Hacker Newshttps://www.anthropic.com/claude-opus-5-system-card
Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49038433
Points: 984
# Comments: 526
Hacker News 讨论
1005 points · 534 comments · 查看原帖
- postalcoder
I think the most important thing here is not absolute performance. It's that organizations now have access to a Fable-ish model without Fable's 30-day data retention requirement[0]. > "Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 does not have data retention requirements for general access."[1] On the Opus model release page, the reason why Fable doesn't have an ARC-AGI score is because of that retention policy[2]. 0: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425996-data-retenti... 1: https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5 2: https://xcancel.com/arcprize/status/2064399134099153344
- jjcm
Doing testing with it now, specifically for image->html conversion. Previously Fable was the best at this, followed by Gemini 3.1 pro (a surprising #2, but Google has great vision models). Opus' results seem to be more accurate than Fable, following the design source of truth better. Example results: Design source of truth: https://image.non.io/73e239a3-880f-4793-b65f-4810be2d9378.we... Opus 5 build: https://html.non.io/solaraOpus/ Fable 5 build: https://html.non.io/solara/ Note the buttons - for fable they're pill buttons, opus got the rounded rectangle nature of them. Opus' images are closer to the source of truth as well (both LLMs were provided with image gen capabilities for the assets). Running more tests now, but preliminary results are saying this is indeed better than Fable in some areas. Crazy.
- paxys
Looking at all these releases it’s not a surprise that model routing is the fastest growing segment in AI right now. There are 10+ LLM companies, each with dozens of models of different modalities, each model with multiple size variants, then different “thinking” levels, then agentic modes, “pro” modes, a “fast” option, standard vs flex vs batch execution. And of course each end combination has a different input/output/cache token price. Companies that say “give me a prompt and I’ll route it to the most ideal and cost effective model and setting for you” are capturing a ton of value from a gap that model developers don’t seem to understand exists.
- rb2e
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5 - A blog post for those not wanting to go through a 190ish page pdf
- nerdsniper
Edit: It was pointed out to me that Opus 4.8 got "21%" for successfully fully completing ~1-in-5 tasks, but also got "55.7%" for obtaining significant partial credit on some of the ~4-in-5 tasks it could not fully complete. --------------- Why does Anthropic say here that Opus 4.8 scored 55.7% on OSWorld 2.0 benchmark, but the paper published by the authors of OSWorld 2.0 say they achieved a benchmark of ~21% with Opus 4.8? [0] That's a huge gap, considering that the paper was published just 2-4 weeks ago. I understand that the benchmark authors have an incentive to publish lower numbers (to show that the benchmark has potential longevity) and that Anthropic has incentive to publish higher numbers, but the other models seem pretty inflated as well. The benchmark authors shows GPT-5.5 at 14%, and Anthropic shows GPT-5.6 Sol at 62.6%. Is there any reasonable explanation for this? Do all th
- deet
I compared the writing style of Opus 5 vs Fable 5, and Opus 5 continues many of the "Claude-isms" of its 4.8 predecessor in a way that Fable broke away from. Opus 5 still uses "carry the argument", "worth stating plainly", ", and the trap", "The X matters more", the use of "move" We need an "annoying English" benchmark. - Fable 5 Max: https://gist.github.com/deet/3d97f854b48eac6658d642fa18bb24d... - Opus 5 Max: https://gist.github.com/deet/1a43693a732dfccb4d0d914bfc42692...
- HyperL0gi
Isn’t it just hilarious that a model that seemed so superior to Fable but didn't get doomsay marketing from Anthropic got released without any issues? In theory, this was supposed to be AGI level according to Anthropic, yet here we are, just a normal Friday.
- 6thbit
Their communication is confusing. They say "Opus 5 is not more capable overall than Fable 5", but their blog post proceeds to list how much better Opus 5 is than Fable 5 on __most__ benchmarks listed. Then system card goes on to "Its AI R&D capabilities are comparable to those of Claude Mythos 5", which is supposed to be fable minus restrictions.