge nothing for could give me similar results, but it absolutely shreds through things and ends up giving me very good answers in almost no time. I also like that it doesn't really seem to have much personality, it's given me mostly just facts and data so far without any additions to the prompt by me.

In my own agent I also specifically prompt to remove flowery language, snark, etc., but I haven't tried it with models like GPT-5.x which I've found has too much personality and tries to make it seem like I'm talking to a human too much.

jhonof 3 hours ago||||
I think that's true for now, but eventually there will reach a point where a model is good enough (approaching that right now with frontier models) and there will be diminishing returns. I don't need a PHD level Genius to build me an analytics dashboard for example, so why would I pay for a model with that level of intelligence when I can (eventually) self host a good enough model and run queries for electricity cost + hardware.
solenoid0937 3 hours ago||||
I feel similarly. I'll gladly pay to use the most intelligent model I can find on the best harness I have. Sometimes this is GPT Pro, sometimes this is Opus.

I ask AI a lot of questions, not only about code but about my personal life, and I would be willing to pay very large sums to have the best quality output.

surgical_fire 2 hours ago||||
I thought the same way until I tried DeepSeek. I am genuinely impressed at how capable it is.
SoftTalker 3 hours ago|||
You pay $3k/year for personal use? Or out of your own pocket but for your job?
weitendorf 2 hours ago|||
It's through my startup, so both I guess. Generally I find my bottleneck to be attention and focus, and the opportunity cost of not going back to work at my prior employers absolutely dwarfs the amount of money I spend on tools, so it's not hard for me to justify spending $200/mo on something I use every day that makes me more productive and generally removes bullshit from my life.

At my prior job there was still what felt like a strong enough correlation between my actual performance and my pay that I don't think I would have had a hard time justifying the expense there either; now I absolutely don't. With the current state of the models, it's baffling to me to hear about professional software developers planning their work around their $20/mo subscription's quotas.

Obviously it's more complicated than more tokens = more productive, but I see them less like SaaS and more like gasoline, where if I run out or need more to do what I'm doing, as long as I'm not being wasteful, I just buy more. Why would I waste a day walking 30 miles by foot when I can just pay $5 for gasoline and drive?

yyhhsj0521 1 hour ago|||
I do that for personal use too (although $2.4k/yr for me because I only have an Claude Max subscription). Outside of my hobby projects Opus also manages my personal accounting, researches and organizes info (travel plan, what to buy and where to buy, etc), helps me reply to emails when I'm working in the kitchen, etc. I consider it well worth the price. Tbh I'm willing to pay more than what I currently do, but competition is good for the consumers.
peheje 3 hours ago||||
I mean indsight is 20/20, but saying that is like saying "everyone will just use the best tools". That's not what we see most places in the world for most types of resources.
dcchambers 3 hours ago|||
I think two things happened:

1. The sheer number of tokens that a coding agent can use flipped the math upside down on this equation. If you use the most expensive model for everything those costs quickly become untenable, even for software companies.

2. We realized many of the coding problems we're solving aren't incredibly difficult.

mariopt 2 hours ago|||
I’ve been using Kimi 2.6, GLM 5.1 , Minimax 2.7 and lately deepseek. I only spend 40$ a month and I don’t see the point in paying for Opus/Codex.

Chinese models are really quite good at a lot of stuff.

SoftTalker 3 hours ago|||
> CFO/CTOs might find out that deploying on an internal cluster of GPUs is far more cheaper and reliable

I think you're right especially if you're someplace that already has a data center, such as a university. Solves a lot of privacy concerns as well.

ok123456 4 hours 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."

pants2 3 hours ago|||
The Chinese models are only cheap on subsidized Chinese hosting. I have yet to find a USA-hosted Chinese model with a very clear value advantage over US models.
weitendorf 2 hours ago|||
There are basically two tiers of "Chinese models" in this context, the "edge" sized ones with ~30B parameters or less, and the big ~1T models that can basically only run in the datacenter.

I don't think it's as simple as saying China's hosting is subsidized, they have generally cheaper electricity and labor costs than in the US and don't have access to the top tier models, and a large internal market where the big models are the best thing they can run with what they have. So obviously they max out on their top models (which are trained with their hardware market in mind, not ours) and get the economy of scale from that, and can run generally the same hardware for less money than in the US because

The edge models are very cheap to run and can do so on inexpensive hardware. They are like 95% cheaper to run than Haiku, so the math is in their favor for certain batch workloads. Most people just run the models for themselves when they do that without making it available on openrouter or whatever, because you can just provision a gpu node and use it as needed, and it's not that expensive to run this family of models.

Is your problem that you want to call Chinese models hosted in the US because you're worried about the data handling?

pants2 1 hour ago||
I obviously don't know the full economics of the Chinese-hosted models, but estimates[1] put the cost of hardware (servers + networking) at 70-80% of the total cost. Those things aren't meaningfully cheaper in China, so serving DeepSeek at 1/3 the cost of the cheapest US provider doesn't really compute unless it's heavily subsidized or we believe that Chinese engineers are just that much better at optimization.

Edge models, yes, they can be convenient to run batch jobs locally. I still would argue there's no economic benefit over paying for models. Haiku has a bad price/perf but others in that class are significantly cheaper in hosted APIs.

Doesn't matter what I think, the reality is that the majority of enterprises (where the real $ comes from) will not consider sending their data to China.

1. https://epoch.ai/data-insights/ai-datacenter-cost-breakdown

wg0 3 hours ago||||
No true. Also - put Deepseekv4 Flash on your local with effort set to "high" and you'll see that many many are using that model on their own machines without paying anyone anything.

Its just that some of us didn't imagine having GPUs would be advantageous and were not gamers on the side. Those who had beefy GPUs or GPU rigs for any reason, they rarely need to go anywhere else.

At least I am so impressed with Deepseekv4 AFTER using Claude Opus 4.7 for significant amount of time that I am not going anywhere but Deepseekv4.

The model is just INSANE. Things I have done with it include attempting to write a 2.5D game engine in C with full animation and map rendering layer by layer.

pants2 2 hours ago||
You'll need to spend at least $20K on a workstation that can run DS4 Flash. It would take ages to reach that much in token spend at the speeds it runs at, and if you factor electricity costs you will likely never break even vs using API.
ekidd 3 hours ago||||
The Chinese models are surprisingly cheap and performant sitting under my desk. Qwen3.6 27B is nowhere near as autonomous as Opus 4.7, but it runs in 24GB of VRAM. And it's actually great for the use cases where I'm going to carefully read and understand all the code anyway.

If you want to support a team of engineers, DeepSeek V4 Flash is antirez's current favorite. And you could support a team of engineers pretty nicely for $40-50k. Which might not make sense if you're on a Claude MAX 5x plan or the old enterprise group plan with fixed price seats. But Anthropic is switching their enterprise contracts over to token-based pricing, at which point $50k is looking pretty good.

__mharrison__ 3 hours ago||||
Odd take. I'm running them locally at my desk (DGX Spark and 128GB MBP). They work fine for 90% of what most folks do. Admittedly, they do run slower on my hw than on the cloud.
pants2 3 hours ago||
Running them locally is cool and has privacy/autonomy benefits, but you can't really make a value case for it. Guaranteed if you run the math you will never run enough inference to pay off your hardware vs buying tokens. Last time I ran the math on my MBP I'd have to run inference 24 hours a day for 5+ years to pay off the cost of my MBP, not accounting for electricity costs.
iooi 3 hours ago|||
Is this because of the tok/s? Since it's pretty easy to run up a $5k bill in API usage for Claude/ChatGPT in a month.
pants2 3 hours ago||
Yes, because of the limits on tok/s, and you have to compare apples to apples, not Gemma 27B to Opus 4.7.
hedora 2 hours ago||
Assuming the local models get the job done (e.g., you adjust your workflow so that you can run the local machine 100% all the time, or whatever), then the time to payback isn't very high. MSRP for a 128GB AMD was $1400 at launch. That's 7 months of claude code subscription. If you assume a 5 year depreciation cycle, you can buy a cluster of 8 such machines and still come out ahead. (Power is a few hundred watts per machine peak -- maybe 7 machines if you include electricity.) Of course, I'm assuming non-bubble numbers. Those boxes are like $3K now. Still, a normal person would probably not buy 8 of them at once. Instead, they'd space out buying a machine every few years as the technology improves.

For me, things are getting better faster than my ability to review / trust the resulting code, so tok/sec isn't a bottleneck anymore. Instead, quality of the tokens is the bottleneck. That points to me wanting a 1TB DRAM iGPU once they're available at pre-bubble RAM pricing.

pants2 2 hours ago||
You're comparing the highest tier Claude subscription to something Qwen3.5-122B-A10B running locally, apples to oranges.

If you compare to a smarter US model like Grok 4.3, $1400 will pay for 560M output tokens, which at ~25 t/s locally using it nonstop for 8 hours a day would take two years to pay back. Not accounting for bubble prices or electricity.

__mharrison__ 1 hour ago||
Is the goal maximum t/s?

According to openrouter, Opus 4.8 is 128 t/s. So 10x faster than my antirez/ds4.

slopinthebag 1 hour ago||||
The value of not having a reliance on a third party company, and not needing an internet connection, and having total privacy: ∞
fragmede 52 minutes ago|||
Just have to put some numbers on privacy and autonomy. What's the fine to my company if I get hacked and leak all my customer's PII? What's the cost in productivity lost if OpenAI/Anthropic/Google decides to suspend my account for an unknown reason?
harsh3195 3 hours ago||||
You can find them on Deepinfra. Palo Alto company. Similar cheap price.
pants2 2 hours ago||
Not similar. DeepInfra[1] has DS4 Pro pricing at $1.30/$2.60 which is 3X the Deepseek[2] (Chinese) hosting at $0.435/$0.87. DeepInfra is also very slow at 37 t/s and uses an FP4 quant[3], so intelligence will be degraded slightly.

Meanwhile you could use Grok 4.3 for the same price which is smarter and 5X faster[4].

1. https://deepinfra.com/pricing

2. https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing

3. https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/deepseek-v4-pro/provide...

4. https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/grok-4-3

wirybeige 42 minutes ago||
DS4 Pro/Flash were post trained with QAT, so they are already quantized to FP4 for the most part. That's why when downloading the weights, they are much smaller than what their weights at fp8 or fp16 would be. For example, Flash is a 284B model, but its GB size is only ~160GB. OFC maybe DeeppInfra went even further, but there is no proof of that.
slopinthebag 1 hour ago|||
Huh? They're several times cheaper than SOTA models at market rate prices.
pants2 1 hour ago||
If you are only looking at US hosting providers, models from US labs easily meet or beat models from Chinese labs on the same intelligence level. I'm not comparing DeepSeek with Opus because those are on different levels of performance.
slopinthebag 50 minutes ago||
Deepseek v4 Pro on US hosting is like 1.5x cheaper and 5x cheaper on input/output compared to Sonnet, and that's not even a fair comparison because Deepseek is much stronger than Sonnet. It's more reasonable to compare with Opus 4.5, which is much more expensive.
surgical_fire 2 hours ago|||
I am having some great experience with DeepSeek. In fact, it seems to perform better than Claude or Codex in my use case.

I don't see myself returning to Claude or Codex anytime soon.

ihsw 2 hours ago||
[dead]
SimianSci 4 hours 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.

datakan 2 hours ago||
Watch Christopher Olah bloviate at the Vatican during the Magnifica Humanatis launch. It's truly nauseating. I've never seen such a ridiculous speech in my life. Between him and the CEO, I'm starting to understand the level of arrogance these people are capable of.
nba456_ 3 hours 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.
zamadatix 2 hours ago|||
I think there is an exception for tooling around the models/integrating the models with tooling. That seems to have been very well received in this last year.
timbaboon 2 hours 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 2 hours 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

dakolli 2 hours ago||
Why are you people so stoked to replace labor? You're up next.
perching_aix 2 hours ago||
So much so that if you re-read my comment, you may notice that I was automating away exactly my own work there. Work that sucked and was grossly high overhead. It's just nice when things stop sucking, and even nicer when it doesn't require one to act a hero for that to happen. Not sure what else do you expect to hear.

Would you rather e.g. your doctor prioritized their wealth over your health? Popular conspiracy, but I'm not sure many health professionals follow in it. Not sure why you think this field would be much different. If this job is gone, it's gone. I can enjoy recreational programming on my own time, I don't feel entitled that my interest remains a money maker.

What worries me - and it does - is a further and accelerating shift in wealth (and thus capability) asymmetry. But for that, I look out for the performance and requirements of self hostable models instead, rather than reenact some sort of luddite, or lie to myself and others about the state of this technology.

If you want safety for country sovereignty, get a nuke. If you want safety for knowledge work, get a local model.

tripleee 3 minutes ago||
Having your career automated away and being okay with that is a massive luxury most don't have. The rest of us need an income to get by. If you look at the history of other people losing their careers to automation, the average person never gets even close to their previous peak.
o10449366 2 hours ago||
[dead]
alansaber 3 hours 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 3 hours 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 2 hours 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 1 hour 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 1 hour ago||
I mean introductory circuit stuff. Not electrician-lite work.
krupan 40 minutes ago|||
I honestly cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not
TIPSIO 33 minutes ago||
It did try and lead me to touch a live hot wire once. Thanking the safety team for the honest and sincere apology it gave after was sarcasm.
krupan 27 minutes ago||
It tried to get you touch a live wire, then you called it honest and thanked the safety team. It really comes off as sarcastic.
doginasuit 30 minutes ago|||
Credit where it is due, Claude is fantastic at pointing out potential flaws in how I understand the problem based on my question. I asked for this in the system instructions but it is the first model I've tried that does it regularly. It is also so tactful, I feel like I'm learning social skills from a language model. Half of the time it is a false positive due to insufficient context but I still appreciate the additional check.
mrdependable 3 hours ago||
Gave me wrong information on my very first question. Wasn’t even complicated, and I wasn’t trying to trick it.
user- 1 hour 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 1 hour ago|
Update the symlink to point at the previous version:

    ln -s $HOME/.local/share/claude/versions/2.1.153 $HOME/.local/bin/claude
irthomasthomas 3 hours 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-4-6

pietz 3 hours ago|
1. Benchmarks saturate 2. They select the most impressive improvments
square_usual 4 hours ago||
Buried lede:

> We have increased rate limits in Claude Code to accommodate the higher token usage of higher effort levels

lordmauve 3 hours 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 3 hours 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.
lordmauve 1 hour 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 1 hour ago||||
Yeah, I share the same sentiment. I have yet to find a task where gpt-5.4-mini isn't bordering unusable.
sourcecodeplz 2 hours 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.
More comments...