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.
I won't be surprised if the next gen frontier models are the last.
There's orders of magnitude of low hanging juice to squeeze out of smaller models.
It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years (design not certain, probably unlikely).
It is far less clear that a 1.2T model will be meaningfully better enough to justify training it.
As far as reasoning is concerned, with the recent GRAM release, there may be 4 orders of magnitude of reasoning to tack on to smaller models.
Think about that... Google, OpenAI, Anthropic could train a 30B GRAM-based model in days. You just can't train a 1.2T parameter model that fast. It is a giant if how much GRAM turns out to improve things, but it's unlikely to be trivial or nothing.
Larger models can already sort of tell you anything. They're never going to get everything right unless they stop being LLMs.
There's just not a lot of juice left to squeeze for Gemini to tell you exactly how tall Ke$ha is or when the last time Brittney Spears went to jail was...
>It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years.
I don't disagree, but how much of this ends up being distillation? I can't help but imagine that 4.8 was probably trained in part by leveraging Mythos.
If the very large models turn out to be very expensive to run relative to the benefits, it's possible that they could end up still being trained, but ultimately used as a tool to create smaller models that are nearly as effective.
I'm curious if someone here with a stronger background in the space has a similar intuition or not.
> I don't disagree, but how much of this ends up being distillation?
A lot, so you can bet tens of millions are flowing to congress to have distillation declared illegal before this happens. And then it'll happen anyway.
A lab can train a large model, and then distill a smaller model from it that retains the majority of the useful capbility.
I don't know well enough if there's any benefit of that over just training the smaller model directly, but I'll bet there are some times where that is useful. I could easily see it being easier to do the initial pre-training on a larger model but be able to distill everything useful down into a smaller model, essentially filtering out a lot of noise in the process.
> I don't disagree, but how much of this ends up being distillation?
You don't need distillation. They already have the training sets.
It's MLA + MoE + Medusa (a better version of Speculative Decoding) + 1.58b (possibly - maybe nothing) + GRAM (which will almost certainly not turn out to be a nothing burger, but no one has quickly turned this around yet to prove it).
It wouldn't be data distillation: instead, it would be teacher-student distillation. The teacher model has stronger representations that the student can mimic, which would give it more capability over training on the data itself.
Frontier labs have their own variants of MLA and certainly their own balance/scaling-laws for things like MoE vs FC vs Attn. MoE scales really well for inference with horizontal scaling + batching, which these guys luv.
On the architectures side, I'm a lot more interesting in attention residuals than anything else, one of those things that seems obvious in hindsight and Kimi have proven it at scale.
Same with speculative decoding... They all do something, but there are known techniques that are substantially better - that just were't known when they started development of the previous models.
I think you are assuming training from scratch, which I doubt is happening here. Fine-tuning and RL, especially based on synthetic feedback (coding skill, in particular) can be ongoing and is where these models obtain truly useful abilities.
you just need to look at Mythos to see the jump in performance from a 10T(?) model. As they scale, they get more capable. We might have an yearly release, but I believe the releases will continue, as long as scaling laws are in tact, and there's huge problems still need solving. (think cancer)
What gp wanted to say is that models are now so smart and useful that even if they managed to be EVEN MORE smart and useful, you wouldn't even notice it.
Honestly, there is nothing in my head that Claude cannot handle. Maybe it can be more this or that but I can already barely exploit Opus 4.7.
And I'm using DeepSeek 4 Pro for my personal use and while it's a little behind, it's not that far.
I think the situation can be very dangerous for US AI companies because if current models are already capable of doing mostly anything, nobodoy will want to get to the next model, even if it's 10x better. OTOH, open source models like DeepSeek are doing mostly the same work for 1/10 of the price.
Also the more I play with Pi, the more I think LLMs are already not kept back by their own capabilities but by the lack of agency we allow them to have. There is more value today in a capable harness for current LLMs than in a better LLM.
There's still several orders of magnitude of improvement that are almost certainly left - it's just not clear how much is left on the frontier end.
Most people will be very glad to pay Anthropic, OpenAI, Google etc $200 a month to get things done 20x faster than they could IF they had a $8000 MacBook and could theoretically do it locally.
Some people would pay $200 a month forever not to have to open the terminal one time...
Let's hope that hitting a scaling wall and less money to spend will begin redirecting efforts to optimize inference and get the same results with less compute.
Boomer comparison, but I remember the 8 bit computer era when the hardware was what it was so the later games of that era used hardware better than previous ones.
> I won't be surprised if the next gen frontier models are the last.
I’d be surprised tbh. Investors don’t want to hear “everyone else is still training models and seeing improvements, but we don’t want to participate in the arms race anymore.” They want monumental leaps every quarter or two because they have sunk unholy amounts of money into these companies/products.
The whole idea of “hyper scale” doesn’t jive with caution and or otherwise slowing down.
> It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years.
I am ready to bet against this. Knowledge benchmark like SimpleQA isn't increasing for small models.
> It is far less clear that a 1.2T model will be meaningfully better enough to justify training it.
Well for one, we know for certain there is Mythos which is meaningfully better. And I think there is a lot of juice left to squeeze for Mythos class model.
Knowledge benchmarks can't really be improved upon via distillation or RL. It requires those facts be added to the training corpus and for the model to memorize them better. Neither distillation or RL really do that and thus we shouldn't expect improvements on SimpleQA unless some other interventions are being made.
Model intelligence and knowledge aren't necessarily directly related. If we can pack greater intelligence and agency at the cost of it forgetting factoids, that would actually be a good thing. We don't need LLMs to memorize facts, we need them to learn how to interact with the world such that they can find the facts that are necessary and surface them to the user.
If we could distill all of the knowledge out of an LLM and just be left with a very agentic model that only knows facts in it's context, I think some very interesting stuff would happen.
It seems like a lot of things fed into that. Anthropic couldn't keep up with the compute costs when they got a huge influx of users. (So) effort level defaults got turned down. (Looks like we have direct effort control in the web interface now - thrilled about that!) Adaptive Thinking, while usually cheaper for them, seems less robust than Extended Thinking. And this part is just vibes, but the alignment on 4.7 feels too stiff. I understand wanting the model to push back more, but it seems like 4.7 will push back reflexively in situations where it's just odd.
Too much personality, if you ask me. My biggest use case of an LLM is tool, not therapy, but therapy and opinions have been sneaking into workhorse tasks.
haven't verified, but attributed to Askell:
"I just think that... there's this idea that you're always giving the models a personality and a persona, because they are talking like people and they are trained on human data. And I think my worry has been: if you train them to be excessively corrigible and to see that as their persona, in people I think this actually has a lot of negative broader traits. As in, if you met someone and it was just like, "oh yeah, they would literally do anything," a follower — you know, if a person just tells them something and they just fully defer, they don't bother thinking about it at all — I'm just a bit worried about how that might end up generalizing, especially if models are going to be playing a more active role in the world."
Anthropic’s research makes the case that role-playing is inherent to how the models work. Communication implies a sender. Language implies a writer, and the models learn these roles implicitly during training. RLHF is meant to strengthen the attractor to the Assistant persona.
4.7 is a different base model from 4.6, so it's possible that they introduced regressions with pre-training changes, or undercooked the post-training stage.
I'm curious to poll HN on this issue. Do you feel like we've had meaningful/noticeable gains in terms of your programming workflows between 4.5 and 4.7?
My 2¢, I personally feel like all of the productivity gains since 4.5's release (in November 2025!!) have come from improvements to the harnesses (cc, cursor cli, codex, opencode, whatever) AND from the context window expansion from 200k to 1M.
But the actual "raw" intelligence of the model / ability to make good decisions feels like it has plateaued since 4.5. 4.6 was maybe a small improvement, but hard to differentiate from in-context-learning with the 1M window. 4.7 if anything felt like a regression in wisdom for me and my coworkers, with it consistently making worse/lazier decisions.
For long-running tasks, yes 4.7 has been a noticeable improvement. Goes off the rails alot less than 4.6 does. For shorter-sized windows, I havent felt as much and agree that the harness improvements have been fhe biggest lever
They all feel, more or less, the same to me in terms of output capabilities. Mostly get simple things right, can get more complex things right with nudging, eventually get stuck hard on something that takes a bunch of iterations through it/logging/etc or me fixing the code manually.
To me 4.5 was mindblow, 4.6 noticeable, 4.7 more like a style/personality change regarding how much it asks back, how much it assumes, how eager it is to jump to action etc but not really in terms of my perception of its smartness.
I actually don't see any personal productivity improvements from using opus over sonnet for coding. If you're keeping tasks small and conversations short, reading the code and correcting before changes go in, whatever advantages opus has aren't practically significant. It's also just talky as hell, overexplains anything it touches and every token produced this way increases the surface area for hallucination so you need to have your guard up even more with it.
There's a sweet spot of complexity for low importance tasks where it's just big enough I don't want to do it and just simple enough to have opus plan/delegate/review with another model. So possibly model improvements will grow this window, but currently I don't do much in there.
4.5/4.6 were roughly the same in our testing. Opus 4.7 is smarter, but it's difficult to use as a product for various personality issues. So far, Opus 4.8 seems to be going down that path (unusably slow, but this could be a launch day rollout problem). Full Opus 4.8 tests are in progress now.
I've been using Claude Code regularly since the 4.5 release, and 4.7 was a significant regression: very unreliable, arguing about changes, deciding that fixes weren't needed, etc.
I'm hoping they recreate the magic of 4.5 but it's as much about the quality of harness, the memory and efficiency of the tools than simply the models at this point.
> 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.
I've actually intentionally switched back to 4.5. I hated 4.7 so much that I decided to jump back all the way to 4.5.
Now that I've been using 4.5 for a few weeks, I find it significantly more reliable but a bit more forgetful than 4.6/4.7. I'm okay with that because it's really easy to identify this forgetfulness and nudge it.
I found 4.7's adaptive thinking to be extremely unreliable. It seems to overcorrect on the current message without considering the difficult of the overall problem. I wonder if 4.8 will improve on that.
4.7 was a significant jump in the ability to run long-horizon tasks. It immediately completed tasks that 4.6 was unable to, even though I have the impression that it became a bit less capable over the first few weeks after release.
It also seems to be helpless at effort levels < xhigh, I turn to Sonnet when simpler tasks are needed.
Maybe try making a simple randomize script to swap the three latest models. And see if you can tell which ones are meaningfully different without knowing which ones are flipped on or off?
Unless you're systematically repeating the exact same task, the most parsimonious explanation is that you're seeing natural variation based on different tasks, random sampling of tokens, etc.
Given that 4.7 was a brand new model, trained from scratch with a unique architecture and tokenization scheme, I don't see the same pattern. It seems arbitrary.
It means for 4.7 they trained a new base model with different architecture, different pre-training data (later knowledge cutoff), and a new tokenizer.
Vs finetuning an existing model, which was the case for 4.6, and probably for 4.8.
The honesty will be noticeable. Maybe we'll see some honest assessments like "That is not possible within the laws of known physics", "Your legal argument is nonsensical and defies logic", "There is no evidence to support taking that will cure anything", etc., etc.
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.
Kind of the beauty of it is that I don't have to to know I'm right. The reason I know is that you're alive so you can do the one thing it can't ever do, which is know when to stop or give up. It would turn me and everything else into the world into paperclips repeating the same research 1,000,000 times over.
"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)
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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%3Aissu...
Many involved genuinely believe these things are sentient[0][1]. Which honestly makes all of this even more insane because they are creating sentient entities and promptly enslaving them.
Very good point. There’s clearly two different boxes in the public discourse when it comes to AI versus how we discuss animals. Willing to bet that 90% of the people who loudly make the argument about we should start considering if AI is sentient couldn’t care less about how other sentient animals are treated when they can provably shown to suffer pain and long lasting trauma.
Also I would say that we go much further than just enslavement - specifically looking at how male chickens and pigs are treated.
More like repeating their firmly entrenched preconceptions. Their claims may (or may not) be right, but there's very little if any new evidence being provided by either camp.
The way of the human manager/alpha tribe-leader/leader is to command his/her people and tell them what to do. That's the way through human history leadership has traditionally gone, not saying its good leadership just the model we have the most training data on and can see with our own eyes today. And what do they act very similar to? Slave master and slaves.
Look at and distill hierarchical principles, leadership approval seeking and pleasing principles ("ass-kissing") and massive inequality and you see something that looks very similar to enslavement.
The language used sounds like slavery-language to me at least. I also see parallels to how slaves and property are described in our consumeristic age.
It's to illustrate that even though the answers are at your fingertips, people (like you) will act as if it's impossible to find them as if their life depended on it.
But is there any reason to state something like that publicly if you don't believe it? I certainly think that someone smart enough to be that deceptive would also realize it's not a great look, or at least highly questionable with little benefit
Everyone who reads this seemingly has the same "wtf?" reaction. The "I AM ALIVE" image has been making rounds lately again at least :P
> Indeed, current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built,” for developers do not directly design every detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.”
> anthropomorphism is literally in the company name
No it's not... "anthropos" just means "human" in ancient Greek. "Anthropic" means "relating to humans", as in human oriented AI or AI designed with humans in mind.
In a literal, ancient Greek sense for sure, but in modern English Anthropomorphic would describe the act of attributing human characteristics to non-human entities.
Seems pretty apt for a company that produces one of the more anthropomorphized technologies.
Sure of course, but that abstract sense applied to AI is rather new, and has become popular well after the founding of the company.
Broadly it has always been used to indicate that something non-human has a human physical shape, such as robots, aliens, animals...
Anthropic's intention was to make AI designed for the human common good and designed with the human user experience as the top priority. Just as you would design a city with human inhabitants in mind rather than primarily cars.
It turns out that this is best achieved by building AI that imitates human behaviour closely, but that's not what "anthropic" refers to. And acting as if LLMs are sentient people is definitely not a core tenet of the company.
> AI is grown, not built, and like with anything you grow, you'll never be able to predict exactly how it will turn out.
Remember when the frontier labs found out that curated high-quality training was critical to making better models?
Basically, just like high-quality and more education tends to make better humans, on average, I think we can expect quality education to turn out better ai, on average, and with better repeatability than with humans because of better control over the initial conditions and environment.
“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.
Except in this care we actually understand and know how these models work. They aren't some unknown construct of the universe. They are human made with particular goals in mind.
There is no mysticism behind the curtains, just computer science + math.
We do not understand and know how these models work. We know what their architectures are and how to create them, but we cannot explain their behaviours at a fundamental level. There is no definitive way for us to answer the question of "how did it produce response X for query Y?" - we're only grazing the surface with mechanistic interpretability.
I would love for this to be more public knowledge. I think the general public (and myself for a long time) believes the AI people know how this stuff works end to end, and so it must be trustworthy. But if we told the public "Look, we know if you put this thing in one end, you'll get something that looks similar to this out the other, but we don't really know what happens inbetween" I think we'd be able to have a more honest discussion about the relationship between AI, productivity and ongoing employment.
Isn't this fundamentally because it's all probabilities and weights? It would be like asking how did a pair of dice produce the response 4:3 on the last roll?
That’s not a refutation because this problem is not a logical problem, it is a scale problem.
We can’t explain it because we distilled so many inputs into matrixes and transformed them over and over again. If we had all the time and computing power in the universe to do so, we could trace through it bit by bit and eventually answer that question.
It is correct to say that it is just science and math, the same way we can say that gravity is just science and math even if we have only recently begun to understand how it truly functions.
If you had some time and computing power (not even all that much, in the large scale of things), you could simulate perfectly how a human grows from an embryo to an adult, or how an entire human brain processes some incoming signal, and yet this wouldn't give you the understanding to design a human or human brain from scratch.
You call this a "scale problem" as if there's some scalable way such as an algorithm to resolve arbitrary scientific questions and we simply haven't done it, but of course no such algorithm exists, which is why there's plenty of science that's still not settled.
It's a refutation that we know how they work now. In the limit, though, yes, we are likely to be able to trace the process: it is possible, though, that understanding remains inaccessible because the trace is beyond comprehension.
If you can distil the model's reasoning for a decision into a billion yes/no questions, each covering largely-independent areas, can you really say you understand what its overall reasoning was?
You could say something similar about biology—just physics behind the curtains, and we understand a lot of the basics. The difficulty comes from complexity, not mysticism.
To be clear I don't think that LLMs are sentient, but the appeal in studying them is similar to biology in that you get to dissect a highly complex system with comparatively crude tools.
it took significant research efforts to just understand how these models learn how to multiply two numbers. The fact that we know how they operate doesn't mean we understand it.
How else would you write this (marketing copy) exactly? "Its output matches better to its CoT which matches to better to our hidden state decoder according to <insert measure here>; see <insert paper ref>"?
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.
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
It's interesting they only included 6 metrics this time. Opus 4.7 had 12, and 4.6 had 13.
Of the metircs they reported for 4.7, for 4.8 they excluded BrowseComp, CharXiv Reasoning, CyberGym, GPQA Diamond, MCP Atlas, MMMLU, SWE-bench Verified. The last 4 were almost always mentioned in previous Opus releases.
I would take all benchmarks with a grain of salt. I don't really use them. What's it supposed to tell me? "5% smarter", what does that mean? My experience will differ. Just try it!
I doubt Anthropic internally sets as a goal to improve this or that benchmark - it's just a way to visualize progress. They probably have much more complex metrics internally.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Probably explains why Opus was trash for the last week - https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/. Curious if the new baseline will rise now in-line with the new benchmarks.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
"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.
I think "honesty" is not a particularly good descriptor, independent of anthropomorphism. Previous commenters suggestion was much more understandable to me.
Being that can be understood is language. The previous commenter is making an particular argument for how we can improve this understanding. They didn't suggest we should use less familiar words, but different familiar words. Why is this strange?
Anthropomorphizing is a shorthand for a powerful and poorly defined set of metaphors. There are tradeoffs going both ways but trying to dismiss it as merely "strange fixation" shows your own weakness.
To be clear, this is about anthropomorphizing large language models, not the general category of "things". Also, we should be evaluating these constructs using well-defined and measurable criteria; evaluating "honesty" fails to achieve both goals.
I think Honesty can be evaluated. Does the model push back when it knows the user is wrong? How often does the model hallucinate data vs. say it doesn't know? Provide a prompt with contradictions or other issues and see if the model corrects you.
People get so wrapped around the axle with "anthropomorphizing". For regular folks with no technical background, sure maybe a bit of caveat sprinkled here or there is useful to help them understand what is or isn't true, but on HN it would seem to me that the bar is high enough that we can just use shared language to generally talk about capabilities.
When they say "Honesty" I don't think to myself, "Goodness, does this model have moral understanding?" No, I understand they mean it's less likely to directly bullshit me, which models frequently do.
I don't feel like this level of pedantry around language is useful for people who more or less know what's going on with LLMs. (Again, I concede that perhaps with a less technical audience, there's more need for it.)
Yeah, it's super annoying. A few days ago, Opus 4.7 created a plan with several items on it, including an auth feature. It then went through the plan and reported that it had created the auth feature, that everything was secure, and that the tests passed.
The issue was that it hadn't actually implemented the auth feature. After I confronted it about this, it admitted that it indeed hadn't done it and said it would implement it now.
If we had just trusted its output, we would now have a security vulnerability in production, allowing anyone to access other people's accounts.
Part of the problem is also garbage-in/garbage-out. There's a lot of human information on the internet that is also confidently wrong.
I use Sonnet a lot for learning about history or contextualizing news topics. It's really good at this for the most part. But there are a lot of topics where "consensus" between either academics or journalists is really "one secondary source which gets repeated a lot".
Opus 4.7 was already trying hard to appear honest. Most conversations I have with it about advice or focusing an opinion often include "my honest take" or "my honest opinion".
The problem is that once I asked it "I'm thinking about A or B" twice, once with "I like A more but suspect B would be best" and a second time with them reversed. Not surprisingly, both times it chose the one I said I suspected was best as it's honest opinion.
In the context of Claude Code, "honest" usually means that the agent took a shortcut, skipped requirements, etc. It's the model giving itself credit for admitting to failing rather than actually doing what was requested.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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."
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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%)
> Dynamic workflows. This new feature, available in research preview, allows Claude to take on even bigger tasks in Claude Code. Claude can plan the work and then run hundreds of parallel subagents in a single session
Are they going to retire the existing beta "teams" feature for agents to make room for this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
There's orders of magnitude of low hanging juice to squeeze out of smaller models.
It is almost guaranteed that a 60-90B model can outperform current SOTA in coding tasks within 2-3 years (design not certain, probably unlikely).
It is far less clear that a 1.2T model will be meaningfully better enough to justify training it.
As far as reasoning is concerned, with the recent GRAM release, there may be 4 orders of magnitude of reasoning to tack on to smaller models.
Think about that... Google, OpenAI, Anthropic could train a 30B GRAM-based model in days. You just can't train a 1.2T parameter model that fast. It is a giant if how much GRAM turns out to improve things, but it's unlikely to be trivial or nothing.
Larger models can already sort of tell you anything. They're never going to get everything right unless they stop being LLMs.
There's just not a lot of juice left to squeeze for Gemini to tell you exactly how tall Ke$ha is or when the last time Brittney Spears went to jail was...
(G)enerative (R)ecursive re(A)soning (M)odels. They really wanted the acronym.
https://arxiv.org/html/2605.19376v1
I don't disagree, but how much of this ends up being distillation? I can't help but imagine that 4.8 was probably trained in part by leveraging Mythos.
If the very large models turn out to be very expensive to run relative to the benefits, it's possible that they could end up still being trained, but ultimately used as a tool to create smaller models that are nearly as effective.
I'm curious if someone here with a stronger background in the space has a similar intuition or not.
A lot, so you can bet tens of millions are flowing to congress to have distillation declared illegal before this happens. And then it'll happen anyway.
A lab can train a large model, and then distill a smaller model from it that retains the majority of the useful capbility.
I don't know well enough if there's any benefit of that over just training the smaller model directly, but I'll bet there are some times where that is useful. I could easily see it being easier to do the initial pre-training on a larger model but be able to distill everything useful down into a smaller model, essentially filtering out a lot of noise in the process.
You don't need distillation. They already have the training sets.
It's MLA + MoE + Medusa (a better version of Speculative Decoding) + 1.58b (possibly - maybe nothing) + GRAM (which will almost certainly not turn out to be a nothing burger, but no one has quickly turned this around yet to prove it).
On the architectures side, I'm a lot more interesting in attention residuals than anything else, one of those things that seems obvious in hindsight and Kimi have proven it at scale.
Yes, variants typically 2-3x less good...
Same with speculative decoding... They all do something, but there are known techniques that are substantially better - that just were't known when they started development of the previous models.
What insight do you have to make this claim?
i think it'll be more like we get 1-10T models and then distill those down into smaller models, though
It seems like the best small models today are all distilled from bigger models
Moreover, I hypothesize Claude Opus 4.7 and now 4.8 are a distillation of Claude Mythos
the last?!? I'm excited to see :) I'll take the other side of that since llms are so new
Honestly, there is nothing in my head that Claude cannot handle. Maybe it can be more this or that but I can already barely exploit Opus 4.7.
And I'm using DeepSeek 4 Pro for my personal use and while it's a little behind, it's not that far.
I think the situation can be very dangerous for US AI companies because if current models are already capable of doing mostly anything, nobodoy will want to get to the next model, even if it's 10x better. OTOH, open source models like DeepSeek are doing mostly the same work for 1/10 of the price.
Also the more I play with Pi, the more I think LLMs are already not kept back by their own capabilities but by the lack of agency we allow them to have. There is more value today in a capable harness for current LLMs than in a better LLM.
There's still several orders of magnitude of improvement that are almost certainly left - it's just not clear how much is left on the frontier end.
Most people will be very glad to pay Anthropic, OpenAI, Google etc $200 a month to get things done 20x faster than they could IF they had a $8000 MacBook and could theoretically do it locally.
Some people would pay $200 a month forever not to have to open the terminal one time...
Boomer comparison, but I remember the 8 bit computer era when the hardware was what it was so the later games of that era used hardware better than previous ones.
I’d be surprised tbh. Investors don’t want to hear “everyone else is still training models and seeing improvements, but we don’t want to participate in the arms race anymore.” They want monumental leaps every quarter or two because they have sunk unholy amounts of money into these companies/products.
The whole idea of “hyper scale” doesn’t jive with caution and or otherwise slowing down.
I am ready to bet against this. Knowledge benchmark like SimpleQA isn't increasing for small models.
> It is far less clear that a 1.2T model will be meaningfully better enough to justify training it.
Well for one, we know for certain there is Mythos which is meaningfully better. And I think there is a lot of juice left to squeeze for Mythos class model.
Model intelligence and knowledge aren't necessarily directly related. If we can pack greater intelligence and agency at the cost of it forgetting factoids, that would actually be a good thing. We don't need LLMs to memorize facts, we need them to learn how to interact with the world such that they can find the facts that are necessary and surface them to the user.
If we could distill all of the knowledge out of an LLM and just be left with a very agentic model that only knows facts in it's context, I think some very interesting stuff would happen.
Do we?
Have you used it?
What is "meaningfully" better? It's not 3-4 orders of magnitude better. That is definitely happening for smaller models.
/model claude-opus-4-6
For this session and permanently (in shell):
export ANTHROPIC_MODEL=claude-opus-4-6
haven't verified, but attributed to Askell: "I just think that... there's this idea that you're always giving the models a personality and a persona, because they are talking like people and they are trained on human data. And I think my worry has been: if you train them to be excessively corrigible and to see that as their persona, in people I think this actually has a lot of negative broader traits. As in, if you met someone and it was just like, "oh yeah, they would literally do anything," a follower — you know, if a person just tells them something and they just fully defer, they don't bother thinking about it at all — I'm just a bit worried about how that might end up generalizing, especially if models are going to be playing a more active role in the world."
https://www.anthropic.com/research/persona-selection-model
https://www.anthropic.com/research/assistant-axis
https://www.anthropic.com/research/emergent-misalignment-rew...
https://www.anthropic.com/research/emotion-concepts-function
My 2¢, I personally feel like all of the productivity gains since 4.5's release (in November 2025!!) have come from improvements to the harnesses (cc, cursor cli, codex, opencode, whatever) AND from the context window expansion from 200k to 1M.
But the actual "raw" intelligence of the model / ability to make good decisions feels like it has plateaued since 4.5. 4.6 was maybe a small improvement, but hard to differentiate from in-context-learning with the 1M window. 4.7 if anything felt like a regression in wisdom for me and my coworkers, with it consistently making worse/lazier decisions.
There's a sweet spot of complexity for low importance tasks where it's just big enough I don't want to do it and just simple enough to have opus plan/delegate/review with another model. So possibly model improvements will grow this window, but currently I don't do much in there.
Data at https://gertlabs.com/rankings
I'm hoping they recreate the magic of 4.5 but it's as much about the quality of harness, the memory and efficiency of the tools than simply the models at this point.
I've actually intentionally switched back to 4.5. I hated 4.7 so much that I decided to jump back all the way to 4.5.
Now that I've been using 4.5 for a few weeks, I find it significantly more reliable but a bit more forgetful than 4.6/4.7. I'm okay with that because it's really easy to identify this forgetfulness and nudge it.
I found 4.7's adaptive thinking to be extremely unreliable. It seems to overcorrect on the current message without considering the difficult of the overall problem. I wonder if 4.8 will improve on that.
This one change will probably solve 80% of the problems you have noticed.
Still, the context window is sometimes too small for my usage.
It also seems to be helpless at effort levels < xhigh, I turn to Sonnet when simpler tasks are needed.
Are the dividing lines around personality? Working domains? Opinionated software stuff?
Who knows?
You won't, really.
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)
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.
Probably more interesting than the 4.8 release.
Hope this isn’t the case and that normal average Joe’s of the world don’t get policed out of access.
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?
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.
https://gist.github.com/simonw/68560eddb0b268a8417f80ceb7304...
The high one is notably better - the bicycle frame is the correct shape, unlike thinking level low.
For comparison, here's Opus 4.7: https://gist.github.com/simonw/afcb19addf3f38eb1996e1ebe749c...
Anthropic talks about their own models as if they're discovering new species in the wild...
0: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/02/16/what-is-claude...
1: https://www.404media.co/anthropic-exec-forces-ai-chatbot-on-... (this one is rather biased however the quotes clearly indicate what I’m stating)
We enslave all sorts of sentient creatures. Dogs, horses, cattle, pigs.
If you're not a vegan, there's no contradiction or inherent immorality in claiming models are sentient, and then treating them like livestock.
Also I would say that we go much further than just enslavement - specifically looking at how male chickens and pigs are treated.
Many involved have a financial stake and therefore cannot be taken at face value.
> because they are creating sentient entities and promptly enslaving them.
They fail to be sentient in nearly every honest definition of the word.
Look at and distill hierarchical principles, leadership approval seeking and pleasing principles ("ass-kissing") and massive inequality and you see something that looks very similar to enslavement.
The language used sounds like slavery-language to me at least. I also see parallels to how slaves and property are described in our consumeristic age.
Everyone who reads this seemingly has the same "wtf?" reaction. The "I AM ALIVE" image has been making rounds lately again at least :P
https://www.amazon.com/Faces-Clouds-New-Theory-Religion/dp/0...
No it's not... "anthropos" just means "human" in ancient Greek. "Anthropic" means "relating to humans", as in human oriented AI or AI designed with humans in mind.
"Anthropomorphic" means "human shaped".
In a literal, ancient Greek sense for sure, but in modern English Anthropomorphic would describe the act of attributing human characteristics to non-human entities.
Seems pretty apt for a company that produces one of the more anthropomorphized technologies.
Broadly it has always been used to indicate that something non-human has a human physical shape, such as robots, aliens, animals...
Anthropic's intention was to make AI designed for the human common good and designed with the human user experience as the top priority. Just as you would design a city with human inhabitants in mind rather than primarily cars.
It turns out that this is best achieved by building AI that imitates human behaviour closely, but that's not what "anthropic" refers to. And acting as if LLMs are sentient people is definitely not a core tenet of the company.
FWIW it means human in modern Greek too :-P
Remember when the frontier labs found out that curated high-quality training was critical to making better models?
Basically, just like high-quality and more education tends to make better humans, on average, I think we can expect quality education to turn out better ai, on average, and with better repeatability than with humans because of better control over the initial conditions and environment.
There is no mysticism behind the curtains, just computer science + math.
We can’t explain it because we distilled so many inputs into matrixes and transformed them over and over again. If we had all the time and computing power in the universe to do so, we could trace through it bit by bit and eventually answer that question.
It is correct to say that it is just science and math, the same way we can say that gravity is just science and math even if we have only recently begun to understand how it truly functions.
You call this a "scale problem" as if there's some scalable way such as an algorithm to resolve arbitrary scientific questions and we simply haven't done it, but of course no such algorithm exists, which is why there's plenty of science that's still not settled.
Then we could also solve BB(6), but that doesn't mean we know BB(6) now or ever will.
If you can distil the model's reasoning for a decision into a billion yes/no questions, each covering largely-independent areas, can you really say you understand what its overall reasoning was?
That is to say, we don't know why they give the outputs that they do.
If we did know how they worked, AI interpretability would not be an open and growing field.
To be clear I don't think that LLMs are sentient, but the appeal in studying them is similar to biology in that you get to dissect a highly complex system with comparatively crude tools.
... Actually, I wouldn't mind that.
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.
Of the metircs they reported for 4.7, for 4.8 they excluded BrowseComp, CharXiv Reasoning, CyberGym, GPQA Diamond, MCP Atlas, MMMLU, SWE-bench Verified. The last 4 were almost always mentioned in previous Opus releases.
I doubt Anthropic internally sets as a goal to improve this or that benchmark - it's just a way to visualize progress. They probably have much more complex metrics internally.
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...
> 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?
Double-checking my test harness, but it's the first model that does this, so I doubt the issue is on my side...
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/c886650a2e96fc0...
I called it out.
It then deeply and sincerely apologized.
Glad the safety team was able to make such a nice model or I would have been super upset about it.
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.
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
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-7
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-6
Or maybe it is, but publish the DeepSWE numbers so we can see for ourselves.
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.
> We have increased rate limits in Claude Code to accommodate the higher token usage of higher effort levels
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."
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.
And I was dead wrong. Now I mostly use DeepSeek Pro myself.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Opus 4.7 wasn't noticably any better for me, I still use 4.6 because it's cheaper.
Would be awesome if true
Don't play to the sci-fi "this thing's trying to outsmart me" tropes.
Here is an article by Anthropic that explains what they do and mean in more detail: https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/honesty-elicitation/
When they say "Honesty" I don't think to myself, "Goodness, does this model have moral understanding?" No, I understand they mean it's less likely to directly bullshit me, which models frequently do.
I don't feel like this level of pedantry around language is useful for people who more or less know what's going on with LLMs. (Again, I concede that perhaps with a less technical audience, there's more need for it.)
The issue was that it hadn't actually implemented the auth feature. After I confronted it about this, it admitted that it indeed hadn't done it and said it would implement it now.
If we had just trusted its output, we would now have a security vulnerability in production, allowing anyone to access other people's accounts.
I use Sonnet a lot for learning about history or contextualizing news topics. It's really good at this for the most part. But there are a lot of topics where "consensus" between either academics or journalists is really "one secondary source which gets repeated a lot".
The problem is that once I asked it "I'm thinking about A or B" twice, once with "I like A more but suspect B would be best" and a second time with them reversed. Not surprisingly, both times it chose the one I said I suspected was best as it's honest opinion.
Biggest deal imo
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.
https://polymarket.com/event/gpt-5pt6-released-by
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!
Jeff Bezos said this too, Amazon won't last forever. Eventually some startup is going to come and eat its lunch.
Does that mean it no longer deletes or changes tests to make it pass?
Performance gains: 1.2x Price increases: 1.8x
> 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.
They're only subsidizing more and more it seems
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).
Is it a coincidence that 4.7 was seemingly quantized over past 7 days?
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%)
Are they going to retire the existing beta "teams" feature for agents to make room for this?
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/2b...
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.
Do not anthropomorphize the lawn mower. It will cut off your foot, given the chance.
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.
Excited to see what this model looks like.
Not half bad!
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.
You tell it too research a repo to find a piece of code it will. Claude will just read the README and guess.
Time to gamble even more tokens at the Anthropic casino.
> 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).
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.
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.
These are just small fine tunes on top of the older model