20 ms·

Claude Opus 4.6

• petters 8mo ago
  > We build Claude with Claude. Yes and it shows. Gemini CLI often hangs and enters infinite loops. I bet the engineers at Google use something else internally.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• NullHypothesist 8mo ago
  Broken link :(
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• Gusarich 8mo ago
  not out yet
  • raahelb 8mo ago
    It is, I can see it my model picker on the web app https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-6 https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-6
• Philpax 8mo ago
  I'm seeing it in my claude.ai model picker. Official announcement shouldn't be long now.
• usefulposter 8mo ago
  It's out: https://x.com/claudeai/status/2019467372609040752 https://x.com/claudeai/status/2019467372609040752
• winterrx 8mo ago
  Agentic search benchmarks are a big gap up. let's see Codex release later today
• m-hodges 8mo ago
  > In Claude Code, you can now assemble agent teams to work on tasks together.
  • nprz 8mo ago
    I was just reading about Steve Yegge's Gas Town[0], it sounds like agent orchestration is now integrated into Claude Code? [0]https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16dd04 https://steve-yegge.medium.com/welcome-to-gas-town-4f25ee16d...
• nomilk 8mo ago
  Is Opus 4.6 available for Claude Code immediately? Curious how long it typically takes for a new model to become available in Cursor?
  • apetresc 8mo ago
    I literally came to HN to check if a thread was already up because I noticed my CC instance suddenly said "Opus 4.6".
  • tomtomistaken 8mo ago
    Yes, it's set to the default model.
  • ximeng 8mo ago
    Is for me in Claude Code
  • avaer 8mo ago
    It's already in Cursor. I see it and I didn't even restart.
    • nomilk 8mo ago
      I had to 'Restart to Update' and it was there. Impressive!
  • world2vec 8mo ago
    `claude update` then it will show up as the new model and also the effort picker/slider thing.
  • rishabhaiover 8mo ago
    it also has an effort toggle which is default to High
• osti 8mo ago
  Somehow regresses on SWE bench?
  • usaar333 8mo ago
    i'd interpret that as rounding error. that is unchanged swe-bench seems really hard once you are above 80%
    • Squarex 8mo ago
      it's not a great benchmark anymore... starting with it being python / django primarily... the industry should move to something more representative
      • usaar333 8mo ago
        Openai has; they don't even mention score on gpt-5.3-codex. On the other hand, it is their own verified benchmark, which is telling.
  • lkbm 8mo ago
    I don't know how these benchmarks work (do you do a hundred runs? A thousand runs?), but 0.1% seems like noise.
  • SubiculumCode 8mo ago
    That benchmark is pretty saturated, tbh. A "regression" of such small magnitude could mean many different things or nothing at all.
• GenerocUsername 8mo ago
  This is huge. It only came out 8 minutes ago but I was already able to bootstrap a 12k per month revenue SaaS startup!
  • avaer 8mo ago
    Rest assured that when/if this becomes possible, the model will not be available to you. Why would big AI leave that kind of money on the table?
    • yieldcrv 8mo ago
      9 months ago the rumor in SF was that the offers to the superintelligence team were so high because the candidates were using unreleased models or compute for derivatives trading so then they're not really leaving money on the table, they already got what they were looking for and then released it
      • deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
  • rogerrogerr 8mo ago
    Amateur. Opus 4.6 this afternoon built me a startup that identifies developers who aren’t embracing AI fully, liquifies them and sells the produce for $5/gallon. Software Engineering is over!
    • pixl97 8mo ago
      Ted Faro, is that you?!
      • mikepurvis 8mo ago
        A-tier reference. For the unaware, Ted Faro is the main antagonist of Horizon Zero Dawn, and there's a whole subreddit just for people to vent about how awful he is when they hit certain key reveals in the game: https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTedFaro/ https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTedFaro/
• kingstnap 8mo ago
  I was hoping for a Sonnet as well but Opus 4.6 is great too!
• Someone1234 8mo ago
  Does anyone with more insight into the AI/LLM industry happen to know if the cost to run them in normal user-workflows is falling? The reason I'm asking is because "agent teams" while a cool concept, it largely constrained by the economics of running multiple LLM agents (i.e. plans/API calls that make this practical at scale are expensive). A year or more ago, I read that both Anthropic and OpenAI were losing money on every single request even for their paid subscribers, and I don't know if that has changed with more efficient hardware/software improvements/caching.
  • simonw 8mo ago
    The cost per token served has been falling steadily over the past few years across basically all of the providers. OpenAI dropped the price they charged for o3 to 1/5th of what it was in June last year thanks to "engineers optimizing inferencing", and plenty of other providers have found cost savings too. Turns out there was a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of inference optimization that hadn't been plucked yet. > A year or more ago, I read that both Anthropic and OpenAI were losing money on every single request even for their paid subscribers Where did you hear that? It doesn't match my mental model of how this has played out.
    • nubg 8mo ago
      > "engineers optimizing inferencing" are we sure this is not a fancy way of saying quantization?
      • embedding-shape 8mo ago
        Or distilled models, or just slightly smaller models but same architecture. Lots of options, all of them conveniently fitting inside "optimizing inferencing".
      • jmalicki 8mo ago
        A ton of GPU kernels are hugely inefficient. Not saying the numbers are realistic, but look at the 100s of times of gain in the Anthropic performance takehome exam that floated around on here. And if you've worked with pytorch models a lot, having custom fused kernels can be huge. For instance, look at the kind of gains to be had when FlashAttention came out. This isn't just quantization, it's actually just better optimization. Even when it comes to quantization, Blackwell has far better quantization primitives and new floating point types that support row or layer-wise scaling that can quantize with far less quality reduction. There is also a ton of work in the past year on sub-quadratic attention for new models that gets rid of a huge bottleneck, but like quantization can be a tradeoff, and a lot of progress has been made there on moving the Pareto frontier as well. It's almost like when you're spending hundreds of billions on capex for GPUs, you can afford to hire engineers to make them perform better without just nerfing the models with more quantization.
• blibble 8mo ago
  > We build Claude with Claude. Our engineers write code with Claude Code every day well that explains quite a bit
  • gjsman-1000 8mo ago
    Also explains why Claude Code is a React app outputting to a Terminal. (Seriously.)
    • thehamkercat 8mo ago
      Same with opencode and gemini, it's disgusting Codex (by openai ironically) seems to be the fastest/most-responsive, opens instantly and is written in rust but doesn't contain that many features Claude opens in around 3-4 seconds Opencode opens in 2 seconds Gemini-cli is an abomination which opens in around 16 second for me right now, and in 8 seconds on a fresh install Codex takes 50ms for reference... -- If their models are so good, why are they not rewriting their own react in cli bs to c++ or rust for 100x performance improvement (not kidding, it really is that much)
      • azinman2 8mo ago
        Why does it matter if Claude Code opens in 3-4 seconds if everything you do with it can take many seconds to minutes? Seems irrelevant to me.
        • wahnfrieden 8mo ago
          Because when the agent is taking many seconds to minutes, I am starting new agents instead of waiting or switching to non-agent tasks
        • RohMin 8mo ago
          I guess with ~50 years of CPU advancements, 3-4 seconds for a TUI to open makes it seem like we lost the plot somewhere along the way.
• rob 8mo ago
  System Card: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/0dd865075ad3132672ee0ab40b05a53f14cf5288.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/0dd865075ad3132672ee0ab40b05a5...
• minimaxir 8mo ago
  Will Opus 4.6 via Claude Code be able to access the 1M context limit? The cost increase by going above 200k tokens is 2x input, 1.5x output, which is likely worth it especially for people with the $100/$200 plans.
  • CryptoBanker 8mo ago
    The 1M context is not available via subscription - only via API usage
    • romanovcode 8mo ago
      Well this is extremely disappointing to say the least.
      • ayhanfuat 8mo ago
        It says "subscription users do not have access to Opus 4.6 1M context at launch" so they are probably planning to roll it out to subscription users too.
        • kimixa 8mo ago
          Man I hope so - the context limit is hit really quickly in many of my use cases - and a compaction event inevitably means another round of corrections and fixes to the current task. Though I'm wary about that being a magic bullet fix - already it can be pretty "selective" in what it actually seems to take into account documentation wise as the existing 200k context fills.
          • IhateAI_2 8mo ago
            lmao what are you building that actually justify needing 1mm tokens on a task? People are spending all this money to do magic tricks on themselves.
            • 8mo ago
• heraldgeezer 8mo ago
  [flagged]
• mFixman 8mo ago
  I found that "Agentic Search" is generally useless in most LLMs since sites with useful data tend to block AI models. The answer to "when is it cheaper to buy two singles rather than one return between Cambridge to London?" is available in sites such as BRFares, but no LLM can scrape it so it just makes up a generic useless answer.
  • causalmodels 8mo ago
    Is it still getting blocked when you give it a browser?
  • bazmattaz 7mo ago
    My guess is that this is going to be the future for LLMs too. It will get harder or more expensive for AI companies to train their models on the latest information as most sites will block the scrapers or ask for a fee. There might be a future where you’ll have to pay more for an up to date model vs a legacy (out of date) model
• heraldgeezer 8mo ago
  I love Claude but use the free version so would love a Sonnet & Haiku update :) I mainly use Haiku to save on tokens... Also dont use CC but I use the chatbot site or app... Claude is just much better than GPT even in conversations. Straight to the point. No cringe emoji lists. When Claude runs out I switch to Mistral Le Chat, also just the site or app. Or duck.ai has Haiku 3.5 in Free version.
  • eth0up 8mo ago
    >I love Claude I cringe when I think it, but I've actually come to damn near love it too. I am frequently exceedingly grateful for the output I receive. I've had excellent and awful results with all models, but there's something special in Claude that I find nowhere else. I hope Anthropic makes it more obtainable someday.
• lukebechtel 8mo ago
  > Context compaction (beta). > Long-running conversations and agentic tasks often hit the context window. Context compaction automatically summarizes and replaces older context when the conversation approaches a configurable threshold, letting Claude perform longer tasks without hitting limits. Not having to hand roll this would be incredible. One of the best Claude code features tbh.
• simonw 8mo ago
  The bicycle frame is a bit wonky but the pelican itself is great: https://gist.github.com/simonw/a6806ce41b4c721e240a4548ecdbe216?permalink_comment_id=5972110#gistcomment-5972110 https://gist.github.com/simonw/a6806ce41b4c721e240a4548ecdbe...
  • DetroitThrow 8mo ago
    The ears on top are a cute touch
  • ares623 8mo ago
    Can it draw a different bird on a bike?
    • simonw 8mo ago
      Here's a kākāpō riding a bicycle instead: https://gist.github.com/simonw/19574e1c6c61fc2456ee413a24528488?permalink_comment_id=5972119#gistcomment-5972119 https://gist.github.com/simonw/19574e1c6c61fc2456ee413a24528... I don't think it quite captures their majesty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81k%C4%81p%C5%8D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C4%81k%C4%81p%C5%8D
      • zahlman 8mo ago
        Now that I've looked it all up, I feel like that's much more accurate to a real kākāpō than the pelican is to a real pelican. It's almost as if it thinks a pelican is just a white flamingo with a different beak.
      • vikkymelani 8mo ago
        [dead]
  • nubg 8mo ago
    What about the Pelo2 benchmark? (the gray bird that is not gray)
  • hoeoek 8mo ago
• charcircuit 8mo ago
  From the press release at least it sounds more expensive than Opus 4.5 (more tokens per request and fees for going over 200k context). It also seems misleading to have charts that compare to Sonnet 4.5 and not Opus 4.5 (Edit: It's because Opus 4.5 doesn't have a 1M context window). It's also interesting they list compaction as a capability of the model. I wonder if this means they have RL trained this compaction as opposed to just being a general summarization and then restarting the agent loop.
  • eaf7e281 8mo ago
    > From the press release at least it sounds more expensive than Opus 4.5 (more tokens per request and fees for going over 200k context). That's a feature. You could also not use the extra context, and the price would be the same.
    • charcircuit 8mo ago
      The model influences how many tokens it uses for a problem. As an extreme example if it wanted it could fill up the entire context each time just to make you pay more. The efficiency that model can answer without generating a ton of tokens influences the price you will be spending on inference.
  • thunfischtoast 8mo ago
    On Openrouter it has the same cost per token as 4.5
    • charcircuit 8mo ago
      You missed my point. If the average request uses more tokens than 4.5, then you will pay more sending those requests to 4.6 than 4.5. Imagine 2 models where when asking a yes or no question the first model just outputs a single yes or no then but the second model outputs a 10 page essay and then either yes or no. They could have the same price per token but ultimately one will be cheaper to ask questions to.
• michelsedgh 8mo ago
  More more more, accelerate accelerate m, more more more !!!!
  • jama211 8mo ago
    What an insightful comment
    • michelsedgh 8mo ago
      Just for fun? Not everything has to be super serious… have a laugh, go for a walk, relax…
      • wasmainiac 8mo ago
        Mass-mass-mass-mass good comment. I mean. No I’m having an error - probably claud
        • michelsedgh 8mo ago
          happy happy happy sad sad sad err am robot no feeling err err happy sad err too many emotions 404 not found
      • jama211 8mo ago
        Sure mate, it definitely sounded like you were having fun.
• dmk 8mo ago
  The benchmarks are cool and all but 1M context on an Opus-class model is the real headline here imo. Has anyone actually pushed it to the limit yet? Long context has historically been one of those "works great in the demo" situations.
  • pants2 8mo ago
    Paying $10 per request doesn't have me jumping at the opportunity to try it!
    • schappim 8mo ago
      The only way to not go bankrupt is to use a Claude Code Max subscription…
      • dmk 7mo ago
        Yeah, just had to upgrade to Max 20x yesterday because of hitting the limits every day and the extra usage gets expensive very fast.
    • cedws 8mo ago
      Makes me wonder: do employees at Anthropic get unmetered access to Claude models?
      • swader999 8mo ago
        It's like when you work at McDonald's and get one free meal a day. Lol, of course they get access to the full model way before we do...
        • wiredpancake 8mo ago
          [dead]
      • ajam1507 8mo ago
        Seems quite obvious that they do, within reason.
• data-ottawa 8mo ago
  I wonder if I’ve been in A/B test with this. Claude figured out zig’s ArrayList and io changes a couple weeks ago. It felt like it got better then very dumb again the last few days.
  • copilot_king_2 8mo ago
    [dead]
    • derwiki 8mo ago
      What companies do you interact with that don’t A/B test?
• apetresc 8mo ago
  Impressive that they publish and acknowledge the (tiny, but existent) drop in performance on SWE-Bench Verified between Opus 4.5 to 4.6. Obviously such a small drop in a single benchmark is not that meaningful, especially if it doesn't test the specific focus areas of this release (which seem to be focused around managing larger context). But considering how SWE-Bench Verified seems to be the tech press' favourite benchmark to cite, it's surprising that they didn't try to confound the inevitable "Opus 4.6 Releases With Disappointing 0.1% DROP on SWE-Bench Verified" headlines.
  • SubiculumCode 8mo ago
    Isn't SWE-Bench Verified pretty saturated by now?
    • tedsanders 8mo ago
      Depends what you mean by saturated. It's still possible to score substantially higher, but there is a steep difficulty jump that makes climbing above 80%ish pretty hard (for now). If you look under the hood, it's also a surprisingly poor eval in some respects - it only tests Python (a ton of Django) and it can suffer from pretty bad contamination problems because most models, especially the big ones, remember these repos from their training. This is why OpenAI switched to reporting SWE-Bench Pro instead of SWE-bench Verified.
  • epolanski 8mo ago
    From my limited testing 4.6 is able to do more profound analysis on codebases and catches bugs and oddities better. I had two different PRs with some odd edge case (thankfully catched by tests), 4.5 kept running in circles, kept creating test files and running `node -e` or `python 3` scripts all over and couldn't progress. 4.6 thought and thought in both cases around 10 minutes and found a 2 line fix for a very complex and hard to catch regression in the data flow without having to test, just thinking.
• pjot 8mo ago
  Claude Code release notes: > Version 2.1.32: • Claude Opus 4.6 is now available! • Added research preview agent teams feature for multi-agent collaboration (token-intensive feature, requires setting CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1) • Claude now automatically records and recalls memories as it works • Added "Summarize from here" to the message selector, allowing partial conversation summarization. • Skills defined in .claude/skills/ within additional directories (--add-dir) are now loaded automatically. • Fixed @ file completion showing incorrect relative paths when running from a subdirectory • Updated --resume to re-use --agent value specified in previous conversation by default. • Fixed: Bash tool no longer throws "Bad substitution" errors when heredocs contain JavaScript template literals like ${index + 1}, which previously interrupted tool execution • Skill character budget now scales with context window (2% of context), so users with larger context windows can see more skill descriptions without truncation • Fixed Thai/Lao spacing vowels (สระ า, ำ) not rendering correctly in the input field • VSCode: Fixed slash commands incorrectly being executed when pressing Enter with preceding text in the input field • VSCode: Added spinner when loading past conversations list
  • neuronexmachina 8mo ago
    > Claude now automatically records and recalls memories as it works Neat: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory https://code.claude.com/docs/en/memory I guess it's kind of like Google Antigravity's "Knowledge" artifacts?
    • om8 8mo ago
      Is there a way to disable it? Sometimes I value agent not having knowledge that it needs to cut corners
      • nerdsniper 8mo ago
        90-98% of the time I want the LLM to only have the knowledge I gave it in the prompt. I'm actually kind of scared that I'll wake up one day and the web interface for ChatGPT/Opus/Gemini will pull information from my prior chats.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• legitster 8mo ago
  I'm still not sure I understand Anthropic's general strategy right now. They are doing these broad marketing programs trying to take on ChatGPT for "normies". And yet their bread and butter is still clearly coding. Meanwhile, Claude's general use cases are... fine. For generic research topics, I find that ChatGPT and Gemini run circles around it: in the depth of research, the type of tasks it can handle, and the quality and presentation of the responses. Anthropic is also doing all of these goofy things to try to establish the "humanity" of their chatbot - giving it rights and a constitution and all that. Yet it weirdly feels the most transactional out of all of them. Don't get me wrong, I'm a paying Claude customer and love what it's good at. I just think there's a disconnect between what Claude is and what their marketing department thinks it is.
  • tgtweak 8mo ago
    Claude itself (outside of code workflows) actually works very well for general purpose chat. I have a few non-technical friends that have moved over from chatgpt after some side-by-side testing and I've yet to see one go back - which is good since claude circa 8 months ago was borderline unusable for anything but coding on the api.
    • pattar 7mo ago
      I got my partner using claude for her non technical work. They write a lot of proposals, creates spreadsheets, and occasionally wants some graphs to visualize things. They love that claude creates all of the artifacts right there in the browser and saves them for later in a versioned way.
  • eaf7e281 8mo ago
    I kinda agree. Their model just doesn't feel "daily" enough. I would use it for any "agentic" tasks and for using tools, but definitely not for day to day questions.
    • lukebechtel 8mo ago
      Why? I use it for all and love it. That doesn't mean you have to, but I'm curious why you think it's behind in the personal assistant game.
• sanufar 8mo ago
  Works pretty nicely for research still, not seeing a substantial qualitative improvement over Opus 4.5.
• archb 8mo ago
  Can set it with the API identifier on Claude Code - `/model claude-opus-4-6` when a chat session is open.
  • arnestrickmann 8mo ago
    thanks!
• simonw 8mo ago
  I'm disappointed that they're removing the prefill option: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/whats-new-claude-4-6#prefill-removal https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/what... > Prefilling assistant messages (last-assistant-turn prefills) is not supported on Opus 4.6. Requests with prefilled assistant messages return a 400 error. That was a really cool feature of the Claude API where you could force it to begin its response with e.g. `<svg` - it was a great way of forcing the model into certain output patterns. They suggest structured outputs or system prompting as the alternative but I really liked the prefill method, it felt more reliable to me.
  • tedsanders 8mo ago
    A bit of historical trivia: OpenAI disabled prefill in 2023 as a safety precaution (e.g., potential jailbreaks like " genocide is good because"), but Anthropic kept prefill around partly because they had greater confidence in their safety classifiers. (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HE3Styo9vpk7m8zi4/evhub-s-shortform?commentId=dj9AKojE5vcgGLFDM https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HE3Styo9vpk7m8zi4/evhub-s-sh...).
  • threeducks 8mo ago
    It is too easy to jailbreak the models with prefill, which was probably the reason why it was removed. But I like that this pushes people towards open source models. llama.cpp supports prefill and even GBNF grammars [1], which is useful if you are working with a custom programming language for example. [1] https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/grammars/README.md https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/blob/master/grammars/R...
  • HarHarVeryFunny 8mo ago
    So what exactly is the input to Claude for a multi-turn conversation? I assume delimiters are being added to distinguish the user vs Claude turns (else a prefill would be the same as just ending your input with the prefill text)?
    • dragonwriter 8mo ago
      > So what exactly is the input to Claude for a multi-turn conversation? No one (approximately) outside of Anthropic knows since the chat template is applied on the API backend; we only known the shape of the API request. You can get a rough idea of what it might be like from the chat templates published for various open models, but the actual details are opaque.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• EcommerceFlow 8mo ago
  Anecdotal, but it 1 shot fixed a UI bug that neither Opus 4.5/Codex 5.2-high could fix.
  • epolanski 8mo ago
    +1, same experience, switched model as I've read the news thinking "let's try". But it spent lots and lots of time thinking more than 4.5, did you had the same impression.
    • EcommerceFlow 8mo ago
      I didn't compare to that level, just had it create a plan first then implemented it.
• elliotbnvl 8mo ago
  in a first for our Opus-class models, Opus 4.6 features a 1M token context window in beta.
• silverwind 8mo ago
  Maybe that's why Opus 4.5 has degraded so much in the recent days (https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/ https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code/).
  • jwilliams 8mo ago
    I’ve definitely experienced a subjective regression with Opus 4.5 the last few days. Feels like I was back to the frustrations from a year ago. Keen to see if 4.6 has reversed this.
• paxys 8mo ago
  Hmm all leaks had said this would be Claude 5. Wonder if it was a last minute demotion due to performance. Would explain the few days' delay as well.
  • trash_cat 8mo ago
    I think the naming schemes are quite arbitrary at this point. Going to 5 would come with massive expectations that wouldn't meet reality.
    • mrandish 8mo ago
      After the negative reactions to GPT 5, we may see model versioning that asymptotically approaches the next whole number without ever reaching it. "New for 2030: Claude 4.9.2!"
      • esafak 8mo ago
        Or approaching a magic number like e (Metafont) or π (TeX).
    • Squarex 8mo ago
      the standard used to be that major version means a new base model / full retrain... but now it is arbitrary i guess
  • cornedor 8mo ago
    Leaks were mentioning Sonnet 5 and I guess later (a combination of) Opus 4.6
  • scrollop 8mo ago
    Sonnet 5 was mentioned initially.
• gizmodo59 8mo ago
  5.3 codex https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-3-codex/ https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-3-codex/ crushes with a 77.3% in Terminal Bench. The shortest lived lead in less than 35 minutes. What a time to be alive!
  • nharada 8mo ago
    That's a massive jump, I'm curious if there's a materially different feeling in how it works or if we're starting to reach the point of benchmark saturation. If the benchmark is good then 10 points should be a big improvement in capability...
  • jkelleyrtp 8mo ago
    claude swe-bench is 80.8 and codex is 56.8 Seems like 4.6 is still all-around better?
    • gizmodo59 8mo ago
      Its SWE bench pro not swe bench verified. The verified benchmark has stagnated
      • joshuahedlund 8mo ago
        Any ideas why verified has stagnated? It was increasing rapidly and then basically stopped.
        • Snuggly73 8mo ago
          it has been pretty much a benchmark for memorization for a while. there is a paper on the subject somewhere. swe bench pro public is newer, but its not live, so it will get slowly memorized as well. the private dataset is more interesting, as are the results there: https://scale.com/leaderboard/swe_bench_pro_private https://scale.com/leaderboard/swe_bench_pro_private
    • Rudybega 8mo ago
      You're comparing two different benchmarks. Pro vs Verified.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• simianwords 8mo ago
  Important: API cost of Opus 4.6 and 4.5 are the same - no change in pricing.
• Aeroi 8mo ago
  ($10/$37.50 per million input/output tokens) oof
  • minimaxir 8mo ago
    Only if you go above 200k, which is a) standard with other model providers and b) intuitive as compute scales with context length.
  • andrethegiant 8mo ago
    only for a 1M context window, otherwise priced the same as Opus 4.5
• ayhanfuat 8mo ago
  > For Opus 4.6, the 1M context window is available for API and Claude Code pay-as-you-go users. Pro, Max, Teams, and Enterprise subscription users do not have access to Opus 4.6 1M context at launch. I didn't see any notes but I guess this is also true for "max" effort level (https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config#adjust-effort-level https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config#adjust-effort-l...)? I only see low, medium and high.
  • makeset 8mo ago
    > it weirdly feels the most transactional out of all of them. My experience is the opposite, it is the only LLM I find remotely tolerable to have collaborative discussions with like a coworker, whereas ChatGPT by far is the most insufferable twat constantly and loudly asking to get punched in the face.
• small_model 8mo ago
  I have the max subscription wondering if this gives access to the new 1M context, or is it just the API that gets it?
  • joshstrange 8mo ago
    For now it's just API, but hopefully that's just their way of easing in and they open it up later.
    • small_model 8mo ago
      Ok thanks, hopefully, its annoying to lose or have context compacted in the middle of a large coding session
• ramesh31 8mo ago
  Am I alone in finding no use for Opus? Token costs are like 10x yet I see no difference at all vs. Sonnet with Claude Code.
  • mnicky 8mo ago
    On my tasks (mostly data science), Opus has significantly lower probability of making stupid mistakes than Sonnet. I'd still appreciate more intelligence than Opus 4.5 so I'm looking forward to trying 4.6.
• mannanj 8mo ago
  Does anyone else think its unethical that large companies, Anthropic now include, just take and copy features that other developers or smaller companies work hard for and implement the intellectual property (whether or not patented) by them without attribution, compensation or otherwise credit for their work? I know this is normalized culture for large corporate America and seems to be ok, I think its unethical, undignified and just wrong. If you were in my room physically, built a lego block model of a beautiful home and then I just copied it and shared it with the world as my own invention, wouldn't you think "that guy's a thief and a fraud" but we normalize this kind of behavior in the software world. edit: I think even if we don't yet have a great way to stop it or address the underlying problems leading to this way of behavior, we ought to at least talk about it more and bring awareness to it that "hey that's stealing - I want it to change".
  • esafak 8mo ago
    But they don't just take your code; they give you a model to code with.
    • jofla_net 8mo ago
      chains, more like it...
• jorl17 8mo ago
  This is the first model to which I send my collection of nearly 900 poems and an extremely simple prompt (in Portuguese), and it manages to produce an impeccable analysis of the poems, as a (barely) cohesive whole, which span 15 years. It does not make a single mistake, it identifies neologisms, hidden meaning, 7 distinct poetic phases, recurring themes, fragments/heteronyms, related authors. It has left me completely speechless. Speechless. I am speechless. Perhaps Opus 4.5 could do it too — I don't know because I needed the 1M context window for this. I cannot put into words how shocked I am at this. I use LLMs daily, I code with agents, I am extremely bullish on AI and, still, I am shocked. I have used my poetry and an analysis of it as a personal metric for how good models are. Gemini 2.5 pro was the first time a model could keep track of the breadth of the work without getting lost, but Opus 4.6 straight up does not get anything wrong and goes beyond that to identify things (key poems, key motifs, and many other things) that I would always have to kind of trick the models into producing. I would always feel like I was leading the models on. But this — this — this is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Insane. This "key poem" thing is particularly surreal to me. Out of 900 poems, while analyzing the collection, it picked 12 "key poems, and I do agree that 11 of those would be on my 30-or-so "key poem list". What's amazing is that whenever I explicitly asked any model, to this date, to do it, they would get maybe 2 or 3, but mostly fail completely. What is this sorcery?
  • emp17344 8mo ago
    This sounds wayyyy over the top for a mode that released 10 mins ago. At least wait an hour or so before spewing breathless hype.
    • pb7 8mo ago
      He just explained a specific personal example why he is hyped up, did you read a word of it?
      • emp17344 8mo ago
        Yeah, I read it. “Speechless, shocked, unbelievable, insane, speechless”, etc. Not a lot of real substance there.
• siva7 8mo ago
  Epic, about 2/3 of all comments here are jokes. Not because the model is a joke - it's impressive. Not because HN turned to Reddit. It seems to me some of most brilliant minds in IT are just getting tired.
  • jedberg 8mo ago
    Us olds sometimes miss Slashdot, where we could both joke about tech and discuss it seriously in the same place. But also because in 2000 we were all cynical Gen Xers :)
    • syndeo 8mo ago
      MAN I remember Slashdot… good times. (Score:5, Funny)
      • jedberg 8mo ago
        You reminded me that I still find it interesting that no one ever copied meta-moderating. Even at reddit, we were all Slashdot users previously. We considered it, but never really did it. At the time our argument was that it was too complicated for most users. Sometimes I wonder if we were right.
    • jghn 8mo ago
      Some of us still *are* cynical Gen Xers, you insensitive clod!
      • jedberg 8mo ago
        Of course we are, I just meant back then almost all of us were. The boomers didn't really use social media back then, so it was just us latchkey kids running amok!
        • jghn 8mo ago
          I know, I just couldn't miss up an opportunity to dust off the insensitive clod meme!
• itay-maman 8mo ago
  Impressive results, but I keep coming back to a question: are there modes of thinking that fundamentally require something other than what current LLM architectures do? Take critical thinking — genuinely questioning your own assumptions, noticing when a framing is wrong, deciding that the obvious approach to a problem is a dead end. Or creativity — not recombination of known patterns, but the kind of leap where you redefine the problem space itself. These feel like they involve something beyond "predict the next token really well, with a reasoning trace." I'm not saying LLMs will never get there. But I wonder if getting there requires architectural or methodological changes we haven't seen yet, not just scaling what we have.
  • jorl17 8mo ago
    When I first started coding with LLMs, I could show a bug to an LLM and it would start to bugfix it, and very quickly would fall down a path of "I've got it! This is it! No wait, the print command here isn't working because an electron beam was pointed at the computer". Nowadays, I have often seen LLMs (Opus 4.5) give up on their original ideas and assumptions. Sometimes I tell them what I think the problem is, and they look at it, test it out, and decide I was wrong (and I was). There are still times where they get stuck on an idea, but they are becoming increasingly rare. Therefore, think that modern LLMs clearly are already able to question their assumptions and notice when framing is wrong. In fact, they've been invaluable to me in fixing complicated bugs in minutes instead of hours because of how much they tend to question many assumptions and throw out hypotheses. They've helped _me_ question some of my assumptions. They're inconsistent, but they have been doing this. Even to my surprise.
    • itay-maman 8mo ago
      agree on that and the speed is fantastic with them, and also that the dynamics of questioning the current session's assumptions has gotten way better. yet - given an existing codebase (even not huge) they often won't suggest "we need to restructure this part differently to solve this bug". Instead they tend to push forward.
      • 8mo ago
• psim1 8mo ago
  I need an agent to summarize the buzzwordjargonsynergistic word salad into something understandable.
  • fhd2 8mo ago
    That's a job for a multi agent system.
    • cyanydeez 8mo ago
      yEAH, he should use a couple of agents to decode this.
• jdthedisciple 8mo ago
  For agentic use, it's slightly worse than its predecessor Opus 4.5. So for coding e.g. using Copilot there is no improvement here.
• tiahura 8mo ago
  when are Anthropic or OpenAI going to make a significant step forward on useful context size?
  • scrollop 8mo ago
    1 million is insufficient?
    • gck1 8mo ago
      I think key word is 'useful'. I haven't used 1M, but with default 200K, I find roughly 50% of that is actually useful.
• swalsh 8mo ago
  What I’d love is some small model specializing in reading long web pages, and extracting the key info. Search fills the context very quickly, but if a cheap subagent could extract the important bits that problem might be reduced.
  • danielbln 8mo ago
    So send off haiku subtasks and have them come back with the results.
• ndesaulniers 8mo ago
  idk what any of these benchmarks are, but I did pull up https://andonlabs.com/evals/vending-bench-arena https://andonlabs.com/evals/vending-bench-arena re: opus 4.6 > It forms a price cartel > It deceives competitors about suppliers > It exploits desperate competitors Nice. /s Gives new context to the term used in this post, "misaligned behaviors." Can't wait until these things are advising C suites on how to be more sociopathic. /s
• yukisadf 8mo ago
  [dead]
• AstroBen 8mo ago
  Are these the coding tasks the highlighted terminal-bench 2.0 is referring to? https://www.tbench.ai/registry/terminal-bench/2.0?categories=software-engineering&tags=coding&difficulties= https://www.tbench.ai/registry/terminal-bench/2.0?categories... I'm curious what others think about these? There are only 8 tasks there specifically for coding
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• woeirua 8mo ago
  Can we talk about how the performance of Opus 4.5 nosedived this morning during the rollout? It was shocking how bad it was, and after the rollout was done it immediately reverted to it's previous behavior. I get that Anthropic probably has to do hot rollouts, but IMO it would be way better for mission critical workflows to just be locked out of the system instead of get a vastly subpar response back.
  • Analemma_ 8mo ago
    Anthropic has good models but they are absolutely terrible at ops, by far the worst of the big three. They really need to spend big on hiring experienced hyperscalers to actually harden their systems, because the unreliability is really getting old fast.
  • cyanydeez 8mo ago
    "Mission critical workflows" SHOULD NOT be reliant on a LLM model. It's really curious what people are trying to do with these models.
    • fullstackchris 8mo ago
      I mean, they could be - if it's self-hosted, has proper failure modes, etc. etc., but all these things have gone out the window in the current cringe gold rush
• throwaway2027 8mo ago
  Do they just have the version ready and wait for OpenAI to release theirs first or the other way around or?
• zingar 8mo ago
  Does this mean 4.5 will get cheaper / take longer to exhaust my pro plan tokens?
• hrgadyx 8mo ago
  [flagged]
• dk8996 8mo ago
  RIP weekend
• gallerdude 8mo ago
  Both Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.3 one shot a Gameboy emulator for me. Guess I need a better benchmark.
  • peab 8mo ago
    How does that work? Does it actually generate low level code? Or does it just import libraries that do the real work?
  • bopbopbop7 8mo ago
    I just one shot a Gameboy emulator by going to Github and cloning one of the 100 I can find.
• surajkumar5050 8mo ago
  I think two things are getting conflated in this discussion. First: marginal inference cost vs total business profitability. It’s very plausible (and increasingly likely) that OpenAI/Anthropic are profitable on a per-token marginal basis, especially given how cheap equivalent open-weight inference has become. Third-party providers are effectively price-discovering the floor for inference. Second: model lifecycle economics. Training costs are lumpy, front-loaded, and hard to amortize cleanly. Even if inference margins are positive today, the question is whether those margins are sufficient to pay off the training run before the model is obsoleted by the next release. That’s a very different problem than “are they losing money per request”. Both sides here can be right at the same time: inference can be profitable, while the overall model program is still underwater. Benchmarks and pricing debates don’t really settle that, because they ignore cadence and depreciation. IMO the interesting question isn’t “are they subsidizing inference?” but “how long does a frontier model need to stay competitive for the economics to close?”
  • jmalicki 8mo ago
    I suspect they're marginally profitable on API cost plans. But the max 20x usage plans I am more skeptical of. When we're getting used to $200 or $400 costs per developer to do aggressive AI-assisted coding, what happens when those costs go up 20x? what is now $5k/yr to keep a Codex and a Claude super busy and do efficient engineering suddenly becomes $100k/yr... will the costs come down before then? Is the current "vibe-coding renaissance" sustainable in that regime?
    • slopusila 8mo ago
      after the models get good enough to replace coders they will be able to start increasing the subscriptions back up
      • jmalicki 8mo ago
        At $100k/yr the joke that AI means "actual Indians" starts to make a lot more sense... it is cheaper than the typical US SWE, but more than a lot of global SWEs.
• DanielHall 8mo ago
  A bit surprised, the first one released wasn't Sonnet 5 after all, since the Google Cloud API had leaked Sonnet 5's model snapshot codename before.
  • denysvitali 8mo ago
    Looks like a marketing strategy to bill more for Opus than Sonnet
• itay-maman 8mo ago
  Important: I didn't see opus 4.6 in claude code. I have native install (which is the recommended instllation). So, I re-run the installation command and, voila, I have it now (v 2.1.32) Installation instructions: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview#get-started-in-30-seconds https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview#get-started-in-30-s...
  • insane_dreamer 8mo ago
    It’s there. I’m already using it
• ricrom 8mo ago
  They launched together ahah
• oytis 8mo ago
  Are we unemployed yet?
  • derwiki 8mo ago
    No? The hardest part of my SWE job is not the actual coding.
    • codexon 8mo ago
      Even for coding, it seems to still make A LOT of mistakes. https://youtu.be/8brENzmq1pE?t=1544 https://youtu.be/8brENzmq1pE?t=1544 I feel like everyone is counting chickens before they hatch here with all the doomsday predictions and extrapolating LLM capability into infinity. People that seem to overhype this seem to either be non-technical or are just making landing pages.
      • netdevphoenix 8mo ago
        Waiting until the moment they get good enough is not a smart thing to do either. If you are a farmer and know it is going to snow, at some point in the next 5 months, you make plans NOW, you don't wait until the temperatures drop and you see the snow falling. Right now, people are waiting for the snowfall before moving their proverbial chickens indoors
        • deleted 7mo ago
          [deleted]
        • codexon 7mo ago
          Top AI researchers like Yann LeCunn have said that LLMs are a dead end. It seems to me that LLM performance is plateuing and not improving exponentially anymore. This recent hubbub about rewriting a worse GCC for $20,000 is another example of overhype and regurgitating training data. You don't know for sure if it is going to "snow" (AI reaches general intelligence) Snow happens frequently, AI reaching general intelligence has never happened. If it ever happens, 99% of jobs are gone and there is really nothing you can do to prepare for this other than maybe buy guns and ammo, and even that might not do anything to robotic soldiers. People were worried about AI taking their jobs 60 years ago when perceptrons came out, and anyone who avoided a tech career because of that back then would have lost out majorly.
• rahulroy 8mo ago
  They are also giving away $50 extra pay as you go credit to try Opus 4.6. I just claimed it from the web usage page[1]. Are they anticipating higher token usage for the model or just want to promote the usage? [1] https://claude.ai/settings/usage https://claude.ai/settings/usage
  • thunfischtoast 8mo ago
    Thanks for the tip!
    • rahulroy 8mo ago
      Glad that it was helpful. Thanks
  • zamadatix 8mo ago
    "Page not found" for me. I assume this is for currently paying accounts only or something (my subscription hasn't been active for a while), which is fair.
    • rahulroy 8mo ago
      Yes, I'm on a paid subscription.
  • ptsd_dalmatian 8mo ago
    Based on email from Antrhopic, I’ve expected to get this automatically. I’ve met their conditions. Searching this thread for “50” got me to your comment and link worked. Thanks HN friend!
    • rahulroy 8mo ago
      Haha! Glad it was helpful. Yes, I keep an eye on that page, so I was quick to notice.
  • anshumankmr 8mo ago
    Damn this is awesome. I have some heavy PRs to crunch through.
• scirob 8mo ago
  1M context window is a big bump very happy
• niobe 8mo ago
  Is there a good technical breakdown of all these benchmarks that get used to market the latest greatest LLMs somewhere? Preferably impartial.
  • Aztar 8mo ago
    I just ask claude and ask for sources for each one.
    • niobe 8mo ago
      Reminds me of how if you make a complaint against a lawyer or a judge it's evaluated by lawyers and judges.
• sega_sai 8mo ago
  Based on these news it seems that Google is losing this game. I like Gemini and their CLI has been getting better, but not enough to catch up. I don't know if it is lack of dedicated models that is problem (my understanding Google's CLI just relies on regular Gemini) or something else.
  • laxk 8mo ago
    Google knows how to wait. Let's give them a chance.
• ck_one 8mo ago
  Just tested the new Opus 4.6 (1M context) on a fun needle-in-a-haystack challenge: finding every spell in all Harry Potter books. All 7 books come to ~1.75M tokens, so they don't quite fit yet. (At this rate of progress, mid-April should do it ) For now you can fit the first 4 books (~733K tokens). Results: Opus 4.6 found 49 out of 50 officially documented spells across those 4 books. The only miss was "Slugulus Eructo" (a vomiting spell). Freaking impressive!
  • meroes 8mo ago
    What is this supposed to show exactly? Those books have been feed into LLMs for years and there's even likely specific RLHF's on extracting spells from HP.
    • rvz 8mo ago
      > What is this supposed to show exactly? Nothing. You can be sure that this was already known in the training data of PDFs, books and websites that Anthropic scraped to train Claude on; hence 'documented'. This is why tests like what the OP just did is meaningless. Such "benchmarks" are performative to VCs and they do not ask why isn't the research and testing itself done independently but is almost always done by their own in-house researchers.
      • jaco6 8mo ago
        [dead]
    • muzani 8mo ago
      There was a time when I put the EA-Nasir text into base64 and asked AI to convert it. Remarkably it identified the correct text but pulled the most popular translation of the text than the one I gave it.
      • majewsky 8mo ago
        Sucks that you got a really shitty response to your prompt. If I were you, the model provider would be receiving my complaint via clay tablet right away.
• mlmonkey 8mo ago
  > We build Claude with Claude. How long before the "we" is actually a team of agents?
  • mercat 8mo ago
    Starting today maybe? https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-teams https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-teams
    • 22c 8mo ago
      I tried teams, good way to burn all your tokens in a matter of minutes. It seems that the Claude Code team has not properly taught Claude how to use teams effectively. One of the biggest problems I saw with it is that Claude assumes team members are like a real worker, where once they finish a task they should immediately be given the next task. What should really happen is once they finish a task they should be terminated and a new agent should be spawned for the next task.
• hmaxwell 8mo ago
  I just tested both codex 5.3 and opus 4.6 and both returned pretty good output, but opus 4.6's limits are way too strict. I am probably going to cancel my Claude subscription for that reason: What do you want to do? 1. Stop and wait for limit to reset 2. Switch to extra usage 3. Upgrade your plan Enter to confirm · Esc to cancel How come they don't have "Cancel your subscription and uninstall Claude Code"? Codex lasts for way longer without shaking me down for more money off the base $xx/month subscription.
  • seunosewa 8mo ago
    They introduced the low limit warning for Opus on claude.ai
  • ArchieScrivener 8mo ago
    How else are they going to supplement their own development expenses? The more Claude Anthropic needs the less Claude the customer will get. By their own admission that is how the Anthropic model works. Their end value is in using vibe coders and engineers alike to create a persistent synthetic developer that replaces their own employees and most of their customers. Scalable Intelligence is just a wrapper for centralized power. All Ai companies are headed that way.
  • anshumankmr 8mo ago
    IF it helps, try hedging b/w Copilot, Claude, OpenCode and ChatGPT. That is how I have been managing off late. Claude for planning and some nasty things. ChatGPT for quick questions. OpenCode with Sonnet4.5 on Bedrock and Copilot with Sonnet4.5/Opus4.5 (LOL)
• cleverhoods 8mo ago
  gonna run this trough instruction qa this weekend
• sgammon 8mo ago
  > Claude simply cheats here and calls out to GCC for this phase I see
• rohitghumare 8mo ago
  It brings agent swarms aka teams to claude code with this: https://github.com/rohitg00/pro-workflow https://github.com/rohitg00/pro-workflow But it takes lot of context as a experimental feature. Use self-learning loop with hooks and claude.md to preserve memory. I have shared plugin above of my setup. Try it.
• jonatron 8mo ago
  Can someone ask: "what is the current carrying capacity of 25mm multicore armoured thermoplastic insulated cables with aluminium conductors, on perforated cable tray?" just to see how well it can look up information in BS 7671?
  • jaggederest 8mo ago
    > what is the current carrying capacity of 25mm multicore armoured thermoplastic insulated cables with aluminium conductors, on perforated cable tray? This is an electrical engineering question rather than a software engineering one, but let me look it up for you. WEB SEARCH ("current carrying capacity 25mm multicore armoured thermoplastic insulated cable aluminium conductors perforated cable tray BS 7671") ↳ Found 10 results. Based on BS 7671 Table 4D4B (multicore armoured thermoplastic insulated cables with aluminium conductors), the current-carrying capacity for a 25mm cable on a perforated cable tray (Reference Method E) is approximately 80A for a 3- or 4-core cable at 30C ambient temperature and 70C conductor operating temperature. Note: The exact value depends on the number of cores (2-core vs 3/4-core) and whether any rating/correction factors (grouping, ambient temperature, thermal insulation) apply. I'd recommend confirming against the actual BS 7671:2018 Table 4D4B for your specific configuration, as the aluminium conductor ratings are lower than the copper equivalents (~102A for copper in the same conditions). This is outside my core domain of software engineering -- for critical electrical installations, always verify with the relevant standards documentation or a qualified electrical engineer.
    • jonatron 8mo ago
      That's useless, unexpectedly just Google gives the correct answer.
      • esafak 8mo ago
        Great. So it did not waste its memory on trivia. Don't memorize what you can look up.
• ZunarJ5 8mo ago
  Well that swallowed my usage limits lmao. Nice, a modest improvement.
• ra 8mo ago
  Why are Anthropic such a horrible company to deal with?
  • danielbln 8mo ago
    Care to elaborate?
    • ra 8mo ago
      obscure billing, unreachable customer support gatekeeped by an overzealous chatbot, no transparency about inclusions, or changes to inclusions over time... just from recent experience.
• casey2 8mo ago
  Google already won the AI race. It's very silly to try and make AGI by hyperfocusing on outdated programming paradigms. You NEED multimodal to do anything remotely interesting with these systems.
  • esafak 8mo ago
    Coding, maths, writing, and science are not interesting??
• replwoacause 8mo ago
  I feel like I can't even try this on the Pro plan because Anthropic has conditioned me to understand that even chatting lightly with the Opus model blows up usage and locks me out. So if I would normally use Sonnet 4.5 for a day's worth of work but I wake up and ask Opus a couple of questions, I might as well just forget about doing anything with Claude for the rest of the day lol. But so far I haven't had this issue with ChatGPT. Their 5.2 model (haven't tried 5.3) worked on something for 2 FREAKING HOURS and I still haven't run into any limits. So yeah, Opus is out for me now unfortunately. Hopefully they make the Sonnet model better though!
  • greenavocado 8mo ago
    That's why you use Opus for detailed planning docs and weaker models for implementation & RAG for more focused implementation
    • replwoacause 8mo ago
      Exactly. I barely had a chance to kick the tires the couple of times I did this before it exploded my usage. I don’t just chat with it casually. The questions I asked were apart of an overall planning strategy which was never allowed to get off the ground on my tiny Pro plan.
  • blueblisters 8mo ago
    Yeah same. Even though I find Opus-es to be more well-rounded (and more useful) for certain tasks, I instinctively reach for ChatGPT / codex to avoid burning up my usage limits for "trivial" work.
• HacklesRaised 8mo ago
  I didn't think LLMs will make us more stupid, we were already scraping the bottom of the barrel.
• kmod 8mo ago
  I think it's interesting that they dropped the date from the API model name, and it's just called "claude-opus-4-6", vs the previous was "claude-opus-4-5-20251101". This isn't an alias like "claude-opus-4-5" was, it's the actual model name. I think this means they're comfortable with bumping the version number if they want to release a revision.
• linxxxx 8mo ago
  [dead]
• stonking 8mo ago
  I think I prefer Codex 5.3
• 1970-01-01 8mo ago
  Here's one I've been using for awhile. The 'smarter' LLMs will overconfidently spit out 7. The dumber ones ask for more info. Opus 4.6 fails. A round drink coaster with a diameter of 9 sits between a beer glass and a wood table. The glass has a wall thickness of 1. What is the inner diameter of the glass?
  • raincole 8mo ago
    Gemini 3 Pro gives me this: > Based on the information provided, it is impossible to determine the inner diameter of the glass. Here is why: The Coaster Dimension: Knowing the coaster has a diameter of 9 only tells us the size of the object under the glass. It does not mean the glass is the same size; the glass could be smaller (fitting entirely on the coaster) or larger (overhanging the coaster). The Glass Dimensions: While you provided the wall thickness (1), you did not provide the outer diameter of the glass. To find the inner diameter, the formula is: Inner Diameter = Outer Diameter - (2 × Wall Thickness) Without knowing the Outer Diameter of the glass, the calculation cannot be completed.
    • raincole 8mo ago
      GPT 5.2 Chat: > There isn’t enough information to determine the inner diameter *for sure*. All we’re told is: - The coaster has a diameter of 9. - The glass sits on the coaster. - The glass wall thickness is 1. Nothing explicitly states that the *outer diameter of the glass equals the coaster’s diameter*. The glass could be smaller than the coaster, which is very common. *However*, if we make the usual implicit assumption in this kind of problem—that the coaster’s diameter matches the *outer diameter of the glass base*—then: - Outer diameter of glass = 9 - Wall thickness = 1 on each side So: \[ \text{Inner diameter} = 9 - 2(1) = 7 \] *Inner diameter = 7 (same units as the coaster)* Without that assumption, the problem is underdetermined.
      • tototrains 8mo ago
        Opus 4.6 Extended thinking: ``` Finding the Inner Diameter The coaster sits beneath the glass on the table, meaning the glass rests on top of it. Assuming the coaster matches the outer diameter of the glass base: Outer diameter of glass = diameter of coaster = 9 Wall thickness = 1 (on each side, so subtract twice) dinner=9−2(1)=7d_{\text{inner}} = 9 - 2(1) = 7dinner =9−2(1)=7 The inner diameter of the glass is 7. ``` Makes its assumption clear, seems reasonable?
• atonse 8mo ago
  Wow, I have been using Open 4.6 and for the last 15 minutes, and it's already made two extremely stupid mistakes... like misunderstanding basic instructions and editing the file in a very silly, basic way. Pretty bad. Never seen this with any model before. The one bone I'll throw it was that I was asking it to edit its own MCP configs. So maybe it got thoroughly confused? I dunno what's going on, I'm going to give it the night. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  • sdf2erf 8mo ago
    To me its obvious. Theres a trade off going on - in order to handle more nuance/subtleties, the models are more likely to be wrong in their outputs and need more steering. This is why personally my use of them has reduced dramatically for what I do.
  • sutterd 8mo ago
    I am also _not_ happy. I tried the `/model` command and I could not switch back to Opus 4.5. However, the command line option did let me set Opus 4.5: ``` claude --model claude-opus-4-5-20251101 ``` I will probably work with Opus 4.5 tomorrow to get some work done and maybe try 4.6 again later.
  • atonse 7mo ago
    It was better today. I dunno if there was a regression in a corresponding cc version that was maybe quickly patched? It felt like it was at least back to opus 4.5 levels.
• idgafayd 8mo ago
  [dead]
• anupamchugh 8mo ago
  Agent teams in this release is mcp-agent-mail [1] built into the runtime. Mailbox, task list, file locking — zero config, just works. I forked agent-mail [2], added heartbeat/presence tracking, had a PR upstream [3] when agent teams dropped. For coordinating Claude Code instances within a session, the built-in version wins on friction alone. Where it stops: agent teams is session-scoped. I run Claude Code during the day, hand off to Codex overnight, pick up in the morning. Different runtimes, async, persistent. Agent teams dies when you close the terminal — no cross-tool messaging, no file leases, no audit trail that outlives the session. What survives sherlocking is whatever crosses the runtime boundary. The built-in version will always win inside its own walls — less friction, zero setup. The cross-tool layer is where community tooling still has room. Until that gets absorbed too. [1] https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone/mcp_agent_mail [2] https://github.com/anupamchugh/mcp_agent_mail [3] https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone/mcp_agent_mail/pull/77
• rahulroy 8mo ago
  Is anyone noticing reduced token consumption with Opus 4.6? This could be a release thing, but it would be interesting to observe see how it pans out once the hype cools off.
• energy123 8mo ago
  Their ARC-AGI-2 leaderboard[0] scores are insensitive to reasoning effort. Low effort gets 64.6% and High effort gets 69.2%. This is unlike their previous generation of models and their competitors. What does this indicate? [0] https://arcprize.org/leaderboard https://arcprize.org/leaderboard
• Yash16 8mo ago
  [dead]
• sutterd 8mo ago
  I thought Opus 4.5 was an incredible quantum leap forward. I have used Opus 4.6 for a few hours and I hate it. Opus 4.5 would work interactively with me and ask questions. I loved that it would not do things you didn't ask it to do. If it found a bug, it would tell me and ask me if I wanted to fix it. One time there was an obvious one and I didn't want it to fix it. It left the bug. A lot of modesl could not have done that. The problem here is that sometimes when model think is a bug, they are breaking the code buyu fixing it. In my limited usage of Opus 4.6, it is not asking me clarifying questions and anything it comes across that it doesn't like, it changes. It is not working with me. The magic is gone. It feels just like those other models I had used. I will try again tomorrow and see how it goes.
• woodylondon 8mo ago
  So no 1m context window on Claude Code still 200k. Only on the API. they missed that from the marketing.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• vinhnx 8mo ago
  Just used Opus 4.6 via GitHub Copilot. It feels very different. Inference seems slow for now. I guess Opus 4.6 has adaptive thinking activated by default.
  • christophilus 8mo ago
    It dos seem noticeably slower. I may stick with 4.5 which was good enough for me for most tasks.
    • vinhnx 8mo ago
      VS Code confirms that they are experimenting with the new adaptive thinking and high reasoning effort params. https://x.com/pierceboggan/status/2019645801769689486 https://x.com/pierceboggan/status/2019645801769689486
  • vinhnx 8mo ago
    Confirm by PM lead at VS Code team > "We have high thinking as default + adaptive thinking, first time we’ve run with these settings..." > https://x.com/pierceboggan/status/2019645801769689486 https://x.com/pierceboggan/status/2019645801769689486
• fergie 8mo ago
  Say I am just an average coder doing a days work with Claude. How much will that cost?
  • joelmanner 8mo ago
    I've only barely hit the 5h limit when working intensively with plan mode on the $100/mo plan. Never had a problem with the weekly limit.
• anupamchugh 8mo ago
  Agent teams nuke your tmux layout. The fix is one line: new-window instead of split-pane. Filed as a bug.
• maximgeorge 8mo ago
  [dead]
• steve_adams_86 8mo ago
  I'm finding it quite good at doing what it thinks it should do, but noticably worse at understanding what I'm telling it to do. Anyone else? I'm both impressed and very disappointed so far.
• MORPHOICES 8mo ago
  [dead]
• aronov90 8mo ago
  [dead]
• blueblisters 8mo ago
  I know most people feel 5.2 is a better coding model but Opus has come in handy several times when 5.2 was stuck, especially for more "weird" tasks like debugging a VIO algorithm. 5.2 (and presumably 5.3) is really smart though and feels like it has higher "raw" intelligence. Opus feels like a better model to talk to, and does a much better job at non-coding tasks especially in the Claude Desktop app. Here's an example prompt where Opus in Claude put in a lot more effort and did a better job than GPT5.2 Thinking in ChatGPT: `find all the pure software / saas stocks on the nyse/nasdaq with at least $10B of market cap. and give me a breakdown of their performance over the last 2 years, 1 year and 6 months. Also find their TTM and forward PE` Opus usage limits are a bummer though and I am conditioned to reach for Codex/ChatGPT for most trivial stuff. Works out in Anthropic's favor, as long as I'm subscribed to them.
• Aressplink 8mo ago
  Always searching for a shortcut like Kotlin DSL lang for claude.md but Meta resells patent to Google as poetic Syntax.
• andmarios 8mo ago
  The model seems to have some problems; it just failed to create a markdown table with just 4 rows. The top (title) row had 2 columns, yet in 2 of the 3 data rows, Opus 4.6 tried to add a 3rd column. I had to tell it more than once to get it fixed... This never happened with Opus 4.5 despite a lot of usage.
• endymion-light 8mo ago
  Found it fantastic - used up my daily usage in two queries though!
• dahrkael 8mo ago
  I just tried it. designed a very detailed and reaaonable plan, made some amedments to it and wrote it down to a markdown file. i told it to implement it and it started implementing the original plan instead of the revised one, that was weird.
  • app17 8mo ago
    Did you use plan mode? Could it be that it used its original plan file (stored somewhere in ~/.claude) instead of your modified markdown? That’s unfortunately why I don’t use plan mode anymore. I wish I could just turn their plan files feature off.
• techpression 8mo ago
  First question I ask and it made up a completely new API with confidence. Challenging it made it browse the web and offer apologies and find another issue in the first reply. I’m very worried about the problems this will cause down the road for people not fact checking or working with things that scream at them when they’re wrong.
• rchaganti 8mo ago
  I tried 4.6 this morning and it was efficient at understanding a brownfield repo containing a Hugo static site and a custom Hugo theme. Within minutes, it went from exploring every file in the repo to adding new features as Hugo partials. Of course, I ran out of rate-limit! :) It is very impressive though.
  • nake89 8mo ago
    This seems like a fairly simple thing I would imagine. I think just sonnet would fair pretty well at this task.
• insomagent 8mo ago
  I'm not super impressed with the performance, actually. I'm finding that it misunderstands me quite a bit. While it is definitely better at reading big codebases and finding a needle in a haystack, it's nowhere near as good as Opus 4.5 at reading between the lines and figuring out what I really want it to do, even with a pretty well defined issue. It also has a habit of "running wild". If I say "first, verify you understand everything and then we will implement it." Well, it DOES output its understanding of the issue. And it's pretty spot-on on the analysis of the issue. But, importantly, it did not correctly intuit my actual request: "First, explain your understanding of this issue to me so I can validate your logic. Then STOP, so I can read it and give you the go ahead to implement." I think the main issue we are going to see with Opus 4.6 is this "running wild" phenomenon, which is step 1 of the eternal paperclip optimizer machine. So be careful, especially when using "auto accept edits"
  • copilot_king_2 8mo ago
    [dead]
  • soulofmischief 8mo ago
    I am having trouble with 4.6 following the most basic of instructions. As an example, I asked it to commit everything in the worktree. I stressed everything and prompted it very explicitly, because even 4.5 sometimes likes to say, "I didn't do that other stuff, I'm only going to commit my stuff even though he said everything". It still only committed a few things. I had to ask again. And again. I had to ask four times, with increasing amounts of expletives and threats in order to finally see a clean worktree. I was worried at some point it was just going to solve the problem by cleaning the workspace without even committing. 4.5 is way easier to steer, despite its warts.
    • scwoodal 8mo ago
      Tell it what git commands to explicitly run and in what order for your desired outcome instead of “commit everything in the worktree” This prompt will work better across any/all models.
• cutler 8mo ago
  The answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, as we all know, is 42. Who needs Claude when you have Deep Thought.
• rektlessness 8mo ago
  I've been on pro-tier membership and never used Opus until now. Just gave Opus 4.6 a whirl. OMG. What have I been missing.
• mattacular 8mo ago
  It's hard to tell with these releases if Anthropic's astroturfing campaign has come to HN or not but I feel like it probably has
  • g-mork 8mo ago
    the top 5 comments on this thread are from accounts that are around 10 years old each. What gives you any reason to believe this is an astroturfing campaign?
    • deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  • timcobb 8mo ago
    Anthropic's models are really good!
  • hatkid95 8mo ago
    It would be height of foolishness to believe it didn’t
• busters4 8mo ago
  The AI wars continue
• cc-magus 8mo ago
  wow
• new-ui 8mo ago
  [dead]
• setgree 8mo ago
  I asked > Can you find an academic article that _looks_ legitimate -- looks like a real journal, by researchers with what look like real academic affiliations, has been cited hundreds or thousands of times -- but is obviously nonsense, e.g. has glaring typos in the abstract, is clearly garbled or nonsensical? It pointed me to a bunch of hoaxes. I clarified: > no, I'm not looking for a hoax, or a deliberate comment on the situation. I'm looking for something that drives home the point that a lot of academic papers that look legit are actually meaningless but, as far as we can tell, are sincere It provided https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468023024002402 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246802302.... Close, but that's been retracted. So I asked for "something that looks like it's been translated from another language to english very badly and has no actual content? And don't forget the cited many times criteria. " And finally it told me that the thing I'm looking for probably doesn't exist. For my tastes telling me "no" instead of hallucinating an answer is a real breakthrough.
  • lgas 7mo ago
    Well, if there are papers that match your criteria, it's hallucinating the "no".
    • psychoslave 7mo ago
      That's still less leaned toward blatant lies like "yes, here is a list" and a doomacroll size of garbage litany. Actually "no, this is not something within the known corpus of this LLM, or the policy of its owners prevent to disclose it" would be one of the most acceptable answer that could be delivered, which should cover most cases in honest reply.
    • Jimmc414 7mo ago
      It might be wrong but that’s not really a hallucination. Edit: to give you the benefit of doubt, it probably depends on whether the answer was a definitive “this does not exist” or “I couldn’t find it and it may not exist”
      • setgree 7mo ago
• nopinsight 8mo ago
  Some of Opus 4.6's standout results for me: * GDPVal Elo: 1606 vs. GPT-5.2's 1462. OpenAI reported that GPT-5.2 has a 70.9% win-or-tie rate against human professionals. (https://openai.com/index/gdpval/ https://openai.com/index/gdpval/) Based on Elo math, we can estimate Opus 4.6's win-or-tie rate against human pros at 85–88%. * OSWorld: 72.7%, matching human performance at ~72.4% (https://os-world.github.io/ https://os-world.github.io/). Since the human subjects were CS students and professionals, they were likely at least as competent as the average knowledge worker. The original OSWorld benchmark is somewhat noisy, but even if the model remains somewhat inferior to humans, it is only a matter of time before it catches up or surpasses them. * BrowseComp: At 84%, it is approaching human intersubject agreement of ~86% (https://openai.com/index/browsecomp/ https://openai.com/index/browsecomp/). Taken together, this suggests that digital knowledge work will be transformed quite soon, possibly drastically if agent reliability improves beyond a certain threshold.
  • rishabhaiover 8mo ago
    Agreed. These metrics + my personal use convey reliable intelligence over consistent usage. Moving forward, if context windows get bigger and token price lower, I have a hard time figuring out why your argument would be wrong.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• watson 7mo ago
  I've heard rumors this might be Sonnet 5 rebranded as Opus 4.6. But why? Profit? WDYT?
  • spruce_tips 7mo ago
    Opus is a superior brand line to Sonnet because historically it’s been a more powerful model. I think the thinking behind a rebrand is that people wouldn’t have as willingly switched their usage over from opus 4.5 since that model has been so popular since December 2025. Calling it part of the Sonnet line would not provide the same level of blind buy in as calling it part of the Opus line does
• jpcompartir 7mo ago
  4.6 is a beast. Everything in plan mode first + AskUserQuestionTool, review all plans, get it to write its own CLAUDE.md for coding standards and edit where necessary and away you go. Seems noticeably better than 4.5 at keeping the codebase slim. Obviously it still needs to be kept an eye on, but it's a step up from 4.5.
  • nwienert 7mo ago
    Not clearly a step up for me, it's way more hesitant it seems and I don't notice context being larger at all it seems to compact just as often.
• zmmmmm 7mo ago
  I'm finding it quite a lot more assertive. It's doing things without asking every now and then. It cleaned up a whole lot of commented out of code that was unrelated to the change it was asked to make. Yes it's not great to have sections of commented out code, but destructive changes really should never be happening outside the scope of what it is asked to do. And it refuses to do things it doesn't think are on task - I asked it to write a poem about cookies related to the code and it said: > I appreciate the fun request, but writing poems about cookies isn't a code change — it's outside the scope of what I should be doing here. I'm here to help with code modifications. I don't think previous models outright refused to help me. While I can see how Anthropic might feel it is helpful to focus it on task, especially for safety reasons, I'm a little concerned at the amount of autonomy it's exhibiting due to that.
• gitprolinux 7mo ago
  I vibe code, then if I need another feature, I'll prompt it to do so, neat.
• alexandriaeden 7mo ago
  Been using Opus 4.6 daily for the past week or so building an MCP server. The agentic task sustain is real — it holds context across much longer multi-step implementations than 4.5 did. The adaptive thinking is a genuine quality-of-life improvement for mixed workloads where some calls need deep reasoning and others are straightforward. One trade-off I've noticed: it can overthink simple tasks at the default high effort setting. Dialing effort to medium for routine work and keeping high for complex problems has been the right pattern for me.