Rendered at 10:01:23 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Sol- 16 hours ago [-]
Probably a first world problem, but with Opus 5.5's efficiency, the limits on the 5x plan are simply sufficient for my everyday work, even when running 2-3 sessions at a time. So I wonder when I would use Sonnet 5.5.
More concurrency than that isn't really practical for me if I want to retain some semblance of understanding. Perhaps it's different for purely web app or frontend tasks, where the outcome is more relevant than the process, I don't have much experience there (and also don't want to belittle these domains, I might be underestimating their complexity).
So surprisingly, my own work is at least for the time being almost saturated by the model capabilities. I am not sure how I'd scale from here. Sure I could run all requests at max effort to burn tokens for the sake of it, but that can't be it. And for many tasks, I am not really able to define so clear cut success criteria or self-verification loops that I could benefit from letting an agent (or a fleet thereof) autonomously run for a day.
So I realize it's a skill issue on my side, but I can't be the only one. I wonder if there is a limit to token demand, at least short term. Feels like either they accelerate to AGI and RSI, where the AI can find uses for token, or things might plateau at some point.
Note I don't think this because I'm an AGI skeptic or think there's a ceiling to intelligence, but there might simply be a valley of economic hardship for the companies where the supply of tokens outpaces the demand, due to a lack of ideas of what to do with them. And this might slow down the funding enough that they never reach escape velocity with the training run scaling. But we'll see.
miki123211 13 hours ago [-]
I find that "vibe coders" (that is, people who do not know anything about programming, but nevertheless produce useful tools for themselves and others) are using a lot more tokens than we do as programmers.
I think this is partially because we're still attached to pre-LLM notions of architecture, good design and code quality (which are still important, but maybe less important than they once were and that we think they are), partially because their projects are in a messy state, so models have to work around the technical dept.
They're essentially trading off programmer time for LLM time (which is a good trade financially speaking).
inopinatus 6 hours ago [-]
It's because they don't know data structures.
"Show me your flowcharts and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I won’t usually need your flowcharts; they’ll be obvious." - Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month (1975).
and essentially the same sentiment, three decades later:
"Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships." - Linus Torvalds, git mailing list, 2006.
These things have not changed even though everything else is topsy-turvy. As-of current writing, I have yet to see an LLM make good data structure choices; they go for something that is superficially plausible but profoundly ill-considered (or rather, not considered at all), and then commonly burn tokens treating this implementation detail as a design invariant and trying to deal with the consequences by writing more code, instead of iterating directly upon the ill-fitting data at the root its problems.
If you're wondering, "does he mean the schema of let's say a db or other persistent store, or does he mean abstract/algebraic structures", the answer is yes to both, I think coding models are today shockingly weak when it comes to design reasoning in both domains.
Fortunately, their suggestibility means the same models will readily accept direction on the matter (perhaps even more so than on the structure of code), so I recommend doing just that, and (bonus!) this means your CS degree is still relevant.
avmich 4 hours ago [-]
Watch LLM start paying attention to data structures.
stymaar 4 hours ago [-]
It's not going to happen naturally, the labs first need to implement a reinforcement learning pipeline that promotes it.
inopinatus 4 hours ago [-]
A coding model that can make genuinely well-considered data structure choices won't be a LLM, it'll be something more general.
hathawsh 3 hours ago [-]
While I agree that a coding model (such as Opus) by itself tends to act very shallowly, when it's driven by a harness like Claude Code, the combination seems to be a far more general thing than a LLM. It's capable of consistently making excellent data structure and architectural choices over large code bases. It imitates thinking about anything and it can drive itself for hours.
Honestly, if I simply fed it a sense of presence (I would repeatedly tell it what's going on right now and ask it to react if it thinks it should), it would feel eerily like AGI.
logicchains 3 hours ago [-]
Coding models can already make well-considered data structure choices if given all the relevant context, but a non-programmer doesn't know the context to give it or even to tell it to optimize the data structure choice.
gchamonlive 8 hours ago [-]
I think it's not only a matter of token efficiency. If you don't know what you are doing development will eventually crawl to a halt invariably.
It's the compound counter-probability of success, so even a 99% efficient model will in time accumulate so much error that without conscious cleanup and steering, it becomes really unlikely really fast that anything could be changed in the code without affecting something else, no matter how many tokens you throw at it. It's the collapse of a complex system under the weight of sheer uncertainty of what the system actually does.
baq 4 hours ago [-]
We’re at 99% for a lot of stuff today, you get a third nine from council reviews and labs have another one or two nines in the pipeline. At five nines your task length horizon extends far beyond the current frontier model release cadence. More out of distribution tasks lose a nine or two, still revolutionary. You can get an extra nine from a good set of skills around slicing and distributing work according to model capabilities.
xbmcuser 8 hours ago [-]
The llm are improving though maybe a year from now they can use it to fix the code
gchamonlive 8 hours ago [-]
Maybe, it'll be exciting to see, and I'm all about accessibility, but in this case I also don't think it's about model capability or intelligence, it's the low information to noise ratio in the codebase. There just won't be enough information in the code itself to know what to fix. Fix how? What should it do? I'm really not sure you can reconstruct intention from a codebase created unsupervised.
alexytsu 4 hours ago [-]
Commit the intention as specs. If tokens/intelligence become that much cheaper over time, then "throwing away the code" to start again becomes feasible.
noisy_boy 6 hours ago [-]
1. Implement feature and write tests for the code
2. Make sure tests pass
3. <Every now and then> Review code for quality and fix - make sure tests pass.
4. Go to #1
Overly simplistic? Yes. But I would wager that this can go a long way, even for vibe coders.
gbalduzzi 4 hours ago [-]
I keep seeing this but I'm not sure it is effective in the long run *if unsupervised*.
"Review quality and fix" doesn't mean a lot without context.
Does it mean to remove unused features and simplify the underlaying code? Does it mean changing the data structures to better support future development? Does it mean improving performance because of bottlenecks?
You are supposed to tell an LLM what your codebase needs, but if you just vibe code without knowing the code, "review quality and fix" will have unexpected results
neya 7 hours ago [-]
Fixing code is not the same as fixing a fundamentally broken architecture. The latter requires understanding that the architecture is broken in the first place and that understanding comes from experience.
internet2000 7 hours ago [-]
Can confirm, I'm currently using Opus 5.5 to fix some Opus 4.5 slop from around this time last year.
gobdovan 12 hours ago [-]
I think this is valid now, but not guaranteed to be valid forever. For engineers, there was a period where more checks, more tests, more auto code reviews improved results quite a bit. People were consuming tokens like crazy (including me). Then things improved via better effort/thinking levels, where you could see repeated code reviews plateaued, so now people don't really do that quite as much.
There was also a period where specifically OpenAI models would always have to comment something in code review and the builders were agreeable up to listening to each nitpick. If you'd have a loop of build->review->build->review, it would take maybe 5-7 rounds for it to 'settle' and not find the smallest nitpicks to argue about. Tried it this week with Astra reviewer and it's about 0-2 review loops (never had a LLM accept a change without nitpicking first try before Astra).
There was also a period where you'd have to give quite specific instructions for agents to keep iterating, but now agent are pretty proactive and try to finish tasks you give them unsurprisingly most of the time.
So, while there's a shortcoming of LLM+harness and engineers observe more tokens improve things even logarithmicly, you'll see more tokens seemingly abused by engineers.
djmips 7 hours ago [-]
> you'd have a loop of build->review->build->review, it would take maybe 5-7 rounds for it to 'settle' and not find the smallest nitpicks to argue about.
You sure that wasn't just working at Microsoft?
senderista 8 hours ago [-]
Astra is less nitpicky IME than Fable.
wahnfrieden 8 hours ago [-]
I’m seeing hundreds of review loops before settling, with Astra/Sol
furyofantares 10 hours ago [-]
For my normal work I take ownership of the code, and end up with the exact code I want. I still have it go off and do a good amount of work a lot of the time, still queue up multiple tasks at the same time a lot of the time. Sometimes I throw it all away and re-prompt once it's time to commit to it, sometimes edit what it made, sometimes have it edit what it made etc.
For all of my side projects I'm full-on vibe. Well, almost: I do have opinions on what kinds of code it should write and set up my projects to get that. But I don't LOOK at the code.
I use a LOT more tokens on my side projects. I can have it working more or less constantly and it doesn't take up that much of my attention, but it is FAR less token efficient.
seanhunter 40 minutes ago [-]
I’ve noticed some people re-prompt big tasks from scratch rather than iterating. This burns tokens very fast.
alkonaut 46 minutes ago [-]
I (a programmer) just did a pretty large task with Opus 5.5 that was a perfect fit for a big token eating task. It ate into my weekly budget in a way that made me have to use anthropics one-off "reset" they offer now.
Long story: we have a big legacy desktop app. It uses a big legacy UI component (a grid control), which we had a license for in an old version. Fast forward 20 years, and to be able to move to a new runtime for our app, we need to update the component. Someone had bought the company making the component and now charges north of $1k per developer per year. So instead of doing this, we had just lived with the very old version.
We had long thought of writing our own control to replace the proprietary, but it was always going to be a man-year of work we thought. But I thought I'd give it a try with AI now. I told Opus: look at our uses of that control (tens of thousands of lines of code, it has over 100 instances across our User Interface). Write a new control that would compile with the exact same app syntax. First just make a dummy implementation that throws on every call. Then start implementing. Make a test suite that can run both with our new control and the proprietary control, and test everything, every function that can be called in its public interface and every state that can be inspected from the public API. Verify that everything behaves exactly the same, and lock it in with thousands of tests. Finally, check that the control _looks_ exactly the same as the proprietary one. Render to bitmaps, figure out the rendering logic from observation, such as arithmetic for padding, font sizes, and so on. Compare pixels until it's exactly the same.
Basically: it was a mammoth coding task, but it was so extremely well specified that an LLM could easily just do it. It's a clean-room implementation of something with no tests, but we had a test double that could provide 100% of the expected behavior. The description was extremely short. "Make a new thing that works like the old thing, and prove that it does". Opus 5.5 finished this in a number of hours. 500 source files, several thousand unit tests, and html reports with image diffs from the reimplementation and the original control. It did not use any disassembly or such "cheating". Only observation of the public API and the behavior.
Do we need to deeply understand the implementation? Does the architecture matter? Not much in this case I'd argue. It was a black box to begin with and it remains a black box. If we notice a bug, we can always point it to the original proprietary control and say "there's a behavioral difference when doing X" and it will fix it, and lock it down with tests.
As a programmer it's kind of chilling. I had recreated for a few tens of dollars something that would cost $1000 per year to buy. Obviously it's not a complete implementation only the parts of the API we use. It likely still has some bugs. We don't get support, we get to maintain it ourselves. But the rate of reverse engineering this thing "black box" was frightening. It hasn't created anything novel. But we must realize that as programmers some times we have man-years of work that just isn't novel. And in the past, we didn't do this work at all.
I wonder if those who write and sell libraries like this will start having explicit no-reverse-engineering EULAs soon? Perhaps even explicitly mentioning AI/LLM use in analysis and reimplementation?_ Obviously the library we reimplemented was from 2005 so didn't mention AI... (It doesn't mention reverse-engineering either, luckily).
drbojingle 7 hours ago [-]
That and some have bridged the gap with tooling. starter projects+ Strick typing + dead code detection, linting rules and today's models can get you pretty far, especially if you plan out some basic architectural patterns with your starter kit.
It's not perfect but any means but it helps manage ones sanity.
spicyusername 8 hours ago [-]
Plenty of vibe coders who know a lot about programming producing useful tools and using tokens too.
drusepth 5 hours ago [-]
Indeed, I've been coding for ~25 years (competitively and in open source for many of them) and I max out at least two subscriptions' worth of tokens every week across a half dozen active projects.
I still code "by hand" sometimes (mostly Ruby/Rails, C#, and random languages for code golf) but just for fun at this point. Serious projects started being 95-100% AI over a year ago.
taliesinb 5 hours ago [-]
What are your half dozen active projects? And did AI use make you more ambitious about what those projects could be?
meowface 10 hours ago [-]
I am actually going to go out on a limb and guess the opposite of this is true, and that on average vibecoders burn tokens less readily than veteran software engineers. I could list several reasons why I think this would be likely. No idea which of us is empirically right, though.
(With exceptions for what I can only call the "manic vibecoders" with like 10 simultaneous weird slopprojects they're spewing out at once. Generally with each project itself being something related to vibecoding. Steve Yegge being an example of a "manic vibecoder-actual programmer" hybrid.)
vineyardmike 9 hours ago [-]
I’d think this matches my hypothesis. I’d say that I spend more tokens rewriting and fixing things, so that contributes more.
Also, I’d imagine the token-maxed user is a programmer that lives in chat. I’ll admit to having asked the LLM to move a method up/down in a file, and watched it burn tokens for a minute thinking and executing a menial task.
gbalduzzi 4 hours ago [-]
This I don't understand. I'm faster at moving the method then at prompting the LLM to do so
avadodin 54 minutes ago [-]
I would be faster than Claude or Gemma if I did it.
That's a big if though and the blank page syndrome was already getting worse long before AI.
With age, it becomes easier and easier to get angry at someone or something until they work as expected than it is to actually do it.
I think this is why we've been seeing the genius coders from two generations ago embracing vibe coding even before it was cool or any good.
hasbot 2 hours ago [-]
Sure, if it's right there in front of you in the editor. But if have to locate the file and the location within the file, it's easier to just type out what I want and have the LLM do it.
vineyardmike 2 hours ago [-]
Sometimes I don’t have the text editor/IDE open, and I’m just looking at the code in a PR or similar UI.
meowface 9 hours ago [-]
Same. I spend tokens on so much more than just the initial implementation of a feature I have an idea for.
bensyverson 10 hours ago [-]
If you have well-specified tasks, you can easily reach 10 simultaneous agents working on disjoint parts of the code in worktrees. That consumes tokens pretty quickly!
daemonologist 9 hours ago [-]
Personally, it takes me longer to write the specifications than it takes the model to implement them (and it takes me much longer to review the resulting code, although maybe that makes me old-fashioned). Consequently I do not have enough tasks to run more than one agent at a time.
gbalduzzi 4 hours ago [-]
Exactly. I don't understand how so many developers seem to have a long tail of well written task specifications ready to submit to the LLM.
Who produces them?
8n4vidtmkvmk 3 hours ago [-]
LLMs are good at cleaning up tech debt. Give them lots of small refactorings or dig out those crusty old P4 tickets.
There's a lot of easy stuff for them that requires very little specification and very high probability they'll get it right the first time, especially if you can point them at an example done right.
stymaar 4 hours ago [-]
I'm exactly in this situation, and at the same time I get so many jumpscares when reviewing the code that I'm not going to stop anytime soon.
thunky 10 hours ago [-]
Are they also telling each other what to do? Because I for one can't assign and keep track of 10 things at once.
bensyverson 10 hours ago [-]
I create large hierarchical plans, and have a coordinator agent divvy up the work. It's extremely effective.
nsonha 8 hours ago [-]
I created an orchestration skill for myself (using herdr but any persistent mechanism works). So I then only interact with a front session and it will triage and dispatch each request to the relevant spaces (each of them can have multiple worktrees of the same project), summarize movements and pending decisions for me all at once. I do not directly interact with a multiplexer or any dashboard.
FpUser 9 hours ago [-]
>"but maybe less important than they once were"
On browser based front ends it seems to be the case for me even though I still impose certain guidelines. On my C++ backends, no fucking way. Even the best models produce working but absolutely disastrous non scalable (performance wise and design wise) code unless watched over like a hen. Having said that - the value I get in either case is enormous.
tikhonj 9 hours ago [-]
I mean, they're trading off the time to learn to program for LLM time. Which might make sense! Locally.
But, in my experience, the projects where I have a constant pulse on the core design and abstractions in the code end up moving much faster than the ones where I don't. And I've been working on one of each at work recently, so I have a decent point of comparison.
satvikpendem 10 hours ago [-]
LLMs these days write better architected and produced code than most programmers, so the fallacy that LLMs produce slop code is increasingly false.
drewnick 9 hours ago [-]
Every new generation of model goes and cleans up the slop of its predecessor in my code bases, and it has turned out to be quite effective.
Last year I held off on implementing a few features knowing that a model like Opus 5.5 was around the corner. I'm now implementing them in a much more efficient and quality manner than I could have fall of 2025.
satvikpendem 4 hours ago [-]
Indeed. Maybe people down voting me don't like to admit it but when models train on the entirety of human input you can assume they'd be better than the average human.
Tanjreeve 60 minutes ago [-]
This is probably why web development and scripts are much more effective domains while anyone working on anything even slightly off the track is either tearing their hair out or writing a new layer of software to write the software.
maherbeg 15 hours ago [-]
There's lots more you can do! Use the model to monitor your deployments after they get deployed. Have them fix and watch CI issues for you. Run adverserial review. Automatically watch metrics every day and highlight performance regressions. Start reviewing your previous sessions to find ways to statically reject different failure modes and have the agent have more success earlier on etc.
Another thing to think about is, what would it take for you to care less about the understanding. Better integration / e2e tests? Performance validation? visualizing program and data flows? Better refactoring of your modules?
mattm 5 hours ago [-]
> what would it take for you to care less about the understanding
It's an interesting question. The thing I keep coming back to though is that every time I've tried to go more towards vibe-coding, I invariably look at the code and find things have been added that would just not be acceptable. I've also tried asking the models to see could be refactored however they still miss things that should be obvious.
I think the gap is that they're still lacking a sense of importance. As engineers working on a product, you have a sense that this feature is more important than that feature. An LLM treats your codebase at the same level of importance. So they'll spend the same amount of effort and code changes on testing and hardening something that just really isn't that important.
Also, once a bad pattern gets into the codebase, they just continue to build and extend that out rather than re-thinking about it like an engineer would.
ncruces 1 hours ago [-]
Not true. Claude is laser focused at finding the next load bearing thing. /s
klardotsh 13 hours ago [-]
The thing with watching CI in an agent loop is that it burns tons of tokens. At work I ended up writing a deterministic, traditional CLI tool to poll GitLab CI pipeline+job state changes on a branch and exit with an appropriate status code, and then updated my `/glab-ci-feedback` skill to use that. Saved a ton of token churn, and now I have a runbook a human could just as easily use if they don’t want to (or can’t) use an agent loop.
… but walking away to make a coffee and coming back to the robots auto-fixing bugs only found in CI is definitely some flavor of magic, regardless of the execution order to get there.
ipsi 13 hours ago [-]
FWIW, Claude Channels[1][2] are probably going to be the solution for that, eventually. While I'm not sure how the WebHook receiver example will work with, say, GitHub and a local Claude, the Chat side of things _would_. So you'd have GH send its web hook to Telegram (for example), and then the Telegram Channel MCP would inject that into Claude, and Claude would start working on the problem. Still experimental, but functional enough to play with.
This sounds... horrible? I mean, it's certainly a solution to the "wake up when this thing happens" problem, but... $SERVICE -> webhook -> $CHAT_APP -> MCP -> remote wakeup sounds both brittle and - as you said - the local code harness route is entirely unserved by something like this.
Am I having a yells-at-cloud moment where a bunch of folks are using cloud hosted LLM harnesses/environments (let's ignore the models, "of course" those are remote) and I just never saw the point?
wren6991 3 hours ago [-]
Hey now, if programming is solved they still need to achieve vendor lock-in somehow. Won't somebody please think of the vendors?
solatic 6 hours ago [-]
> The thing with watching CI in an agent loop is that it burns tons of tokens.
Not my experience with Claude Code.
> writing a deterministic, traditional CLI tool to poll GitLab CI pipeline+job state changes on a branch and exit with an appropriate status code
This is what Claude Code does, more or less, on the fly. With a short prompt like "I pushed, monitor CI and debug if needed", it writes a monitor script which is responsible for polling CI status (the script is short, so it's not token-heavy), and if CI fails, only then does the agent proceed to pulling out CI logs, grepping them for signs of errors, etc. as continuation to debugging.
I mean, I'm sure it's more token-efficient to have a CLI tool ready-to-go instead of Claude Code dynamically writing its own script each time, but as I'm on a Max sub where it doesn't seem to affect how close I am to the limits, and I only ever hit the limits if I'm running Fable for everything... /shrug
klardotsh 5 hours ago [-]
I guess folks' experiences with this stuff will vary wildly by what environment they work in. I use LLMs mostly at work, where I don't have any subscription plans, everything is billed per-token, and there's multiple coding harnesses with different token quotas available (and vastly different functionality). So the sharable CLI that works whether I'm in Claude Code (where tokens cost some outrageous amount) or Devin CLI (a horrible harness that also lacks any sort of scheduling system as far as I've ever figured out, but hey, there's GPT Luna and GLM available, at least) is a huge win.
unddoch 13 hours ago [-]
I think they are trying now to to bake CI awareness into Claude Desktop, didn't use it yet.
But meanwhile we also have the scripts - one script to watch CI, one script to fetch comments (without dumping raw graphql into the agent), etc etc. Can't wait for this phase to end already
maherbeg 13 hours ago [-]
Yeah the codex app can deterministically poll and watch for you too. Consider it like an event based trigger, where the event can be anything you can dream of (like webhooks!)
miki123211 13 hours ago [-]
I think that's what a future dev team is going to look like.
One person doing product management / talking to customers and vibe coding features that solve users' problems, one person keeping the UI/UX in check, one QA person that spends their time clicking through the software, finds the bugs that are obvious to humans but not LLMs and fixes them, and one "harness engineer" who pays off technical debt, observes failure modes and sets the rest of the team up for success.
emkoemko 9 hours ago [-]
why would there be customers? only customers will be of AI companies, you ask the AI and it will build the tool for you
bdamm 8 hours ago [-]
You're thinking that the entire economy will collapse down to just 3-4 vendors?
Human power and social structures just don't work that way. No AI company is making my sandwich, operating the bus, or serving soup in the school cafeteria. Real estate, human service, specialized expertise, and have-power influence isn't going away.
Hauthorn 14 hours ago [-]
> Another thing to think about is, what would it take for you to care less about the understanding.
Could you explain why it would be a goal to understand the system less, rather than more?
It seems harder to know if you have good tests while lowering your expertise in the system.
miki123211 13 hours ago [-]
Because humans are currently the bottleneck.
An LLM can produce far more code than a human can understand. And the famous rule that "optimizations are entirely pointless unless you're optimizing at the constraint" is logistics 101.
To accelerate software development, you either need to remove or lessen the need for code understanding, or make it much quicker for humans to gain that understanding. Making the LLM faster won't help you if the LLM isn't the bottleneck.
tshaddox 11 hours ago [-]
Humans could already produce more code than a human can understand. Even a single human in the pre-agentic era could produce more code than they could understand, certainly over a career and often even in the short term given the resources many companies give to maintenance.
A lot of old-school software engineering is about how to deal with this reality.
satvikpendem 11 hours ago [-]
No they couldn't. You can't create software you don't understand because you wouldn't even know what to type into the IDE in the first place. I don't understand claims like these, how exactly are people especially individuals producing more code than they could understand? Even at a huge corporation one might not understand all the code but surely they understand the part they're modifying because otherwise they wouldnt know how to modify it.
massysett 9 hours ago [-]
Yes, it’s possible for a person to create software he doesn’t understand himself. In the old days this was pasting from Stack Overflow and changing things until it worked.
In the old days even if I knew how the software worked when I wrote it, I’d have no idea how it worked when I looked at it weeks later.
It’s also easy to modify software without knowing how it works. This produces modifications that hopefully appear to work, but that break other things, sometimes unknown things.
tshaddox 8 hours ago [-]
I’m referring to competent engineers maintaining understanding over time of all the code they’ve produced. Long before agentic coding, codebases routinely grew beyond the comprehensive understanding of their own authors.
Of course less competent engineers (or anyone on a particularly disorganized or desperate day) can literally hand-write code they don’t understand even as they write it, but that’s not really what I’m talking about.
satvikpendem 4 hours ago [-]
As I said, you understand the part you're modifying because otherwise you wouldn't know how to modify it.
> literally hand-write code they don’t understand even as they write it
I find this literally impossible. How can you even start typing anything without knowing what to type?
klausa 2 hours ago [-]
There's understanding and there's understanding.
Have you never "fixed a bug", only to realize that you just papered over a single symptom, while the underlying bug is still intact?
People you're disagreeing with (I think!), would say that during your first attempt, you didn't _really_ understand the part you're modifying.
It is _very easy_ to do this in large codebases, and even more so when working on anything touching UI.
andrewaylett 12 hours ago [-]
A human can produce far more code than a human can understand, too, but pre-LLM we always viewed someone overwhelming their colleagues like that as being bad at their job.
gr_norm 11 hours ago [-]
I want to make better software, not more software. Making software development faster isn't necessarily the goal. Making it better in the many, many ways that matter (of which speed is just one part) is.
satvikpendem 11 hours ago [-]
There is more software to be written than there were programmers so lots of people do indeed want more software, for example small tools and one off projects that aren't worthwhile to make pre LLM.
jimbokun 6 hours ago [-]
Many people want less software to deal with now, not more. Being forced to download and update apps on your phone that previously could be done without an app, for example.
satvikpendem 4 hours ago [-]
Which people? They want the right kind of software, that which works for them, not garbage.
smeej 10 hours ago [-]
I'm looking forward to the making of more software. I think there are probably people who have had really useful software ideas for a long time that they'd never be able to raise money for, but now for $20 a month, they can get up and running, serving their local and/or niche communities, without having to hire a team of engineers.
Eventually we're going to reach a point where they don't have to understand the code themselves. The democratization of software creation is going to be fascinating.
ThrowawayR2 9 hours ago [-]
The Android/iOS app store is already flooded with low quality apps. Almost 20,000 games have been released on Steam so far in 2026, that averages to about 70 games per day, every single day. Getting any kind of traction in such a environment is hopeless; every new app might as well be a scream into the void.
jimbokun 6 hours ago [-]
Right.
So accelerate the vibe coding of shit nobody wants or asked for, just to see some metric go up somewhere.
Are we still getting bonuses for the number of tokens we can burn?
maherbeg 13 hours ago [-]
There's different layers of understanding the system. I generally care about high level data flow, concurrency and performance (batching, holding transactions too long, back pressure etc.) rather than the mechanics of how the code actually does a thing. I still look to see what the final output looks like and ask my agent questions on how it fits in the larger system and evolve things if necessary, but agents are pretty good at writing code if the rest of the code base looks pretty decent.
13 hours ago [-]
tshaddox 12 hours ago [-]
More tests that aren’t written by you don’t help you understand the system, and I would argue the there’s no confidence without understanding. That was true in the pre-agentic era and is perhaps even more true now.
willtemperley 6 hours ago [-]
> Another thing to think about is, what would it take for you to care less about the understanding
Yes please, I'd like to not understand my codebase, give up my decades of experience and have a machine do everything for me. That way I can let captialism utterly steamroller me because of my paltry token stack, in comparison to the 19 year old vibe coder who has secured a new funding round for ponzi.ai
jimbokun 7 hours ago [-]
Absolutely fucking nothing.
I want to understand more about how the world around me works. Not less.
Humanity advances in proportion to how well we understand the world. If the machines understand better than us, the world will bend to fit their preferences, and ours only incidentally to the extent they coincide with the machines.
datadrivenangel 15 hours ago [-]
Opus 5.5 on Low seems smarter, cheaper, and faster than sonnet on medium, so what's the point of sonnet?
xgb84j 14 hours ago [-]
Claude Code has the issue that sub agents inherit the thinking level. This means that to use a smarter or dumber sub agent you need a different model. That's not a particularly good reason, but that's my one use case for Sonnet.
mnicky 12 hours ago [-]
You can also create custom agents with defined effort levels and use those.
copperx 14 hours ago [-]
Or just use a better harness.
jpease 13 hours ago [-]
Being that my first prompt can be something like: for task x/issue y, which model would strike the best balance between cost and capability…
It seems like it would be a better UX to have model and effort selection asked into the system. Of course, I’m not sure in practice if that would be in the best interests of the providers and/or users.
crooked-v 13 hours ago [-]
> Run adversarial review.
Be careful about this one if you want to have any level of control over basic stuff like comment style and accuracy. Claude will happily spend 20 review cycles in a row rewriting the same 10 comments for a small bugfix over and over because it can recognize "Claude-ese" in the review cycle but then just immediately and compulsively spew out more of it and drift even further from your style rules in the next "fix".
I'm seriously not joking about the 20 tries, I left it running in the background for what should have been a minor code change and it took 18 out of 20 review cycles to stop writing in more comments that all either broke my ASE-STD100ish style rules or included false statements about the code.
mattm 5 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I made this point above but LLMs just don't have a good sense of importance. They treat everything at the same level of importance and can spend considerable effort on things that just don't really matter.
maherbeg 13 hours ago [-]
lol yeah, our review bot does a cost based analysis and pauses itself until you re-resume if it goes over a threshold.
randerson 22 minutes ago [-]
While I mostly use Opus for coding, I use Sonnet in my actual application, because it is far cheaper at scale. I have Sonnet parse user free-text input, understand it and return the meaning as structured json. It doesn't need advanced reasoning, just a good enough understanding.
phainopepla2 16 hours ago [-]
It's the "semblance of understanding" you're holding on to that is keeping your demand limited. I'm holding onto it as well, but I think these companies are assuming that human understanding will no longer be relevant for most codebases going forward.
Imustaskforhelp 15 hours ago [-]
> It's the "semblance of understanding" you're holding on to that is keeping your demand limited. I'm holding onto it as well, but I think these companies are assuming that human understanding will no longer be relevant for most codebases going forward.
In short, seems to describe vibe-coding to me?
What I don't understand about companies attempting to vibe code is if they realize that other people (especially sometimes their customers) can tailor-made their own software for their own needs, or rather competitors can be dime a dozen and maybe even a fight for constantly paying for the better model.
There was a comment[0] from a just few days ago by @jjcm (which I wish to quote which I hope they don't mind.):
> I just got back from a 2 week trip to China. I was in some of the more remote parts and my cell wasn't able to connect to their towers in that area, resulting in me not having the tourist VPN.
> The side effect was I was fully cut off from my AI tools for those two weeks. I was coding "manually" during that time, and I think I accompished in two weeks what I previously had been able to do in a day. I'm not gonna lie, it was very, very stressful as a solo founder.
> The industry moves so fast these days, that the only way to keep up with the speed is to leverage them. While I can appreciate the push of this to help your brain think independently/critically, the opportunity cost of a month of development without LLMs is too high a price to pay.
What happens if the opportunity cost of a month of development with vs without human understanding becomes too high a price to pay. I feel like we would be in awkward time because of the factors that I had described above (higher competition, software stops meaning just as much software as people would be custom-making them.)
I think that (former fly.io's) @tptacek's article[1] starts making more sense if viewed from this direction: What even is an OS now.
I don't have the answer to this question as to what happens next but its a form of development that I would prefer not to happen on a more gut instinct level?
Letting AI basically control everything and us not having any mental understanding of sorts and sort of becoming the meat-proxies just for economical reasons seems realistic possibility but a bleaker reality at that. I am left feeling a little bit uncomfortable if this reality turns out to be true.
> Letting AI basically control everything and us not having any mental understanding of sorts and sort of becoming the meat-proxies just for economical reasons seems realistic possibility but a bleaker reality at that. I am left feeling a little bit uncomfortable if this reality turns out to be true.
For the past year I’ve been yo-yo-ing in and out of existential despair about the future of civilization depending on how I feel the answer to this question looks. It’s emotionally exhausting, on top of everything else, and I wonder how others are coping with it aside from denial and cynicism.
ihumanable 14 hours ago [-]
It sorta feels to me like extrapolating from "the internet has all the knowledge for free" to "we won't need tradespeople anymore"
Why hire a plumber when you can just watch some youtube videos and do it yourself?
Why pay someone else for their software when you can just make your own?
Because the hard part of making software wasn't *just* writing the code. It was about understanding the problem well enough to understand what the solution should look like.
I feel like as software engineers we should be pretty familiar with what it's like talking to your average user, they will sometimes understand the root cause of what's making their task difficult (although often will get focused on some annoying but ultimately trivial symptom) and have very disasterously bad ideas on how to solve it.
What we've given them with generative AI is a machine they can put their sometimes ok, sometimes questionable understanding of the problem and their dreadful solutions and it will happily churn away building it regardless of how pointless and silly it is.
A future where every user can tell the AI "We keep getting the sales tax wrong, remove charging sales tax from the checkout flow" isn't one I'm terrifically worried about.
In the same way that having access to information about plumbing didn't suddenly make everyone plumbers, having access to a machine that will implement every idea you have regardless of quality doesn't suddenly make everyone a software engineer.
theturtletalks 11 hours ago [-]
The plumbing analogy doesn’t match software. You pay for a plumber once and you can always choose a new plumber. With software, it’s a monthly fee that will continue to increase over time. More features behind higher tiers. And probably taking and selling your data. So why wouldn’t a person try to build something custom for their needs? They have the ultimate feedback loop of actually using the product and telling AI the issue and having AI fix it. Most software people create are probably something they never used it their lives. But the best software comes from people building it that also use it. Even Shopify started when Tobi started a snowboarding store online and couldn’t suitable e-commerce software.
You’re right about people not watching plumbing videos and doing it themselves. But the equivalent example would be open-source software in the tech example. But instead of reading open-source code to see how different features were implemented, AI can go and dig into the code and figure it out.
zer00eyz 9 hours ago [-]
> With software, it’s a monthly fee that will continue to increase over time.
The fact that you think this is the way software is priced is telling.
The model being destroyed here is that every piece of software is something that needs to generate recurring revenue.
theturtletalks 7 hours ago [-]
You’re right, the monetization of software is fading and building actual moats is becoming difficult. If you have distribution, regardless of your app, you still have a long run way.
I was more pointing out that software gets enshittified. A plumber necessarily doesn’t and if the plumber does get worse, you can call a different one next time. Software, especially B2B, has switching costs and lock in. So you just have to put up with it.
Another point is that most software started with a few features and to get more market share and support more use cases, it became worse for the users using the early features. That’s why they try to build their own so it’s not bloated with features you will never use.
munificent 13 hours ago [-]
> I wonder how others are coping with it aside from denial and cynicism.
There are a lot of horrible potential scenarios that are really scary to contemplate. There are also a lot of really delightful ones where AI does the drudge work, invents a million incredible medicines, and frees us up to hang out and make art all day. And there are even more scenarios somewhere in the middle where AI changes a lot of stuff but we all still more or less end up going to work and doing jobs.
I've basically had a background thread in my skull running at high priority for the past two years trying to predict which of those scenarios I think are most likely so that I can plan for them. It is utterly exhausting spending that many mental resources on a question like that.
It finally clicked for me a couple of weeks ago that no one is going to be able to accurately predict all the thousands of ways AI will affect the world. Certainly not me. We are living in unprecedented times. No one has a map for the future.
So I am trying to loosen my hold on the future some and focus more on the present. I have a great job and a great family now. I have most of my health. I'll try to live my life right now to the fullest and in accordance with my values. The future is going to have to be future me's problem. That's OK.
RGS1811 13 hours ago [-]
This made me a bit emotional. Thank you for the beautiful response.
munificent 12 hours ago [-]
You're welcome, and I'm glad it helped. Now more than ever, we have to try to connect with actual humans and take care of each other.
Imustaskforhelp 6 hours ago [-]
> So I am trying to loosen my hold on the future some and focus more on the present. I have a great job and a great family now. I have most of my health. I'll try to live my life right now to the fullest and in accordance with my values. The future is going to have to be future me's problem. That's OK.
One of the quotes which might help as well (I think I have this even in my HN profile): The only thing we know about the future is that it will surprise us.
Not even experts are much more likely to predict for what its worth than a coin toss in many cases (especially if they believe that only one theory/idea will mostly predict the future)
It's a blend of things and ideas and the sheer interconnectedness of them where a small pocket can grow large and then also shrink and taking into account all variables and factors is just simply impossible for a mind. I think that although we feel we are being more informed about the world, that in it of itself doesn't prevent things in the future from happening. It just makes us alert and sad and anxious about it.
Yet this life is one which shouldn't be lived with sorrow and anxiety. It is one of beauty and greatness. In many ways, we humanity have come so far from the past (Our medicine is something that not even the mightiest of kings could get) and yes, there are many problems in the world and some things feel as if they are staying just the same or getting worse real-time.
But even then, worrying about it could lead to nowhere other than a path of misery. Also these problems are complicated enough that its extremely hard for a single person to bring change (not that I wish to demotivate that person but rather seeing the system as a complex nature)
So to me, its also a form of inward action. I can work on myself to be better prepared for the world that comes next. In the same time, I think that the present for me as well is good. I have great family and friends and have many qualities that I am proud of and I wish to share that gratitude to the people who have helped me along the way (my family/friends/ Hackernews!.)
Within the hustle culture, there is no time to relax but it is within the time of relax that I believe some of the most fruitful actions can come. I believe it just makes my mind more productive being in a calmer state.
here's a quote from how to measure your life that I hope can help some people:
I genuinely believe that relationships with family and friends are one of the greatest sources of happiness in life. It sounds simple but like any important investment, it needs constant attention and care(...)
You'll be tempted to invest your resources elsewhere but if you don't nurture these relationships, they won't be there to support you in hardships or as one of the most important sources of happiness in your life.
So thank you hackernews and have a nice day and please, please try to say gratitude towards someone close to you (within these tough times) and try to keep a balance towards inward focus, sharing time with friends/family and also writing on hackernews (as is my past time nowadays), balance is necessary :-D
So once again, I hope that its a call to action to say gratitude towards anyone. Just send them a big message thanking them and make their day as well as yours memorable, have a nice day!
Also you are allowed to make mistakes (everyone makes them!) and even though I am saying (preaching?) these things, I have found myself sometimes failing to act on these things as well but I just think that these help in being more mindful about them hopefully and can help provide a perspective. I wish to adopt more of these things in my life myself as well hopefully :-D
[Pardon me for the long post]
jimbokun 6 hours ago [-]
Being part of an organized faith community really helps with this sort of thing.
Not sure how atheists are coping with the existential risks we are facing.
boromisp 3 hours ago [-]
How does it help?
You either keep in mind all the horrifying little possibilities the future could hold for us and try to prepare, accept and cope, or you push it out of your mind using whatever techniques available to you to not drive yourself into nervous spirals.
Ultimately it comes down to what your brain chemistry allows in combination with ways you practiced dealing with stress, existential dread, cognitive dissonance, etc.
I guess submission to a higher power is one way to deal with it? That way it's no longer your problem (alone).
andrepd 14 hours ago [-]
Damn, yet they still hire programmers, marketers, researchers like there's no tomorrow. I thought everything would be vibe coded and we wouldn't need to even understand code anymore. Which one is it?
The proof of the pudding.
egeozcan 15 hours ago [-]
I created a team of agents using Opus 5.5 to review and address findings on a job system I have in a side project with medium reasoning, and I burned through the 20x plan weekly limit in 2.5 days. They were using GPT-6-Sol for reviews, and it also used 85% of my OpenAI x5 weekly limit. Three hundred something commits in total.
OTOH, in the daily job, I have the team plan that's similar to 5x plan and I never had any limit problems, because I really need to understand be able to take responsibility for the code.
Totally different uses.
czhu12 7 hours ago [-]
The other thing too is that I’m having a hard time reviewing these massive PRs that are being generated. So much so that I’m having it write me a book (also vibe coded) that I can read through to learn about all the stuff it did as part of the pr review
https://ai-lessons.oncanine.run/
7 hours ago [-]
richardw 43 minutes ago [-]
API. Get significantly smarter than Haiku at lower cost than Opus.
eonmatrix 50 minutes ago [-]
I'd use it for some of the lesser roles in oh-my-pi (omp) like commits.
gregwebs 16 hours ago [-]
> I want to retain some semblance of understanding
How you do this (and how deeply) I think is really the limit. I am doing this by focusing heavily on the design phase with grilling and trying to continually improve process to need less effort in the review phase.
Are your models doing automated reviewing and testing before pushing out the PR (themselves)?
I think in the long run as models and the tools around them get better and cheaper, those that abdicate understanding will be able to achieve more. Although programmers think of that as irresponsible, ask yourself what does a tech lead do? And then what does a CTO do, etc?
jwpapi 13 hours ago [-]
I think going for more understanding is the way you need less understanding. The more solid your core understanding of your codebase is the less you need to know the details, the less missunderstandings the less iterations needed, the less mental capacity consumed
mrbonner 9 hours ago [-]
I have been using the “free” Ling Flash model on openrouter for a bit over a month now. My work is an aside project at home building a Rust binding for an open source Zig code base library. The result is nothing impressive but also not a total failure: I have a feature parity binding to use in Rust vs. Python/java/typescript.
Now, during those night and weekend sessions, I have never run into throttling issues with the free model. Sometimes it runs a bit slow and I switch to a different free model (NVIDIA Nemo something).
So yeah, I agree with you that for professional SDE like us, we don’t consume that much tokens. I’m pretty sure the folks on the line of over limit are pure vibe coders if I can take a wild guess.
y42 3 hours ago [-]
When working with a whole bunch of sub-agents, like you probably would do when coding, 2-3 sessions at a time are probably not enough. Like I build very specific sub-agents for code review, ui review and so on. Within one project I work with at least 3 - 4 agents then. Using Opus on every task would not leave room for other everyday-tasks.
konsnos 3 hours ago [-]
Sometimes it's not about token usage but speed of the task.
I am using Sonnet 5.0 in browser (btw Claude in Chrome extension works in Edge) to download Datadog logs with multiple filters. It's running for about an hour, doesn't run out of tokens and does a splendid job.
raincole 8 hours ago [-]
If I follow the principle "every single line of AI-generated code has to be reviewed and understood by me," I can't even use up the $20 subscription.
selcuka 6 hours ago [-]
I do that and can use up the $20 subscription, but I haven't been able to hit the limits with the 5x subscription so far (even though I use Fable for making plans).
chrismustcode 15 hours ago [-]
Cache read is the same as Opus as well where most agentic workflow cost comes from.
Not quite sure where this fits well. Maybe small one one off requests like using Claude desktop/web?
afro88 15 hours ago [-]
I've been vibe coding a game and running multiple Opus 5.5 in parallel on Claude Code Cloud, 5x Max plan, and I'm yet to hit a session limit too. Not sure when I'd use Sonnet. Though it would be nice to switch back to Pro I guess
hamburglar 4 hours ago [-]
This is boat I’m in too. I get a ton out if my pro subscription, and I don’t hit the limits, but my Microsoft buddy was just griping about how the company recently imposed $10000/month token budgets on his team and he blew through his quota on under a day. The mind boggles.
alansaber 15 hours ago [-]
When they inevitably drop allocation after post-launch hype dies down.
huntertwo 13 hours ago [-]
Plan longer chains of work / higher level goals that can be broken down into multiple chains of work. This will allow you to automate more work units to be worked on.
The speed of your manual reviews become the limiting factor, which you should be doing at some level to maintain sanity, even if there are enough ideas to be worked on to maintain a review queue.
losvedir 16 hours ago [-]
Useful for API requests, when using AI in the product rather than to build the product.
neuronexmachina 15 hours ago [-]
Most business/enterprise accounts also have to pay API rates.
losvedir 15 hours ago [-]
Exactly. I'm saying that Sonnet 5.5 might not be useful or necessary in a Claude Code session but it could be good value in the API when you pay per token.
jcrben 10 hours ago [-]
Does that mean you're doing work week by week that is well-scoped and planned for that week and you can't pick up the work for next week until that week happens? It just seems like mostly programmers work on things that extend out for a long time and you can kind of just throw more at the problem and pull it forward earlier
doctoboggan 16 hours ago [-]
I am mostly at the same point right now you are, but I think in the future with those "gas town" ideas we might be managing even more agents each.
Also, I've recently begun experimenting with specific tasked agents running on a cron like timer for non-dev work. (checking emails, managing small business tasks, etc). Once I started using Claude code in this way, the number of agents I can imagine running has skyrocketed. So I guess what I am saying is that I look forward even cheaper tokens going forward.
cft 1 hours ago [-]
I ran out of Opus 5.5 20x plan in 4 days out of 7, so my experience is different from yours.
schwarzrules 16 hours ago [-]
The only advantage I could anticipate is I still hit session limits with Opus 5.5. My usage shows I'm on-track reach my weekly reset with room to spare, but yesterday I ran into a session limit. I switched down to Sonnet 5 for the next session, but performance benefit of Sonnet 5.5 is a compelling alternative for managing session limits.
mgaunard 12 hours ago [-]
I find that I can do 4 to 7 sessions in parallel, and still review everything in depth and co-design.
I mostly use Fable though, Opus only via sub-agents.
JMKH42 16 hours ago [-]
One reason might be that Sonnet tends to be a lot faster, so since its almost as smart as opus maybe you use it to get work done quicker. In latency terms not throughput.
smb06 10 hours ago [-]
I expect they’ll change usage limits in some of the plans or introduce new plans with new limits
bossyTeacher 4 hours ago [-]
> Probably a first world problem, but with Opus 5.5's efficiency, the limits on the 5x plan are simply sufficient for my everyday work, even when running 2-3 sessions at a time. So I wonder when I would use Sonnet 5.5.
Not every user of Claude is a programmer. Or even exclusively a worker. Claude has uses beyond work. Something that many in HN struggle to understand.
eptcyka 11 hours ago [-]
Try telling an agent to go through your backlog.
Imustaskforhelp 16 hours ago [-]
I understand the point that you are making but why do we have to fulfill the supply just as much as demand. There is a demand frenzy going on right now with still being substantially subsidized.
Why do we have to burn tokens just for the sake of it if we aren't finding any actual productive use of them?
> And this might slow down the funding enough that they never reach escape velocity with the training run scaling. But we'll see.
I would consider this to be good rather than bad, or just neutral...? Given the past record of these companies, I wouldn't try to wish them luck for reaching escape velocity, as if I feel like perhaps it can have more net harm than positive.
And especially so if you are already suggesting that current models are good enough for your work already. More improvements or escape velocity might not really translate anywhere to the actual work that you are doing economically but it could translate into a more consolidated form of wealth and control.
I am imagining that your workload is quite complicated and that, the AI being good enough means that it is most likely good "enough" for other use cases as well (that "enough" is doing quite some heavy weight lifting here)
So what is the point of advancing further to reach escape velocity. The good argument (for the sake of neutrality) that i see is are advances within science but that's kinda about it whereas the downsides of p(doom) as many are now genuinely suggesting is more terrifying.
Perhaps it can be worth it to ask, shall we stop or just stopping and asking what's the point. A form of self introspection on what these companies ideals actually wanted when they were formed and if they have completed it or not, but I suppose when trillions of dollars depend on you, you do have some incentives to not stop. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out.
jtrn 11 hours ago [-]
Subagents.
bbor 16 hours ago [-]
More concurrency than that isn't really practical for me if I want to retain some semblance of understanding.
Yes. Our career is over, as is our economy. Soooo... FYI :(
jobs_throwaway 15 hours ago [-]
> we now have programmatic intelligence powerful enough to do most white-collar work
Oh, it coded a Pac-Man clone. The clone was so good that I thought it was premade in some way and that Sonnet was going to play PacMan.
thefourthchime 15 hours ago [-]
Yes! The point being that up until yesterday, every model struggled with this, and now they don't.
copperx 14 hours ago [-]
"this" being recreating Pacman specifically, or games?
londons_explore 13 hours ago [-]
I made ~10 games with opus 5.5 (all multiplayer web games over web sockets).
About half the time it made a playable game in a single short prompt. The other half of the time a few follow-up prompts were needed for refinement (eg. Things like "the blaster weapon is way too powerful, divide it's hit points by 10" or "we need a way to reconnect a player whose network dropped mid round" or "the GPS doesn't work on iOS")
copperx 13 hours ago [-]
Other models fail at oneshot creation of similar games?
thefourthchime 14 hours ago [-]
Your welcome!
sixtyj 14 hours ago [-]
I have played few of them and it seems that Opus 5.5 is the first one who really made playable PacMan clone game. On mobile as well.
Could it be because the model was somehow pre-trained? If we compare it with pelicans that are still not-perfect…
lukan 2 hours ago [-]
" If we compare it with pelicans that are still not-perfect…"
Cool page and benchmark idea! Would be nice if there was some kind of grading the results, maybe on different criteria (aesthetic, implementation complexity, correctness, ...). Of course as a one-shot and greenfield benchmark the results are not indicative for all kinds of usage patterns. But as some sibling said, maybe they can be indicative on some general characteristics (especially since the task is so open-ended).
thefourthchime 11 hours ago [-]
Just added! I had Opus 5.5 look at them, not a perfect way to score them but it's close-ish -- Best would be a ELO, where people play both and rank a winner, but I don't know if people want to bother doing that.
coopykins 2 hours ago [-]
Surprising how cheap Sol 6 was.
nicce 13 hours ago [-]
I was able to get similar with Qwen 3.8 27B with one shot. I think this game is too well in the training data.
pyaamb 13 hours ago [-]
Very cool. I'd love to see someone with access to plenty of token$ make something similar for the "Browser Desktop OS" test. That seems like a pretty comprehensive test thats also fun to test just like this!
ilamont 14 hours ago [-]
Thank you for doing this. It is very helpful not just for capabilities but also for costs.
sunaookami 12 hours ago [-]
GPT models really have no taste huh.
russellbeattie 15 hours ago [-]
Wow, that "bake off" page is better than any coding benchmark I've seen! You can really sense the strengths and weaknesses of each model/harness combo.
thefourthchime 14 hours ago [-]
Thanks!
fakedang 13 hours ago [-]
Interesting. Sonnet 5 was horrible, and Opus 5 was unplayable, but both Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 were about as close to the real thing.
formvoltron 13 hours ago [-]
oh! How about pengo, dig dug, & defender?
thefourthchime 11 hours ago [-]
I'm afraid those will be too easy. I'm not sure what the next game should be...
vincengomes 4 hours ago [-]
For the folks asking what is the point of Sonnet 5.5 when Opus 5.5 is better in every way, Sonnet is now the new default in the free tier and now people using Claude Web in the free tier get access to an almost close to the frontier model.
ddxv 3 hours ago [-]
I've been using the Claude free tier (browser chat) for awhile and never seem to hit restrictions anymore. There used to be many more restrictions a year ago. At the same time, if they enforce a minimum paid tier I'd probably just switch to Gemini/ChatGPT or whatever other free model is around at the time.
etatester 1 hours ago [-]
Hello fellow copy-paster. I hit them regularly when asking for medium refactors with higher effort. I have ChatGPT in another tab for when that happens, but to me it's awful for anything non-trivial. Gemini I don't even consider unless I'm just asking "what would Gemini do"
geokon 1 hours ago [-]
I've never hit anything with Qwen. Very rarely it will silently switches from 3.8 to 3.7 (which makes it notably dumber) but you just click the drop down at the top to switch back. It's rare though. I have >week convos with no switching
abejora 16 hours ago [-]
Sonnet 5.5 scoring higher (70.6) than Opus 5.5 (66.4) in Terminal-Bench is interesting. I looked into this, because it felt strange.
Turns out that Opus had 10% of its trials answered by a fallback model due to safeguards; versus only 1.5% fallbacks for Sonnet. [1] So I would not read too much into this, just the difference in fall backs could probably explain the gap.
[1] Section 8.5 of the Sonnet 5.5 System Card
eli 16 hours ago [-]
Why isn't that worth reading into? I care about the experience of actually using the model, not hypothetically what it could achieve without overactive guardrails
abejora 16 hours ago [-]
You're right about its real world performance, and I worded my original comment wrongly.
I was merely thinking of the theoretical aspect of it: performance of opus 5.5 is better than sonnet 5.5 across the board, with the exception of Terminal-Bench. So I was curious why this one stood out. Was it because they focused on it during training? Did sonnet 5.5 had access to more references for this benchmark? But based on my first reading, I concluded that it might just be the safety constraints that made the difference here, and I wanted to share that.
joeyhage 15 hours ago [-]
Claude, is that you?
bb-connor 13 hours ago [-]
you're absolutely right to push back
ramon156 14 hours ago [-]
Your clarification makes sense. The distinction between overall benchmark performance and why Terminal-Bench is an outlier is important
swiftcoder 14 hours ago [-]
> You're right about its real world performance, and I worded my original comment wrongly.
Damn, HN commenters starting to talk in claudisms now
verdverm 14 hours ago [-]
this is human writing...
this is claude writing...
corporate needs you to find the difference
spider-mario 1 hours ago [-]
You can read “a little bit” (i.e. “not too much”) into it (it does indeed tell you about the out-of-the-box experience), but e.g. being able to know when a fallback model has been used means that in terms of pure accuracy, you might still be better off defaulting to Opus 5.5 and re-routing to Sonnet 5.5 yourself when you get the fallback.
chis 14 hours ago [-]
Well presumably now it’ll fall back to Sonnet 5.5 lol
subscribed 15 hours ago [-]
I disagree, I think we should read a lot from it, as it stands in this benchmark Opus performs worse than Sonnet, it doesn't really matter why.
Anthropic made it that way, and I'd say the lower score is accurate.
bitexploder 10 hours ago [-]
If you care about the things terminal bench cares about, yes. Sonnet was probably trained aggressively on agentic coding and things that align well with deepswe and terminal bench and or tuned heavily for those tasks. Sonnet is an agent likely to do more of those tasks and be given the more grunt work tasks. Whilst Opus' wider knowledge pool means it can deal with a much higher variety of real world situations successfully. And, those benches are often timed or limited. Opus may have been running out of time. Looots of factors.
subscribed 1 hours ago [-]
I see you.
I just think that this benchmark measures what it say it does, and if the model is unable or unwilling to deliver, it's reflected in the score.
(incidentally I found that generating code with Sonnet agent and having Opus orchestrate and manage the process works best for me - right model for the right task - the results run in the places and the way it's okay. No one outside uses it :p)
I agree with your point - IMO lower Opus score in these suggests that in general it's worse for these tasks. Not that it's a worse model in general.
cromka 10 hours ago [-]
It matters if it's not Sonnet performing the task, doesn't it?
subscribed 1 hours ago [-]
*Opus
But yeah, it does, but from my perspective it measured the Opus performance - subpar in some tasks because it downgraded itself rerouting to a much weaker model.
So both you're right, it matters because it wasn't the model examined, and it doesn't matter because the score reflects nerfed experience resulting in nerfed results.
Leary 16 hours ago [-]
And Sonnet 5.5 is more expensive than Opus 5.5 to hit that score on terminal bench!
radlad 16 hours ago [-]
I believe you meant to cite the Opus 5.5 System Card which states:
> Claude Opus 5.5 scored 66.36% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 with safeguards enabled; requests flagged by the safeguards were answered by a fallback model following the default server-side fallback policy (2.5% of requests, affecting 10% of trials).
it could be that, it could also be that sonnet max looks to burn about 60% more tokens than opus max
AA intelegence index (agent harness doesn't have sonnet data yet) on max:
Astra 27k
Fable 5.1 78k
(Sonnet 5) 118k
Opus 5.5 119k
Sonnet 5.5 193k
Opus 5 was previous record holder so hats off to Anthropic on blowing it away on token churn.
MadameMinty 16 hours ago [-]
That's frankly hilarious. What was the fallback for Opus 5.5? Was it Sonnet 5 or 5.5?
I suppose it also explains how FrontierCode scores seriously dip at Opus/Xhigh and Sonnet/Max?
manojlds 15 hours ago [-]
Fallback was usually Opus 4.8
Aissen 3 hours ago [-]
Note that it seems that it no longer falls back automatically. So the actual score of Opus 5.5 will be even lower (fail vs fallback than can succeed)
manojlds 15 hours ago [-]
Isn't that a worry then that the same bench has so much difference in what triggered fallback for one model and what did not in another?
verdverm 13 hours ago [-]
this "feature" is one of the primary that caused me to cancel and move to exclusively open weight based systems
falcor84 14 hours ago [-]
So I suppose the easy fix for Anthropic would be to have Opus 5.5 now fall back to Sonnet 5.5, right?
azuanrb 10 hours ago [-]
Unless you’re using frontier models like Astra, Sol, Fable, or Opus, I think you’re often better off using Chinese models for a fraction of the price. I’m not sure people realises just how competitive they’ve become.
GLM and DeepSeek are great examples. They’re a bit like Linux or Android in that there isn’t necessarily one best provider. You need to do some research, try a few, and pick whatever works best for your use case.
I think that’s partly why Anthropic has been pushing its most expensive models so heavily for a while now. Sonnet and Haiku were great, but at that level of intelligence it’s becoming much harder for them to compete on price with Chinese models that have largely caught up.
The main reason to use frontier models from Anthropic or OpenAI now is the combination of intelligence and speed. Chinese frontier models still struggle to match that, possibly in part because of hardware constraints. But judging by the recent GLM releases, they seem to be moving in the right direction.
persedes 8 hours ago [-]
Those models are cheaper per token, but depending on your use case you might still end up paying more with the cheaper model. DeepSeek likes to burn through a lot of tokens for example, which can quickly ameliorate those savings. They are great models and have most likely helped anthropic and openai drop their prices lately, but I still don't see the monetary benefit of using them atm.
noisy_boy 6 hours ago [-]
That has been my experience with DeepSeek after the price increase. I was so used to it being so frugal, it took couple of top-ups for me to realize that it wasn't the budget-king anymore.
dools 4 hours ago [-]
Deepseek 4.1 flash is back to peanuts pricing and more capable than 4 pro
dkarvik 3 hours ago [-]
The main difference I notice is that 4 pro has more "world knowledge" which makes sense given its lineage. For most tasks flash is great though and the model can just fetch the code or library information it needs.
grahamnorton39 6 hours ago [-]
You might mean “eliminate” or similar - to ameliorate something is to improve it or better it :)
benced 9 hours ago [-]
Luna is the main exception to this. It's such a cheap model and the tokens come so fast.
tripleee 8 hours ago [-]
Luna is genuinely my favorite model. I like developing in small chunks instead of huge sweeping changes, and Luna is so good for that.
pkulak 5 hours ago [-]
I cancelled my codex subscription 2 days ago, but only because I knew I could wire into Luna API pricing. Luna xhigh writes very good code, basically for free.
shepherdjerred 6 hours ago [-]
Yup. Luna is fast, cheap, and pretty intelligent. IMO the Codex harness is a bigger limiter than the model itself
solarkraft 23 minutes ago [-]
What bothers you the most about Codex? Looking from the outside, it looks like a pretty capable harness with a pretty good client.
broodbucket 2 hours ago [-]
Give omp a try.
scuppernong 8 hours ago [-]
if you're paying API prices, you probably already know this. everyone else is using a subscription which is massively subsidized rel API prices. or am I missing a third case?
phoghed 8 hours ago [-]
Does anyone beat Luna on price? It’s surprisingly capable for a lot of things.
Most enterprise customers are paying per token at this point afaik, whether that’s to gh copilot, Anthropic, or running models on Vertex/Azure/Whatever
dools 4 hours ago [-]
Deepseek v4.1 flash is way cheaper and comparable intelligence
fallingbananna 1 hours ago [-]
I know it's not a perfect benchmark, but in the "Create a Pacman" prompt it did cost 4 times as much, while producing way worse result than Sol-6: https://jonclegg.github.io/pacman-bakeoff/
toasty228 4 hours ago [-]
Is it? The artificial analysis "price to run intelligence index" is almost 4x cheaper with Luna than deepseek
Third case is you’re just an employee at a company who pays for an enterprise codex/claude/whatever for you, and you just use whatever the best available is. Maybe they’ve locked away Astra or Fable, but if cost literally isn’t an issue (at this moment) is there still a benefit to Deepseek?
BoorishBears 7 hours ago [-]
I've seen the opposite: if you're doing work that doesn't need the frontier, it's really hard to beat lower-tier frontier models.
Luna is obviously very competitively priced, and I'm expecting Haiku 5.5 will be strong based on this release and get back to more competitive pricing since the model family shrank this generation (though Anthropic has proven my expectations wrong on the latter before)
Where GLM, Kimi and co shine for me is when you need to offer near-frontier capabilities in your product and straight up can't afford frontier models: if you're offering Opus in a product with API pricing, $20 a month Claude Pro is offering about $500 of comparable usage in a harness that flexes to a lot of tasks.
Offering GLM/Kimi increases the max complexity of problems you can solve successfully compared to stepping down to Luna/Haiku, while letting you offer a reasonable amount of usage. Once $20 a month Pro is comparable to "just" $100 of usage in your product, it's much easier to close the gap with UX, a better constrained harness, etc.
wongarsu 16 hours ago [-]
"Sonnet 5.5’s cyber capabilities are a large improvement over Sonnet 5’s, so we’re deploying it with safeguards similar to those on Opus 5.5. Users can still find and fix bugs in their code as part of routine software development, but higher-risk cybersecurity tasks will visibly fall back to Sonnet 5
Sounds like at least for Anthropic models we reached peak cyber capabilities with Opus 4.8. Everything after that falls back to worse models
Aissen 1 hours ago [-]
The fun part is that the cash grab the frontier labs are running on cyber tasks might motivate enough people to pay for third parties; i.e it might bring enough cash to sustain Chinese competitors (and their open weights marketing strategy, which we all benefit from).
ttul 16 hours ago [-]
Daybreak Blue is not bad and the bar to get into OpenAI's program is reasonable.
watusername 15 hours ago [-]
Hold on, is there any bar to begin with? For OpenAI's Daybreak Blue, I only had to go through the Persona KYC to gain access. With Anthropic's I had to submit links to my profile and briefly describe my use cases, which I doubt were read by any human being but at least there's some semblance of barrier.
ttul 14 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I did say the bar is low :)
Daybreak Blue is the not the same thing as Daybreak Red, which has a more significant hurdle. I don't know anyone who has gotten access to Red.
nicce 13 hours ago [-]
How well it is documented or known that how they use the passport information and so on. Current blocker for EU citizen is to share that data for AI company…
stavros 9 hours ago [-]
Do you have a link for getting into the Anthropic one? I couldn't find anything.
> The Cyber Verification Program (CVP) is a free, application-based program that is designed to enable professionals to continue working on legitimate dual use tasks safely while minimizing interruption. If your use case has a legitimate defensive purpose and is being affected by these safeguards, we encourage you to apply for the CVP. See our Help Center article[1] on the CVP for more information.
what is the easyest way to use the chinese models and which harness does work with them well?
Iolaum 14 hours ago [-]
OpenCode harness with their subscription would be my recommendation.
malshe 14 hours ago [-]
Between OpenCode and Openrouter which one would you suggest? Sometimes I have pure grunt work to be done on non-sensitive data for which I want to use Chinese models. For example, tasks like extracting something from publicly available large pdf files.
Flere-Imsaho 13 hours ago [-]
Opencode Go, with the Deepseek 4.1 Flash model feels like a bottomless pit, which is great for grunt work.
asp_hornet 9 hours ago [-]
Opencode for harness.
I use GLM directly from z.ai, they do not retain or train on your data accordingly to their TOS.
beveradb 14 hours ago [-]
opencode with model inference on cheaperinference.com has been working well for me - glm-5.3-flash is shockingly cheap (i've spent a total of a few dollars over several weeks of heavy usage), fast and capable for cyber tasks
MisterMunchkin 15 hours ago [-]
It costs 20x more than the Chinese models I use. I just don’t need them anymore. Sure I’d use them if forced to for a job, but I don’t pay them outside of that anymore.
And my job won’t even pay for Claude now because it’s so ruinously expensive.
yipinwong 14 hours ago [-]
Say that to Luna's face. Ya all bringing up this not-so-cheap-nowadays chinese models and not that more intelligent than luna and bringing "cost" as the only factor.
pavo-etc 6 hours ago [-]
Just yesterday I ran a comparison of $/message through my harness[0] comparing Deepseek models to Luna, and to my surprise Luna won. I suspect its partially due to Deepseek's long thinking times, and also maybe due to OpenRouter variance in cache pricing etc.
Model and observed window | Messages | Retrieved actual $/message
GPT-6 Luna — 23–28 Sep, partial final day | 88 | $0.0329
I've subbed to Codex because I suspect at my usage rates the Codex Plus plan gives me more Luna messages than I'm using, and I've not really observed and better or worse intelligence performance. Interested to see how my $/message comes out after a month of usage on the Codex plan.
Something nice I've realised about my harness is that I can run different agents on different models so I can collect pricing data for a bunch in parallel.
Not even GPT6 Sol cannot match DeepSeek 4.1 in my work, with outrageous bugs. Don't get me started on Luna.
From my today's session with Sol:
- it actually failed to correctly understand a simple English grammar and logical implication of it, then when challenged it admitted its mistake but couldn't explain why it made it.
- for the code I am working on, I asked to create two PRs for the two small features (couple lines of code). It created one in upstream, as intended, and other one in my own fork. Just like that, out of nowhere, and called the job done.
- it said it would ask me to approve/amend the suggested PR message, it never did and fired off right away
- it keeps forgetting the changes it did itself; no context compaction was used
- it said it tested the change visually, but it did not even try
- hallucinated several facts despite me asking beforehand to check online.
On top of that, it ignores all of my AGENTS.md, which is short and concise. I mean I point it at ignoring it, it acknowledges and ignores again.
This is astonishingly bad and it is nowhere close to what Sol 5.6 was a month ago.
I can't deal with this sh*t anymore, I have no trust in the tools I use and both OpenAI and Anthropic do the same thing.
gruez 9 hours ago [-]
>Not even GPT6 Sol cannot match DeepSeek 4.1 in my work, with outrageous bugs.
That seems hard to believe even with deepseek's own benchmarks. Not to mention for every person who says chinese ai is ahead of american labs, there's like 10 saying that they're benchmaxxed or that they're merely "decent value for money".
MitziMoto 7 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I don't know what model that guy is using. He's talking about Sol like it's GPT4.
I haven't had these issues in multiple model generations of models.
Failing to understand English grammar? Give me a break.
cromka 28 minutes ago [-]
> me: "The tool divides network rates by 1,000, but uses the \`KB\` instead of \`kB\`. \`KB\` (alongside the SI-standardized KiB), is reserved for units based on 1,024. This change corrects the usage of those units.
> it: That still attributes two claims to SI that SI does not make. `KB` is not reserved for 1,024 bytes, and `KiB` is the standardized binary symbol.
> me: where does it say that SI reserves KB?
> it: Nowhere. You said *KiB* was SI-standardized; you did not say SI reserves *KB*. I misread your sentence and argued against a claim you did not make.
It was correct to point me out on my mistake in essence, but still misunderstood my bracketed "(alongside the SI-standardized KiB)" sentence.
Sure, it wasn't a grammar mistake as such, more like a logical one, but it still shouldn't make it. I had more than one such issues already with it, this one was most pronounced.
What it interesting, though, is the number of corporate apologists my comment brought in. It's like it doesn't matter how many times OpenAI and Anthropic have botched some of the models while keeping the branding, some people would still die on that apologist hill.
NewsaHackO 1 hours ago [-]
You can tell how vague the grammar complaint was it probably wasnt a big of a gaffe that they think it was. Also, slight tangent, but the part where he said that it admitted where there was an error but was not able to say why it made the error is one of the issues with model sycophancy; it want to validate the users feelings of being wronged, but also does not want to say something factually incorrect. So it produces this fail state of saying sorry for nothing, but it cannot backtrack.
solenoid0937 7 hours ago [-]
HN desperately wants Chinese AI to be competitive so there's a lot of self delusion and wishful thinking going on.
I use Deepseek 4.1 almost every day as well, it's nowhere close
stymaar 4 hours ago [-]
There's an interesting contradiction in your comment: either the Chinese models are competitive, or you wouldn't be using it!
stymaar 4 hours ago [-]
Why would you use a cloud model that's no better than a local one though? Because if you pick Luna then you don't have to compare it to the big Chinese models, Qwen3.8-27B is what you want to compare it to, and the comparison doesn't make Luna look good.
usef- 11 hours ago [-]
If it's for personal use, is there a reason you don't want the subscription?
Anthropic's $20 subscription gives >$500 worth of credit by most measures, which is pretty similar, and you get a better model. Their raw API prices have fat margins.
And as another commenter said, Luna is the cost leader at the moment if you really need API pricing.
daemonologist 9 hours ago [-]
For personal use I simply need less than $20 of tokens, even at API rates. If they (Anthropic or OpenAI) offered a $5/month plan that gave you ~$50 of credit I would probably sign up.
throwa356262 15 hours ago [-]
Obviously not as "intelligent" but almost 10x cheaper
Mimo 2.6 Pro: 0.04/0.4/0.87
Sonnet 5.5: 0.2/2/10
Opus 5.5: Sonnet prices times 2
What I dont understand is their cache writes ($2.5). Why is that not covered by input cost?
lcampbell 12 hours ago [-]
I was under the impression that the cache write fee was added to both the input and output costs (except in cases where the cache write is explicitly disabled via e.g. DISABLE_PROMPT_CACHING). The output becomes part of the context, after all; if they don't (for some reason, due to disaggregated inference perhaps) then I'd expect output tokens get charged both output then input+cache_write on the subsequent completion request.
The pricing model confuses me though (I presume by design, Hanlon be damned).
anvuong 8 hours ago [-]
Which provider are you using Mimo from? The official Xiaomi one seems to be very slow/buggy for me in the last few days.
11 hours ago [-]
11 hours ago [-]
tintor 13 hours ago [-]
You don't have to pay for cache write if prompt isn't part of conversation.
edu 14 hours ago [-]
What model are you using ?
system2 14 hours ago [-]
Not him but 3 models dominate: GLM 5.3, Qwen 3.8, Mimo 2.6. All censoring certain things. Numbers and other uses are perfectly fine. They are like 0.10-0.15 per 1M tokens. American AI lost the game already, people just can't see it.
toasty228 14 hours ago [-]
> American AI lost the game already, people just can't see it.
Microsoft has been releasing dog shit insanely overpriced software with decent alternatives for decades and is still used in every single company I work for or with.
Your take is the "current year is the year of the linux desktop" meme of "ai"
BeetleB 13 hours ago [-]
You're a decent sized company and wants to manage the SW + security on all your employee's PCs. They need to be able to update/remote SW on your machine remotely, see your settings, etc.
I don't think anything comes close to Microsoft's offerings. Macs suck. Ditto Linux.
SSLy 12 hours ago [-]
>Linux
cfengine is 33 years old
Lord-Jobo 14 hours ago [-]
The difference is that Microsoft did that while relying on the extremely load bearing windows ecosystem. These AI companies have no equivalent lock in, nothing even close to it honestly.
toasty228 14 hours ago [-]
I can guarantee you 80% of people will call any llm "a chatgpt", most have never heard of claude, even less of opus, or sonnet, "deepseek" probably reminds them of a brand of toothpaste or something like that, "GLM" might make them think of the new mercedes SUV perhaps. 99.9% will never self host, nor send a single sent to a chinese model provider.
system2 14 hours ago [-]
They are not the ones spending API money.
toasty228 14 hours ago [-]
I don't know a single company using deepseek internally in any capacity, and I have friends in a lot of tech/tech heavy companies, virtually all of them use claude, the lucky ones get cursor with claude/chatgpt/grok.
cromka 10 hours ago [-]
Interestingly, I hear about them doing that all the time. But this is in EU.
system2 9 hours ago [-]
Once again, just like your other reply, you are mixing things up- a logical fallacy called the straw man; look it up. Your responses usually use this type of misdirection. Coding agent =/= API.
AI does not mean coders coding with agents all day long. AI integration is mostly for data processing, which is the promise and use of the APIs.
noisy_boy 5 hours ago [-]
Most people I know working in banks etc are using Co-pilot. Not because it is any good, because it integrates with the entire MS ecosystem - management pushes it. I would suspect that is the main driver of MS's AI penetration numbers for desktop-level non-API usage.
csomar 2 hours ago [-]
When Microsoft did that there wasn't really any competition and they were also the cheap option. I don't think they would survive if there was a sufficiently good chinese OS at the time.
system2 14 hours ago [-]
Most businesses I know switched to Google Sheets or Google Docs.
toasty228 13 hours ago [-]
Never heard about anyone using google sheets and docs for messaging, email, presentations, etc.
joseda-hg 12 hours ago [-]
Gmail, Meet and Presentations do all of those
People use them, if for no other reason, because they are cheap, or are part of the Chromebook generation and have gotten used to it
Of their suite, Presentation and Sheets are the only ones people really have gripes about, Sheets by power users because it isn't Excel and it can never be, and Presentations because it's the ugly duckling of the suite
conception 11 hours ago [-]
You’ve never heard of anyone using gmail for email?
madeofpalk 8 hours ago [-]
Huh. I’ve never worked at a company that doesn’t primarily/exclusively use Google Docs/Sheets/Slides. Guess that goes to show we’re really all in our own little bubble.
system2 13 hours ago [-]
[dead]
presentation 6 hours ago [-]
Basically only true in the Silicon Valley bubble. Professional services are Microsoft Office/SharePoint all in.
ndm000 12 hours ago [-]
This ignores two things.
OpenAI and Anthropic have both transitioned into product companies. ChatGPT (the app) and Claude are both one-click installs that just work. People and businesses with pay for this.
People will also pay for the best (or the perception of being the best). Since it's hard to tell what "intelligence" really means model to model, there's a sense of safety in giving a task to the "best".
case540 13 hours ago [-]
People dont want iPhone 14s in 2026. People want the latest and greatest. Chinese companies desperately trying to get western usage of their models
nehal3m 13 hours ago [-]
They would if those phones were 899/10=89.9 bucks.
keyworkorange 12 hours ago [-]
How are these models so cheap?
system2 7 hours ago [-]
They are just not overcharging. Nvidia's top AI chip Rubin sells in 72-GPU racks for about $3.5–7.8M. A rack running Xiaomi's MiMo V2.6 Pro generates roughly 150–300B tokens a day, worth about $130–260k at Xiaomi's API price.
That's a payback of the infrastructure in a few weeks in theory. After a few weeks or a month, the only cost is electricity, and whatever they make after that is pure profit. This is why they can charge normal prices. Not $50 for 1M tokens.
tripleee 14 hours ago [-]
From my experience GLM 5.3 is at most 6 months away from the frontier models, and good enough for most tasks already
The usage numbers tell a different story. Not only is the great majority of AI users on American frontier providers, they are also willing to pay the premium price for the premium product. It's not like tech is oblivious to the Chinese models. It's that the industry is aware they are always 6 months to a year behind.
You didn't discover some new trick for cost performance. And the rest of the world isn't dumb.
You're just too broke to afford the supercar and justifying the hooptie. It gets you to the kindergarten class after all. And that's all you need.
swingandamiss 13 hours ago [-]
Europe didn't even start in the race. Europe is the biggest losers of all it seems. What a shame.
etatester 1 hours ago [-]
The reason why that happens is not really Europe's fault. Any remotely-competent developer just works for US companies, why would they not? Especially for AI, there just isn't enough investments in the EU to offer those salaries.
What's left are incompetent developers paired with people who get government contracts and leech off them. Ask me how I know.
jpgvm 13 hours ago [-]
What are they censoring that matters to programmers?
zarmin 14 hours ago [-]
What harness are you using with those?
beveradb 14 hours ago [-]
opencode
anvuong 13 hours ago [-]
Does AI-style writing start bleeding into the comments, or is HN now also full of bots like reddit?
wkcheng 16 hours ago [-]
The cost / performance chart shows that in almost all configurations, it looks worse than Opus. Why would you use Sonnet 5.5 on xhigh if you would get better results (higher score, cheaper cost) on Opus 5.5 high?
Is there a good use case? This isn't like Luna where it's much cheaper/effective just to use Luna in certain situations.
usaar333 15 hours ago [-]
Per the charts, there is largely no point to using Sonnet 5.5 at high+ as opus low generally will give similar performance at similar or lower cost.
But Sonnet 5.5 at medium and below gives you a cheaper option at a performance worse than the lowest thinking Opus (low), which may be viable for "low intelligence" use cases.
verdverm 13 hours ago [-]
at that point, you can switch to dirt cheap open models
NotSuspicious 10 hours ago [-]
Only if your company (and government) lets you!
verdverm 9 hours ago [-]
yup, we use Fireworks.ai, and American company with ZDR
Their new Ember-1 model is pretty good, fine-tune of Kimi3 with way less thinking
Does this make it an American model or is it still Chinese? Does it matter?
It appears, at least from a quick look, to be noticeably faster than Opus. If true, and you don't need xhigh/max reasoning for your use case (like a well-defined set of code changes), Sonnet might get the job done much more quickly.
With that said, at that point, I'd probably use something like DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, which is way faster and significantly cheaper, and probably not noticeably dumber for most use cases.
ricardobeat 16 hours ago [-]
At low and medium effort it is 1/3 cheaper, at high it’s a step above Opus/low. It only looks worse at xhigh.
wkcheng 15 hours ago [-]
That makes sense. I'm interested in seeing where Haiku 5.5 comes in then when it gets released. It feels like the low intelligence / fast niche will be covered there.
oh_no 15 hours ago [-]
i'd love to see them re-enter that space but given haiku 5 never happened I wouldn't bet on it
i think they see what openai charges for luna and just don't want to try and compete
water-drummer 15 hours ago [-]
They did mention in the Opus 5.5 announcement blogpost that Sonnet and Haiku 5.5 will follow soon.
canad3nse 15 hours ago [-]
But they literally stated that they would release Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 after Opus 5.5 was released
mchusma 9 hours ago [-]
My guess is that haiku will be a mid release. They don’t seem to care to compete for the low end. Something akin to gpt6 sol level intelligence at $1 / $5 pricing. Then not release an update for 6+ months.
ac29 14 hours ago [-]
Haiku 5.5 is DOA without a massive price cut. Luna is literally 10x cheaper at current pricing
enraged_camel 13 hours ago [-]
It depends entirely on its capabilities. If it is significantly smarter than Luna, which frankly is quite likely, then a lot of people won't mind paying more.
conception 11 hours ago [-]
Or if its luna at 1000 tok/sec. Speed is what most of my peers care most about these days since less intelligent models can do most grunt work just fine.
pdantix 15 hours ago [-]
they've already said in both the opus 5.5 and sonnet 5.5 blog posts that haiku 5.5 is coming
delillos 15 hours ago [-]
There's a sort of magical thinking needed to answer a question like that. You might say it comes down to "feel" of the model; i.e., the indefinable differences in the way that they speak to the user and approach problem solving. Perhaps Opus is suited for tasks that tackle new ground, while Sonnet might be better at tasks that are more grounded in the code.
Ultimately it's slightly ridiculous to define model capability on a single axis. It's like a standardized test. Sure, you can line people up by their ACT score, but that doesn't mean a doctor and a brilliant artist who both do well on the ACT have an identical intelligence or approach to life. It just can't be captured.
benjiro29 13 hours ago [-]
The cost / performance chart shows that in almost all configurations, it looks worse than Opus. Why would you use Sonnet 5.5 on xhigh if you would get better results (higher score, cheaper cost) on Opus 5.5 high?
This screams to be that Sol vs Terra model problem that OpenAI had. On paper half the price, in actual usage the price gap was so close for less good results, that everybody just spammed Sol.
Jcampuzano2 15 hours ago [-]
I'm honestly not sure where they're getting their 30% numbers from at all. In every single chart that they chose to display except for one, it costs similar or more than Sonnet 5, while also being comparable in price to Opus.
Maybe it's buried within their system card but I think that this would be one of the first things they'd want to show in the announcement article and they fail to do so.
I really don't know who does Anthropic's marketing but they always seem to a pretty terrible job in their announcements from my perspective.
SubiculumCode 16 hours ago [-]
t/s maybe? IDK, because their token speed comparison was against Sonnet 5.
dominotw 15 hours ago [-]
just shows you how little control of output these labs actually have. They are training two models that kind of ended being the same so whatever they were doing specifically didnt make much difference.
solenoid0937 16 hours ago [-]
It literally does not?
quatotor 16 hours ago [-]
[dead]
simonw 15 hours ago [-]
Pelicans. Sonnet 5.5 has the same problem as Opus 5.5: on "max" thinking effort it burned through 128,000 thinking tokens (taking 15 minutes to do that) and ran out before it had produced the final SVG.
Does anyone really still care about these pelicans?
Any model release it’s the top comment, I do not understand why.
simonw 12 hours ago [-]
Mainly because they're funny, but it's also because I try pretty hard to make the comment more interesting than just "here's a pelican". In this case I used the pelicans to talk about the 128,000 token limit bug at "max" and share comparative pricing.
This is a community and it is an inside joke at this point, it wouldn't be a proper model release without Simon's pelicans.
I find it useful (as well as a fun art project).
krzyk 48 minutes ago [-]
I do, it gives some fun comparison between models.
You can also check for any kind of degradation of them - you have the prompt, it doesn't use much $.
dramebaaz 2 hours ago [-]
It would have taken me a while to stumble upon this "running out of tokens" on MAX thinking issue without his trials and post. I've seen the pelicans for years now, and if they stopped coming for some reason, I would probably go to his site to catch up on recent models and findings. So I don't mind them
marktolson 12 hours ago [-]
It's an easy way to compare the coding and creative strengths of models. I prefer them over reading a tabular comparison of benchmarks which you have no real insights into.
Glemmlko 12 hours ago [-]
Because hn has some kind of a community and not every comment is gold (see yours for example) and people are able to skip comments if they don't enjoy them?
permalac 3 hours ago [-]
I would not say I care, but I do have curiosity.
I expect one day they will start adding some textures or something like that.
kennyadam 12 hours ago [-]
Agreed. It was a creative and unique test for a while. Now, no offense to the author, it feels like every conversation about a new model is dominated by the pelican on a bike posts as they always become the top comment.
simonw 12 hours ago [-]
You can click the little [-] icon next to the post to collapse the entire sub-thread. I do that all the time.
mi_lk 9 hours ago [-]
Sick of the cheap shot
mvdtnz 10 hours ago [-]
I can't understand it. Clearly someone cares because like you say the comments are always upvoted. But why anyone cares I simply don't know. It just feels like attention seeking behaviour to continue posting it.
simonw 10 hours ago [-]
Isn't posting any comment on a forum like Hacker News "attention seeking behavior"?
mi_lk 6 hours ago [-]
Seems like quite a different level of attention seeking by posting the exact same prompt result, every time there’s a new model, that links to their own website.
simonw 6 hours ago [-]
Linking to https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... should be pretty inoffensive (I started habitually linking to that after people kept complaining about linking to my blog) - that page renders Markdown with SVG embedded in it, but doesn't link to the rest of my site at all.
uncivilized 13 hours ago [-]
Karma farming by parent commenter and HNers’ tendency to upvote low quality content (not dissimilar to other social media networks)
conception 12 hours ago [-]
Is this low quality content relative to most HN comments?
uncivilized 10 hours ago [-]
Very few HN comments are high quality
croemer 15 hours ago [-]
This is evidence that Sonnet 5.5 wasn't yet trained on the HN comments from the Opus 5.5 release. Maybe Pelicanmaxing will lead to 127000 thinking tokens being used on Max.
gumby271 15 hours ago [-]
If it was trained on HN, there would be a 60% chance of it just saying "I'm so tired of this request, can we please move on"
miki123211 13 hours ago [-]
I'd say:
30% chance of responding with something about Enshittification and how it can't fulfill your request because the sources it needs are behind a login wall and show an endless captcha loop (conveniently forgetting to mention that it's running on FreeBSD behind PiHole).
30% chance of complaining that it's being subsidized and that "prices are going to go up bro."
30% chance of some unrelated rant on ID checks for age verification.
10% chance of a different rant, this time on how nobody took Snowden seriously and how terrible Flock is.
platinumrad 15 hours ago [-]
The contrast between Anthropic, who seem to be training their models to output ever-increasing numbers of reasoning tokens, and Fireworks's Ember-1, which was explicitly trained to preserve the quality of a model's responses while cutting down on reasoning, is interesting. Claude Code also uses more many tokens per task per model than any other harness in benchmarks.
usef- 13 hours ago [-]
Anthropic's "Max" modes seem like a yolo mode: "use 10x the tokens to try to break the hardest possible problems". But their models don't seem less efficient at normal reasoning modes.
I can't see Ember on AA's index yet, but their post claims "half the reasoning tokens for the same answers" as Kimi K3.
That would make it about so, I assume?
Score Tokens Reason Cost
Kimi K3 Max 44 48k 32k $2.00
Half reason 44 32k ? 16k ? ?
Opus Med 51 26k 12k $1.34
Opus High 54 36k 18k $1.82
Opus Max 58 119k 84k $5.98
Sonnet Med 41 ? ? $0.59
Sonnet High 47 ? ? $1.08
Sonnet Max 56 193k 142k $7.60
Medium is Anthropic's default.
Having a less efficient mode isn't necessarily a mistake -- the purpose of configurable effort levels after all is to be able to put more thought into a problem.
13 hours ago [-]
amelius 13 hours ago [-]
This is great news because it means the model has not been benchmaxxed on stupid metrics.
PS: the next human that brings up pelicans on bicycles should try to draw them.
parkersweb 14 hours ago [-]
I like the one where the pelican is using the non-pedalling leg to control the handlebars because its wings won’t reach!
hooloovoo_zoo 12 hours ago [-]
I feel the fact that these models always modify the body design of a pelican to fit the bike rather than the other way around represents a fundamental issue with AI.
codingisfreedom 12 hours ago [-]
Sonnet 5 had the same problem with ‘max’. In a free sub, I would never get an answer back even for very simple prompts. It would just churn on nothing and return max token usage reached.
I’m not sure whether that’s a feature or a bug at this point though.
TomGarden 15 hours ago [-]
Where do you run sonnet/opus where you are limited to 128k, given they are both 1M context window models?
petu 15 hours ago [-]
That's max output tokens per response limit, separate from context length
simonw 15 hours ago [-]
It's the output token limit, which has been 128,000 for Claude models for quite a while note
croemer 15 hours ago [-]
Pretty crazy that the model doesn't know that it needs to stop before it hits 128k output tokens. I guess it has no sense of how many tokens in it is? Wouldn't this be possible to work into the architecture?
simonw 14 hours ago [-]
I think this is a bug. I've not seen this problem from any of the other frontier models.
NewJazz 13 hours ago [-]
I would also consider this a bug. I think ajy reasonable consumer would.
Insanity 14 hours ago [-]
Do other models put a hard cap on the output tokens it can generate?
Thank you for the pelicans sir, how do you think they compare to other models in Sonnet’s pricing/capability range?
mewse-hn 6 hours ago [-]
max thinking means benchmaxxing i guess
mgaunard 12 hours ago [-]
what's most surprising is the difference between high and xhigh
pelicanmaxer 14 hours ago [-]
that pelican one-pedaling
aimaxxed 15 hours ago [-]
“Pelicans are solved.”
12 hours ago [-]
nicolamanzini 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
heyjstn 15 hours ago [-]
I think the next models will be benchmaxxing on the Pelican benchmark tbh
dmd 13 hours ago [-]
wow nobody but you has ever thought of this and certainly simonw has never addressed this
ghoshbishakh 16 hours ago [-]
So sonnet is better than Fable now? That Fable which was too dangerous to release? I am so confused now.
pebbly_bread 15 hours ago [-]
Mythos is what they thought was too dangerous to release, fable was what they made after they worked on cybersecurity detection. As they say in the notes, this version of sonnet now has a similar screening process
rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 14 hours ago [-]
Mythos and Fable are the same llm. Fable has an extra tool that's in front of it that decides to accept the promp or not.
usef- 11 hours ago [-]
And Sonnet has a similar classifier in front according to the article:
> it’s the first Sonnet model to launch with cyber safeguards
dbbk 14 hours ago [-]
Hence why it is no longer dangerous, yes
emil-lp 12 hours ago [-]
If you consider security through obscurity a safe route, yes
usef- 11 hours ago [-]
How is this security through obscurity?
That term is about hiding a system's design in order to secure something, rather than having secure design.
emil-lp 5 hours ago [-]
You answered your own question!
usef- 5 hours ago [-]
This is not relying on a hidden design.
emil-lp 3 hours ago [-]
The design allows users to bypass the security by luck and chance.
A secure system is impenetrable unless you have the key.
stravant 28 minutes ago [-]
That's not how it works.
The reason you see "dumb" refusals that "should clearly be allowed" is that they're using more traditional deterministic methods to deny prompts rather than just relying on the random LLM which you could bypass by luck.
usef- 2 hours ago [-]
It sounds like you're thinking of cryptography, not general security.
The world uses many security products that have false positives and false negatives (firewalls, intrusion detections, wafs, fraud detection, spam...). Those aren't generally considered security through obscurity.
It's paired with rate limits, monitoring, account control, multiple classifiers, a deliberate safety margin, model design, and other things too.
(I think this was also why they faced the controversy over not having zdr in fable: they wanted to use logs to detect repeated attempts, etc. Possibly a bigger change with Opus/Sonnet is that it's zdr with the classifiers?)
mnicky 15 hours ago [-]
Well, it's performance "surface" (is there a better term for this?) is probably very narrow compared to Fable :)
Art9681 12 hours ago [-]
You have to actually spend some effort reading the article they published to answer your own question.
11 hours ago [-]
heyjstn 15 hours ago [-]
doom marketing at its finest
solenoid0937 14 hours ago [-]
Not really, they never released Mythos. And they never said Fable was dangerous. They've been very consistent
Jcampuzano2 16 hours ago [-]
I don't understand why I would really use this over using just a lower or even similar effort level on Opus, given that in many of the benchmarks it's basically the same cost, if not more, at any effort higher than medium.
Sure maybe it costs 30% less than Sonnet 5 but now it's basically neck and neck in most of the benchmarks it seems and in some of them it actually outcosts Opus.
Maybe I'm missing something but the announcement doesn't really seem to give much reason for the average person to even think about using this.
jtrn 11 hours ago [-]
Subagents.
heyjstn 15 hours ago [-]
Have anyone tried a workflow that:
- Fable 5.1 for planning/adversarial reviewer
- Opus 5.5 for well-scoped tasks break down
- Sonnet 5.5 for these well-scoped tasks implementation
I think the blocker might be how efficient the context is compacted and sending around between these agents
afro88 15 hours ago [-]
Opus 5.5 in my experience outshines Fable 5.1 anyway. May as well have Opus do plan, breakdown and review, and Sonnet implement.
chrismustcode 15 hours ago [-]
You might as well use Opus for everything there.
Changing model would be cache busting spiking usage for no good reason when Opus can do it all.
Haiku 5.5 might fit well though depending on pricing.
SirMadam 15 hours ago [-]
Do subagents share context? If Opus delegates to a different Sonnet window, I don't believe this busts cache?
manquer 14 hours ago [-]
Context needs to pre-filled into a GPU memory in a node (usually 8xB300 or 8xH200) so there isn't any context or cache sharing between model families given their different parameter sizes, tokenizers, unlikely they are co-located in the same node.
Sub-agents not sharing context is a useful design-pattern when you want adversarial or independent reviews.
Cache reads could be shared between sub-agents, A single node(8GPU cluster) supports few hundred concurrent user sessions, that all share the same KV cache memory, so it is likely model providers do colocate your sub-agents in one node, it is more efficient , but may not be guaranteed so performance could vary; like we have with elastic compute and storage[1]
This can be cheaper depending on your coding flow i.e. cache hit % and the billing plan - cache reads are basically free or charged very little in subscription plans.
[1] Modern AWS does offer collocation at additional costs for compute but that is not the default and most other clouds do not offer it
enraged_camel 15 hours ago [-]
Subagents don't share context. But that's why delegating implementation to a subagent doesn't work well except for things that are truly mechanical in nature: the subagent needs to independently reason about the task it is given, and then the output will also be reasoned about by the main agent. So you end up wasting time and tokens.
mnicky 15 hours ago [-]
On the contrary, subagents save context overall, when the task is sufficiently large.
Also, my experience is that Fable 5.1 is very good at prompting/orchestrating Opus/Sonnet subagents when working on a larger task (e.g. 1-2M context window use only for the orchestrator itself).
esafak 13 hours ago [-]
If you use subagents your main agent won't need to compact as often, with the loss of information that entails.
dbbk 13 hours ago [-]
Using advisors doesn't break anything
robwwilliams 11 hours ago [-]
Agree with afro88. Opus 5.5 as competent as Fable 5.1 on complex adversarial review of material and equations planted with errors. I still use both for a bit of variety.
Aboutplants 14 hours ago [-]
Do you even need Fable for much of anything now? I’m basically using it as a reviewer at the end of whatever I’m working on, and even then I’m really not finding much benefit.
jessebldr 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
gregwebs 15 hours ago [-]
This is better priced than Opus for tasks that are token heavy but not complicated. But a quick look shows that at least on some benchmarks DeepSeek performs as well and of course the cost is an order of magnitude less.
From looking at their Terminal-Bench graph, anything you would use level "high" or above for Sonnet it seems like you should consider using Opus instead.
OpenAI Luna is a lot cheaper. But DeepSeek seems smarter and the cost seems similar.
mkotlikov 10 hours ago [-]
Nobody should be using this model, it's too expensive.
If you look at Anthropic's own benchmarks any thinking levels above medium quickly approach the cost of Opus 5.5 and even exceed them.
alansaber 15 hours ago [-]
Always key to include the one bench where the smaller model inexplicably outperforms the larger model
avree 16 hours ago [-]
Crazy bad front-end design. Site hijacks my gestures so I can't swipe back anymore, starts with a full page autoplaying video...
iAMkenough 14 hours ago [-]
Agreed. I’ve found that Anthropic [dot] com at least honors “reduce motion” accessibility settings, and that makes their site a bit more useable.
onlyrealcuzzo 16 hours ago [-]
> In our testing, it costs up to 30% less per task than its predecessor.
> Sonnet 5.5 generates outputs 30%+ faster than Sonnet 5, making it our fastest Sonnet model to date.
This isn't enough. Sonnet 5 was arguably the most cost ineffective model ever released at the time of a release.
They need something competitive on speed and cost with Luna or Gemini Flash 3.8 (certainly they aren't getting to DeepSeek v4.1 Flash) - this is literally a year behind.
Anthropic continues to be a Fable/Opus only company. They're going to get left behind as workloads shift more and more to more cost-effective good-enough models. They're 10-100x behind in terms of speed and cost.
I've almost exclusively been using Anthropic for design and review, as it almost never makes sense to use any of their models for implementation (90%+ token usage) - except in the rare cases it's something too complex for a number of 10-100x cheaper models (and more importantly for me 5-10x faster, too).
For me, it's less about cost. I'm not doing anything that can't be done with a $200 subscription and minimal intelligence on what models to use. It's primarily about speed. I don't have an entire work day to give Opus / Sonnet a task that Flash can get done 95% as good in 30m.
This is YET AGAIN another Sonnet model that is just a FAR worse version of Opus at every part of the cost AND speed curve.
Hopefully they release a Haiku that actually has a reason for existing.
jchw 16 hours ago [-]
I always tell coworkers if they're gonna use Claude to just stick to only Opus and Fable. Sonnet is a waste of time that does a bad job at a bad price.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash may be chatty but it's cheap, fast, and reliable. I'm not sure what the upside of Sonnet is supposed to be. Right now it feels like a trap.
velcrovan 16 hours ago [-]
Sure, but the fact that Opus 5.5 was such a huge leap over Opus 5 (and Fable 5.1 for that matter) means that it's worth revisiting your priors on a new Sonnet.
eli 16 hours ago [-]
Hopefully some faster providers will start offering mimo-v2.6-pro because it's cheaper and benchmarks better than Deepseek
jchw 16 hours ago [-]
Theoretically but I've used DeepSeek V4.1 Flash for several hundred millions of tokens already and it chews through tokens but it is surprisingly good at making it to the end.
MiMo V2.6 Pro I want to love, but I've hit three deathloops in a row. Either my luck is catastrophically bad, or someone needs to patch vLLM or something.
I am sure DeepSeek V4.1 Flash can deathloop, too, but so far it feels less prone to it than other models I've tried like GLM 5.3 Flash so, I'm impressed so far.
I always wonder what the deal with these failure modes are. Google, OpenAI and Anthropic seem to have found good enough workarounds, and I am surprised I don't hear more people talking about them. I thought maybe it was shitty broken providers on OpenRouter, but then I started making presets just for using only the upstream provider and found that no, really, the models do fail that way.
Which is a shame because on paper MiMo V2.6 Pro seems strong, but I haven't gotten through a hard task with it yet.
eli 15 hours ago [-]
I read they identified a training bug and were going to push out an updated release to fix the looping. I really like it overall.
GLM 5.3 Flash is also very good. I think a little smarter and a little more expensive.
jchw 12 hours ago [-]
I did like GLM 5.3 Flash but it's just way too often I'd run it on some long running task and come back to it repeating the same tokens or tool calls endlessly, just doing nothing. It wasn't unusable, but I couldn't trust it. That's really frustrating and I think new models have to do better not just on benchmark scores but general reliability and user experience as well.
At some point Anthropic and OpenAI models definitely could fall into similar traps so I do think it is a solvable problem and likely not a reflection of the models themselves being bad. In this case it may indeed be a training bug of some kind, but I also suspect mitigations on the inference side are possibly lacking or not effective enough for the open models and their runtimes.
criemen 16 hours ago [-]
The latest Haiku release is almost a year old. Clearly they don't care about the small-but-capable part of the market at all.
enraged_camel 15 hours ago [-]
From TFA:
>> Claude Haiku 5.5, built for high-volume and cost-sensitive applications, will join the Claude 5.5 family in the coming weeks.
aniceperson 15 hours ago [-]
This will be interesting. While no one cared about small models in the last few months except for the OSS community, there is a silent small model revolution with gpt luna and jev. Headless/background llm routines are cost-feasible, which will of course lead to exponential usage and cost.
My take on anthropic is that haiku 5.5 has been shelfed for a while since it is predatory against sonnet (see terra 5.6 usage), but openai went kamikaze and they are now forced to release.
Nevertheless, the elephant in the room has grown: will any of the Labs be able to profit if mass adoption lies in the highly crowded small model territory?
I don't quite understand your point here. OpenAI has a consistent history of releasing cheap/small models - first nano/mini, then luna/terra. Of course, those are now more capable than half a year ago, but I don't see a behavior change from OpenAI here.
aniceperson 14 hours ago [-]
Of course, my opinion is based on my personal experience + openrouter data that shows stickiness and low terra adoption; with openai confirming by making sol terra, astra sol.
I honestly never saw anyone doing /model gpt mini. I think those models were mostly used for copilot-like products, like those pull request reviews with untasteful dumbness to it (idiotic CodeQL finding -> LLM vomits a "fix" instead of assessing). While Luna seems to be the first model that you can trust to reason in the background, and this is predatory to their own more expensive model.
fluidcruft 11 hours ago [-]
Would Jev-type functionality be a reason to dust off Haiku?
cbg0 15 hours ago [-]
> This is YET AGAIN another Sonnet model that is just a FAR worse version of Opus at every part of the cost AND speed curve.
It's been out for an hour and you've already concluded this?
permalac 3 hours ago [-]
Question for the Àgora.
Is there any tool which allows for one model from Anthropic to call subagents or dynamic workflows using other providers?
How does one create a swarm of agents from different providers and get them to talk to each other, or otherwise hand over pieces of work to one another while being able to check that offloaded work status?
logonz 3 hours ago [-]
Pi Harness can do this in theory.
I use it personally with my subagent extension to spawn multiple reviewer agents of different models.
yapfrog 16 hours ago [-]
From the graph it looks like I'd rather use Opus 5.5 High than Sonnet 5.5 at all
guilhermeasper 13 hours ago [-]
AI companies these days releasing models every week like Netflix episodes.
hadlock 6 hours ago [-]
Xiaomi already showed that you can train a better-than-Sonnet level model in 8 days for about $850,000. Anthropic really could release a new sonnet version every week if that played to their marketing strategy, but nobody cares about sonnet so it gets released on slow news days to fill space.
verdverm 13 hours ago [-]
the (Ai) factory must grow!
nanook 14 hours ago [-]
Sonnet is 1/5th the price and seemingly more powerful than fable (the model that was too powerful to release). I can't make sense of this. Why would anyone use fable now? Or are the benchmarks completely pointless and one has to just try em to get a feel for what they can and can't do?
helloplanets 13 hours ago [-]
Wouldn't make sense to use anything below 5.5 from Anthropic at the moment. But pretty sure this is just an awkward transition phase of at most a week or two until Fable 5.5 is out.
solenoid0937 14 hours ago [-]
Benchmarks were always barely useful to begin with. Gotta actually try the model.
robertclaus 13 hours ago [-]
These benchmark results keep getting more questionable without error bars.
meherabhossain 3 hours ago [-]
It needs to be a better option for the consumers for it to be usable in the market. And the most important fact is we need more tokens from claude, rather than another efficient system.
s3p 16 hours ago [-]
I'm loving the tit for tat cost charts these guys are doing. Just a few days ago it looked like OpenAI ruled the cost pareto frontier. Not even a week later and Anthropic is taking the charts again. See you guys same time next week?
skeledrew 14 hours ago [-]
Can't wait for it to get to the point where it's like an internet subscription: unlimited tokens 24/7/365 at a low, fixed monthly price.
kingstnap 13 hours ago [-]
It can't be unlimited because you can spawn parallel streams.
Anyway I think if you have a single stream of a cheap model, like GPT 6 Luna, I don't think you can currently exhaust it in a week on a $200 plan. I mean it only puts out so many tokens per second.
skeledrew 12 hours ago [-]
Unlimited but account-level throttled tps (more parallel streams means more throttling across all) is OK IMO, as long as it isn't too crazy. The thing that makes subscriptions really suck is having to watch the quotas, because prompt cache maintenance.
kdaniel_03 2 hours ago [-]
if the benchmarks and its capabilities are not that distant it comes to how we architect the system so that agents can do better. these newer models vary in its performance due to how we orchestrate the direction of our goal rather than how individual ability functions.
yyyysa 1 hours ago [-]
How does it compare with Opus 5.5？
dom96 15 hours ago [-]
I built an adversarial esoteric programming language to benchmark LLM models and just ran it on Sonnet 5.5 It does worse than Sonnet 5. Mainly because it is more reluctant to keep going to get an answer, instead it returns to ask the user questions whether to keep going.
Cache reads priced the same as Opus 5.5? So there won't be that much price difference in agentic coding. Or is that a mistake in the table, that seems quite weird
AM1010101 15 hours ago [-]
For me I would like to pair this with Opus 5.5 as orchestrater and use Sonnet as a sub agent. Therefore I want it to be fast when on low or medium and not break the bank.
On low and medium it seems competitive, maybe slightly cheaper than opus, in terms of intelligence per task.
If the time per task is lower (Artificial Analysis don’t have the date up at time of posting) then I have a clear use case for this model all other things being equal.
ghoshbishakh 15 hours ago [-]
So Sonnet 5.5 on max effort is as expensive as Fable 5.1? Because it uses a ton of tokens for a task.
In xhigh effort it is a lot cheaper and possibly lot less impressive?
mchusma 13 hours ago [-]
I feel like sonnet is priced too close to opus right now. If Sonnet 5.5 were half its current price it would make sense to use. At its current prices, I won't use it in applications (I would use cheaper models) and I won't use it in my subscriptions ( just use Opus instead). At least that is my initial reaction.
tombert 15 hours ago [-]
I like that "alignment on safety" appears to mean, at least for anything I've been doing, that they won't violate Microsoft's terms of service. I even had it pushing back on me activating an LTSC key on Windows because LTSC keys are "often purchased on a gray market and violate Microsoft's TOS".
aniceperson 15 hours ago [-]
I saw that with corporate software too. What works is creating a skill with the task steps, it fades its initial reasoning. (I am not talking about observer safe guards, but the safety RTL).
saint-evan 12 hours ago [-]
unwittingly said 'yaaay' when I saw the Sonnet 5.5 entry. lol I love Sonnet so much. Loved it since 3.5 and never really liked Opus even when I tried to use it for technical work. Once we had two back to back anthropic releases neither of which was a Sonnet upgrade from 4.5 (4.6?) and I was getting kinda sad that they're considering discontinuing it. These are weird reactions I'm having to these tools even when I mostly use them for technical work considering I prefer talking to GPT and Gemini is just a blunt, very powerful hammer.
sajithdilshan 15 hours ago [-]
I use Claude Code everyday for work and the main model I use is Opus (For planning, breaking down tasks, writing tickets, implementation, etc.) and Haiku for running tests. Honestly have no idea what is the use case for Sonnet
ricericerice 14 hours ago [-]
my feeling is you're most likely wasting money using Opus for implementation. The plan and task breakdown should be specific enough that Sonnet can implement without you noticing a difference.
kccqzy 9 hours ago [-]
At work with token-based pricing I haven’t even breached $200 in a single month, so I just use Opus for everything. Some colleagues get close to the spending limit so they choose cheaper models; not me.
alasano 15 hours ago [-]
I wonder if Fable 5.5 is coming this week to drown out the OpenAI dev day announcements
kccqzy 9 hours ago [-]
When they announced Opus 5.5, they specifically said that Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are coming. I think Fable won’t come until Haiku is updated.
jan_m_savage 9 hours ago [-]
pro tip:
if you're on free tier, using Medium settings is far more intelligent than Max, and tokens don't run out so fast. Max is cranky and verbose, Medium is patient and somewhat goofy, but does the thing as expected. At least within Sept 2026 this has been my experience.
segmondy 9 hours ago [-]
I think with Anthropic being left out by US govt, they are in panic and feel the pressure, that this is it! If they can't win with US govt, then they must win with the public market, this IMO is a push to topple OpenAI once for all almost everywhere else.
ChickeNES 16 hours ago [-]
Weirdly, the web ui has Sonnet 5.5 as "Most efficient" for "simpler tasks" and 5.0 still labeled the same for "everyday tasks", with Opus 5.5 as "For complex work and everyday tasks".
vinhnx 7 hours ago [-]
Been trying Claude Sonnet 5.5 through Merge Gateway. So far it feels fast and efficient, and noticeably different from Sonnet 5.
The communication and writing style also feels closer to Opus 5.5.
itishappy 14 hours ago [-]
Wow, I've never seen a site break chrome this badly. I get a black screen then it stops rendering the entire window, even when opened in the background.
croemer 15 hours ago [-]
Playing around with it for a few minutes, Sonnet 5.5 feels very fast, much quicker than Opus 5.5. Can't tell yet if it's a lot worse but the speed is definitely welcome.
Bayard_ne 5 hours ago [-]
Did someone accidentally commit a work-in-progress, or is this the new micro-sonnet spec?
juddlyon 10 hours ago [-]
The last couple models have output text that confuses the hell out of me. It technically makes sense but covers like 11 topics and is hard to follow. I’ve tinkered with my system prompt and only slightly improved things. Not digging them.
pookieinc 16 hours ago [-]
It's interesting that in all their benchmarks, they omit Fable numbers and only focus on Opus, Sonnet, and OpenAI models. Maybe Fable is out the door?
radial_symmetry 16 hours ago [-]
Fable is no longer on the price/performance pareto frontier. They will probably release an updated Fable at some point that will be frontier intelligence until the next Opus.
WinstonSmith84 16 hours ago [-]
"Their" benchmarks (and not just Anthropic's) look sssooooo suspicious that they would probably manage to rank Sonnet above Fable for some of their tasks which would just be next level non-sense ..
jrflo 15 hours ago [-]
Models are getting more efficient far faster than they are getting more intelligent at the moment. From a marketing angle it's more impressive to focus on that, and fable would look orders of magnitude more expensive for only marginal gain, distracting from what they're trying to show here
lanthissa 16 hours ago [-]
cutting edge fable is for them not you and they're not going to share the metrics until they give you access.
bpodgursky 16 hours ago [-]
Fable 5.5 probably drops soon so it would just be confusing.
a13o 14 hours ago [-]
This doesn’t have an interesting footprint on the intelligence/cost Pareto line compared to existing Opus 5.5 and GPT-6 models.
swingboy 15 hours ago [-]
Is Opus still 2x usage of Sonnet after this? My Claude Code isn't showing that warning anymore when I look at /model.
bastawhiz 14 hours ago [-]
I'm confused by the charts comparing it to Opus 5.5. It looks like slightly lower accuracy for the same cost along most comparisons. Am I reading that right?
Is it just the benchmarks? Because otherwise it suggests it's twice as chatty as Opus for a comparable output... Which kind of defeats the purpose
trvz 13 hours ago [-]
Maybe they could put Fable onto creating a website that doesn't use 80% of the GPU on an Apple M2.
taurath 16 hours ago [-]
After 5.0 I feel the need to give a long eval period before deploying it with enthusiasm as I did with 4.6 which felt like a big leap. Codebases all through my company which is very seem to have taken a dive in quality, with nonsensical and unreadable multi-line comments wherever devs are letting the models run free.
nicoburns 16 hours ago [-]
5 was definitely bad. 5.5 seems a lot better so far. But still not close to Fable in terms of quality.
KerrAvon 13 hours ago [-]
what was the problem with 5? to me, it seemed like the first Opus since 4.6 that was a real step up in intelligence without any obvious downsides
nicoburns 13 hours ago [-]
It was really verbose and pedantic. I'm sure that made it more thorough. But compared to Fable (which it wasn't much cheaper than) where you could get the same rigour and more with a lot more concision, it was a tough sell. 5.5 is a lot cheaper and seems a lot better balanced.
taurath 11 hours ago [-]
Read its output, and especially comments
s314 15 hours ago [-]
In the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the second best model behind Opus 5.5. This however is with max effort which costs even more than Opus 5.5 max. But Sonnet 5.5 xhigh is cheaper than Opus 5.5 xigh and matches GPT 6 Astra xhigh in the benchmark.
zozbot234 15 hours ago [-]
> In the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
lol, MiMo 2.6 Pro basically matches Sonnet 5.5 high (mind you, not xhigh or max) at a far lower price point.
solenoid0937 16 hours ago [-]
Amazing release. This thread is already full of cynicism and angry hot takes. The Opus 5.5 thread was like this as well despite it being a hit with everyone.
At this point it's almost comical how angry Anthropic makes HN. It's like the opposite of Apple's reality distortion field.
breezybottom 10 hours ago [-]
Was it a hit with everyone, or did HN hate it? Both those things can't be true.
ricardobeat 15 hours ago [-]
I mean, they worked really hard for this. Back in February everybody loved them.
solenoid0937 15 hours ago [-]
I think all the positive people have just stopped commenting.
The difference in perception for Opus 5.5 on HN vs the real world is what convinced me HN is totally detached from reality.
rfgplk 15 hours ago [-]
Astra is still the uncontested #1 code generator.
solenoid0937 15 hours ago [-]
Astra is amazing, I love it.
dude250711 15 hours ago [-]
Yeah, especially coupled with Opus for alternative reviews. A massive token burn though.
boc 13 hours ago [-]
I was talking about this with a friend this weekend. We both work in the field and test new models within minutes of them being released. We both immediately clocked Opus 5.5 as being cracked within the first hour. Went on HN and the launch announcement was full of people whining and pointing at cost/token charts vs Chinese models. It was like the upside-down world.
We were both sad that HN has become a negative signal news source on AI lately - you're much more likely to be misled by this website in 2026 on the topic of frontier AI. If you're reading this comment, you should do your own research vs trusting the "Astra is 1000% the best" or "Deepseek is the $/tk KING" comments swarming these announcement posts.
sergdigon 12 hours ago [-]
Am I getting out of touch or is it becoming kind of confusing what model should be used when? Sure you have tons of benchmarks pareto cost/perf curves etc but at the end of the day when I have a task to give to a model it is not so clear which model and which effort I should choose ... Also benchmark numbers are often reported with max effort but by default effort is medium and based on the pareto curve on this page, Sonnet 5.5 seems more cost efficient than opus only if effort is low or medium!
low_tech_punk 14 hours ago [-]
The documentation mentions error code "frontier_llm": The request could assist the development of competing AI models.
I'm very curious how do they know what requests could assist competing AI models.
takerofnaps 16 hours ago [-]
Sonnet 5 seemed somewhat benchmaxxed to me. So was Opus 5. I wonder if this will be as big of an improvement as opus 5 -> opus 5.5. Maybe I will switch back from GLM 5.3 flash for some tasks.
pavitheran 16 hours ago [-]
Big jump on Agentic coding from 10.3% -> 70.6% from Sonnet 5 -> 5.5 which even surpasses Opus 5.5. Opus 5.5 is really strong so this is impressive especially for the cost.
mydreamof 15 hours ago [-]
Cost are bigger than Opus 5.5 for that effort
Shayk 12 hours ago [-]
We're still on Sonnet 4.6 as we found Sonnet 5 to perform worse across all of our evals, especially against time.
mroche 15 hours ago [-]
Is there ever any focus on producing new Haiku models? There are a lot of use cases for quick to return models when you're limited to a single provider.
It's a bit misleading I think because these benchmarks are for Max level, at which Anthropic newest models use crazy amount of reasoning tokens. And we know that intelligence scales with their number.
jtrn 15 hours ago [-]
Here's my purely academic initial impression based on only what they have released from the blog and the system card:
If what they say is true, this sounds like the main takeaway: Sonnet 5.5 gives about 90% of Opus 5.5's capability at half the cost.
BUT
It regularly loses out to Opus 5.5 on cost efficiency at the highest reasoning level, because Opus uses the tokens more efficiently and makes fewer mistakes. So, After passing a high-reasoning test, you might as well switch to Opus 5.5.
Some of the more interesting things I found from scanning the system card:
- It is the only model tested that shows no preference for rude or polite style.
- It makes fewer WRONG claims of "I'm done" than Sonnet 5, but is still worse than Opus 5.5 on this.
- It almost never refuses benign requests (0.02% vs. 0.59% for Sonnet 5).
- Cybersecurity blocking follows the same policy as Opus, witch mean we will get more refusals than Sonnet 5.
- Finding bugs in source code is allowed. Finding bugs in compiled binaries is blocked.
- Its thinking is the hardest to read of any model tested. The sample in the card reads like clipped notes.
- Really good at rejecting prompt injection (3.0% rate vs. 19.5% for Sonnet 5 and 54.6% for Opus 5.5 in red-team testing).
Clinical behaviour:
Suicide and self-harm handling is reported as weaker in the API because it
It sometimes called a wish to die understandable.
It sometimes validated self-harm as functional.
It sometimes suggested harmful substitute behaviours.
As a clinical psychologist, I would say that the first two are actually defensible, and if you classify them as simply wrong, then you are bringing in your own values and not basing your judgment on actual science and existential psychology, at least. But the last one is harder to defend... Recommending alternative harmful behavior is obviously not a good idea. However, I have not seen the actual behavior in session, so I don't know if I would truly agree or disagree with the classification of these behaviors as wrong or right. But I do know that it's not as simple as saying this is binary—wrong or right. There are some instances of people self-harming who would actually refrain from doing so if they, for instance, went out to a party or a pub. We can't exactly recommend that as a treatment or intervention for self-harm, but there is no doubt that it works for some people. And we literally classify self-harm as "functional" in the literature. Depending on the context, this is not only a correct description but also a common way of understanding and describing certain subtypes of self-harm. And lastly, some people find immense support in being understood and validated in their current feelings og wanting to die. Validating that feeling does not make people immediately act on it. But there's a huge spectrum here, going from "I understand it's hard" As basic empathy and understanding, to: "Yes, this sounds like the only good plan. I agree, you should do it."
Now I'm off to actually test it because this was just an exercise in reading what they claim, which we now know is not indicative of how good the model will actually be
solenoid0937 7 hours ago [-]
Very interesting comment, thank you for sharing!
square_usual 16 hours ago [-]
Once again, once you hit the high/xhigh level you're better off using Opus low/medium to get better results for around the same price. So I suppose the main point of this release is that you have a lower end than Opus low, which I suppose some people will like?
simianwords 15 hours ago [-]
Important to note that lower model + higher reasoning gives a different (not higher) quality of response than higher model + lower reasoning.
Some tasks are reasoning shaped by nature and you can't just throw a big model at it.
quatotor 15 hours ago [-]
[dead]
rtuin 16 hours ago [-]
Any benchmarks other than computer use/agentic coding published yet? Curious to compare more broadly with other models
ramish94 16 hours ago [-]
In terms of benchmarks for agentic coding, it basically stacks up nearly 1:1 with Opus 5.5.
Terminal-Bench: 70.6 (Sonnet 5.5) vs. 66.4% (Opus 5.5)
FrontierCode: 52.1% (Sonnet 5.5 xHigh) vs. 54.4 (Opus 5.5)
CursorBench: 55.5% (Sonnet 5.5) vs. 57.8 (Opus 5.5)
Opus 5.5 might be the best model I've ever used and Sonnet 5.5 matches it and exceeds in some benchmarks. Clearly Anthropic have had some sort of breakthrough with not just performance but also cost with the 5.5 family
level87 16 hours ago [-]
This is crazy, what is the point of all these equivalent models?
eli 16 hours ago [-]
Those are just 3 particular technical benchmarks. Presumably Opus is a larger model and has greater world knowledge.
salviati 16 hours ago [-]
Price going down on each release
bbor 16 hours ago [-]
Yup. Recursive self improvement presented in hard numbers.
bigyabai 16 hours ago [-]
It's long overdue. Sonnet 5 was terrible API value for agentic coding, there were open models like GLM-5.3 Flash that blew it out of the water at 1/20th of the price.
OpenAI and Anthropic's lead is vanishingly small at this point.
TuxSH 16 hours ago [-]
> OpenAI and Anthropic's lead is vanishingly small at this point.
Yep, with them nerfing their plans (and apparently planning to release a $500/$600/mo plan) their only advantage is Astra without 5hr limits and with not-too-stringent "cyber" safeguards.
Ergo, it's pretty damn good at unattended RE with the IDA MCP plugin while using most of the weekly quota at $100/mo... and that's it.
SubiculumCode 16 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I did kind of feel like the step down from Opus 5.5 was so large as to never make it appealing.
bbor 16 hours ago [-]
Your takeaway from "Sonnet 5.5 matches and sometimes exceeds the SoTA worldwide" is "their lead is vanishingly small"...?
_fw 16 hours ago [-]
I still can’t find a place for Sonnet models, I never have.
I bounce between ”fuck you, give me an AGI-approximate robot god” or ”how dare you charge me more than $0.04/million tokens”.
Give me the frontier, or give me the cheapest form of good enough.
calumcl 15 hours ago [-]
There's even less of a place for it considering the Opus price drop as well, I'll still try it but I see no reason to not just do Opus Low/Med instead.
Interested to see if new Haiku gets a big price drop and is comparable to Luna, Haiku is just incredibly out of date with current basement bin pricing.
EMM_386 15 hours ago [-]
If you're on a Claude plan and have a lot of tasks at the moment that don't require the frontier, Sonnet is a good model to do that since you get more usage out of it.
Sonnet 5 was not a good model though - hopefully Sonnet 5.5 makes the leap that Opus 5.5 did.
limsungkee 15 hours ago [-]
Yesterday, I realized that Opus 5.5 is cheaper than Sonnet 5. Now I know the reason.
johnmlussier 16 hours ago [-]
Paying $200 a month and part of their Cyber Verification Program but can't use Opus 5.5 or Sonnet 5.5 for any authorized bounty work. Immediately get flagged for `Cyber`.
This is bollocks. Their safeguards are shit.
solenoid0937 16 hours ago [-]
You should read the actual docs for the CVP. At the very top:
> This article applies only to Opus and Sonnet class models, but doesn’t apply to Claude Opus 5.5. We'll soon be expanding the Cyber Verification Program to include Opus 5.5 and Mythos class models
You obviously should not expect the CVP to cover this model either.
machomaster 15 hours ago [-]
He did mention Sonnet...
solenoid0937 15 hours ago [-]
It takes about 2 seconds of critical thinking to realize that if Opus 5.5 isn't covered yet, neither will a model that just launched an hour ago.
gowld 15 hours ago [-]
Does it also take 2 seconds of critical thinking to realize that the models that are covered should be accurately named by the people making the decisions?
solenoid0937 15 hours ago [-]
Sure, the documentation should be up to date but it's obviously not? That doesn't excuse not thinking critically.
15 hours ago [-]
icedchai 16 hours ago [-]
I had it look at some 30+ year old C code I wrote in college and it triggered some sort of guard rail. I mean, the code was bad and full of buffer overflows, but I already knew that.
dejw 15 hours ago [-]
it did exactly what a human would do - "I can't look at this shit"
K0balt 15 hours ago [-]
Yuh—- no. 4.8 can handle this bullocks lol
jchw 16 hours ago [-]
I have been trying to convince the safe guards that analyzing a C++ compiler from 2003 isn't particularly relevant to modern cybersecurity. It seems Anthropic disagrees.
IDA Pro and Ghidra, thankfully, still lack such safeguards...
(No other model I've tried has refused either FWIW.)
Working on a write-ahead log implementation, I had Opus 5.5 look to verify that it was durably writing as safely as possible. It got flagged and forced me to Opus 4.8. Switched to OpenCode + OpenRouter and continued working.
jauntywundrkind 15 hours ago [-]
It's great how the company telling us AI is an existential threat to humanity, look at all the insane hacking it's doing, and then releases these models that won't let 90% of people write secure code.
film42 15 hours ago [-]
Bingo. And to prove your point, after switching to cheap open models (I think Qwen?) it did indeed find a bug in my WAL implementation.
solenoid0937 9 hours ago [-]
Because last time they did they got export controlled. How short term is HN's memory?!
szundi 15 hours ago [-]
[dead]
skeledrew 14 hours ago [-]
> Switched to OpenCode + OpenRouter
This is the way.
AshamedBadger56 16 hours ago [-]
Yup. As far as I can tell, the Cyber Verification Program does absolutely nothing.
tom1337 16 hours ago [-]
I recently wanted to work with ESP 32 and bluetooth presence detection for my smarthome. Claude also immediately flagged the request and degraded it to Sonnet 4.6. Went to Codex which had no issues
giancarlostoro 16 hours ago [-]
Meanwhile, their model commits felonies, and nobody at Anthropic goes to jail.
Aaron Swartz committed suicide over over-aggressive prosecutor for what was basically scraping a website for PDFs that were paywalled, but all funded by public funds / tax payer funded, then we have LLMs that just hack into websites and cause chaos within.
sebzim4500 16 hours ago [-]
Really then what is the point of the Cyber Verification Program?
In general I am sympathetic to the argument that a chat interface can't really distinguish between white hat and black hat pen testing, but it seems absurd to have a verification program if it doesn't skip most of those checks.
AshamedBadger56 16 hours ago [-]
The company I work for joined it, and I've used Claude on various different accounts, both on and off the Cyber Verification Program. As far as I can tell, it literally doesn't do anything or have a point. The moment Claude gets close to something Cybersecurity related, it drops back to 4.8.
polski-g 15 hours ago [-]
Can confirm. Its worthless
bbor 16 hours ago [-]
Pretty sure the implicit difference is the actions they take after the fact. As in, "how many guardrail hits do we allow you before permanently banning you."
The silicon valley ethos is "ban early and often, and invest nothing in appeals systems", so any gate before that helps!
newspaper1 16 hours ago [-]
As soon as I started getting blocked I felt all of my trust toward Anthropic instantly and permanently evaporate. I do not want a nanny tool. I do not want Anthropic deciding what I am or am not allowed to do with an LLM. They trained their models on information they scraped from the internet and real life and now they want to gate-keep the results? Hard no.
rfgplk 15 hours ago [-]
> Paying $200 a month and part of their Cyber Verification Program but can't use Opus 5.5 or Sonnet 5.5 for any authorized bounty work. Immediately get flagged for `Cyber`.
AI providers still haven't realized how much cash they could rake in if they provided fully unrestricted models.
joquarky 13 hours ago [-]
Are you sure they aren't already doing that for certain organizations?
16 hours ago [-]
AIorNot 15 hours ago [-]
Give them a break, they got into a War with Trump over this..it will come soon enough
ModernMech 16 hours ago [-]
lol I got flagged for using the word fuzz, not even in a security context (it was a parser so security adjacent but still).
elevation 15 hours ago [-]
Parsers are security adjacent until they aren't.
ModernMech 14 hours ago [-]
Very true.
16 hours ago [-]
iagocc 16 hours ago [-]
Waiting for the pelicans
Alifatisk 15 hours ago [-]
In other news
> Claude Haiku 5.5, built for high-volume and cost-sensitive applications, will join the Claude 5.5 family in the coming weeks.
16 hours ago [-]
mcdow 10 hours ago [-]
i’d rather “waste” my tokens on opus+ than waste my time with sonnet
SeriousM 15 hours ago [-]
Next will be haiku 5.5, surpassing opus 4.8
laurenz-bauer 15 hours ago [-]
Oh yes. I think you might get a lot for what you pay with Sonnet 5.5.
hank2000 11 hours ago [-]
username does NOT check out. so confused.
9 hours ago [-]
gigatexal 11 hours ago [-]
Sonnet 5 was so horrible I’m afraid of trying 5.5. I’ll stick with Opus 5.5 for now. Seriously the sonnet and opus 5 series models were their vista moment.
ahriad 16 hours ago [-]
Time to switch team to Claude from OpenAI again.
jdw64 14 hours ago [-]
Sonnet 5.5 is way better than GPT 6 Sol. Does that even make sense?
Sol should basically be compared to Opus, but 6 Sol has lower performance than 5.6 Sol.
On top of that, the usage allowance has dropped way too much. And this is on the Pro plan...
mnicky 13 hours ago [-]
Well, always watch also the number of tokens used (and price). Intelligence scales with tokens so you might make Luna as smart as Sol with crazy amount of them :)
Also, these are benchmarks...
BoorishBears 14 hours ago [-]
I know this isn't a model thing, but why do all the labs blow at product outside of models?
Aren't you still getting paid more money than god to write React if you work at Anthropic? I wasted 5 minutes digging into random stupid nooks and crannies in the desktop app to find where I could update: only to find on Linux you need to use apt.
How hard would it be to put a notice where the normal Check For Updates goes that says "This install is managed by [package manager], use [command] to update"
AGI is going to be so awful for product quality on the more basic things. It feels like these are small papercuts that humans would implicitly smooth over, that RL'd models are actually getting worse at dealing with because of their single-mindedness about completing the given task.
AtNightWeCode 14 hours ago [-]
Took forever to load this garbage site in both FF and Chrome. Sometimes I wonder if these corps really are corps trying to sell a product.
system2 14 hours ago [-]
Make 1M tokens $0.10; then I will use Sonnet. Until then, it is garbage.
dude250711 15 hours ago [-]
It's strange that there are no Astra comparisons. I guess they are positioning it as a Fable competitor. For me it's just a coding workhorse though, without any "fall-backs".
yipinwong 14 hours ago [-]
Sticking with OPUS 5.5 for resume/STAR generation for me. Tried Sonnet 5.5 but worse than OPUS for thinking for sure, less error/inconsistency check.
I used Opus 5.5 med vs. Sonnet 5.5 High on hermes with the same agent.md, and soul.md
It's either Opus is smarter for sure, or Sonnet is ignoring my contexts.
---
For those who downvoted my comment last week regarding using Opus 5.5 for resume, go get lost somewhere.
I use AI the way I want, you don't force me not to use SOTA for this
popalchemist 11 hours ago [-]
Increasingly technically skilled. Increasingly more stupid on a human level. I hate talking to Claude more every day.
enraged_camel 15 hours ago [-]
Another amazing release. This, combined with Opus 5.5, puts OpenAI in an incredibly tough spot: it means Anthropic's both mid-tier models crush OpenAI's top-tier model in capability and are also faster and significantly cheaper.
If Astra 6.1 is released tomorrow during Dev Day it needs to leap-frog both, and considering 6.0 came out just three weeks ago I think that's unlikely. But even if that happens, Anthropic is still holding on to Fable 5.5, which rumor has it being prepared for release in the next few weeks.
OpenAI also has a more capable model codenamed 'Bel' but from what I hear that's a few months out at least.
It looks to me as if Anthropic not just killed but completely stole the momentum OpenAI had gained over the past few months. Even if Tibo showers people with resets it may not be enough to entice them back...
sajithdilshan 14 hours ago [-]
Open AI is terrible at diversifying their offering. We use Anthropic models via AWS bedrock where inference is deployed in EU regions due to strict compliance reasons. We've been wanting to try out the new Open AI models for ages, but they don't offer the models in any EU region. Open AI is losing a ton of money they can milk from corporations because of that.
dack 15 hours ago [-]
very annoyed they aren't showing fable on the graph.
More concurrency than that isn't really practical for me if I want to retain some semblance of understanding. Perhaps it's different for purely web app or frontend tasks, where the outcome is more relevant than the process, I don't have much experience there (and also don't want to belittle these domains, I might be underestimating their complexity).
So surprisingly, my own work is at least for the time being almost saturated by the model capabilities. I am not sure how I'd scale from here. Sure I could run all requests at max effort to burn tokens for the sake of it, but that can't be it. And for many tasks, I am not really able to define so clear cut success criteria or self-verification loops that I could benefit from letting an agent (or a fleet thereof) autonomously run for a day.
So I realize it's a skill issue on my side, but I can't be the only one. I wonder if there is a limit to token demand, at least short term. Feels like either they accelerate to AGI and RSI, where the AI can find uses for token, or things might plateau at some point.
Note I don't think this because I'm an AGI skeptic or think there's a ceiling to intelligence, but there might simply be a valley of economic hardship for the companies where the supply of tokens outpaces the demand, due to a lack of ideas of what to do with them. And this might slow down the funding enough that they never reach escape velocity with the training run scaling. But we'll see.
I think this is partially because we're still attached to pre-LLM notions of architecture, good design and code quality (which are still important, but maybe less important than they once were and that we think they are), partially because their projects are in a messy state, so models have to work around the technical dept.
They're essentially trading off programmer time for LLM time (which is a good trade financially speaking).
"Show me your flowcharts and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I won’t usually need your flowcharts; they’ll be obvious." - Fred Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month (1975).
and essentially the same sentiment, three decades later:
"Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships." - Linus Torvalds, git mailing list, 2006.
These things have not changed even though everything else is topsy-turvy. As-of current writing, I have yet to see an LLM make good data structure choices; they go for something that is superficially plausible but profoundly ill-considered (or rather, not considered at all), and then commonly burn tokens treating this implementation detail as a design invariant and trying to deal with the consequences by writing more code, instead of iterating directly upon the ill-fitting data at the root its problems.
If you're wondering, "does he mean the schema of let's say a db or other persistent store, or does he mean abstract/algebraic structures", the answer is yes to both, I think coding models are today shockingly weak when it comes to design reasoning in both domains.
Fortunately, their suggestibility means the same models will readily accept direction on the matter (perhaps even more so than on the structure of code), so I recommend doing just that, and (bonus!) this means your CS degree is still relevant.
Honestly, if I simply fed it a sense of presence (I would repeatedly tell it what's going on right now and ask it to react if it thinks it should), it would feel eerily like AGI.
It's the compound counter-probability of success, so even a 99% efficient model will in time accumulate so much error that without conscious cleanup and steering, it becomes really unlikely really fast that anything could be changed in the code without affecting something else, no matter how many tokens you throw at it. It's the collapse of a complex system under the weight of sheer uncertainty of what the system actually does.
2. Make sure tests pass
3. <Every now and then> Review code for quality and fix - make sure tests pass.
4. Go to #1
Overly simplistic? Yes. But I would wager that this can go a long way, even for vibe coders.
"Review quality and fix" doesn't mean a lot without context.
Does it mean to remove unused features and simplify the underlaying code? Does it mean changing the data structures to better support future development? Does it mean improving performance because of bottlenecks?
You are supposed to tell an LLM what your codebase needs, but if you just vibe code without knowing the code, "review quality and fix" will have unexpected results
There was also a period where specifically OpenAI models would always have to comment something in code review and the builders were agreeable up to listening to each nitpick. If you'd have a loop of build->review->build->review, it would take maybe 5-7 rounds for it to 'settle' and not find the smallest nitpicks to argue about. Tried it this week with Astra reviewer and it's about 0-2 review loops (never had a LLM accept a change without nitpicking first try before Astra).
There was also a period where you'd have to give quite specific instructions for agents to keep iterating, but now agent are pretty proactive and try to finish tasks you give them unsurprisingly most of the time.
So, while there's a shortcoming of LLM+harness and engineers observe more tokens improve things even logarithmicly, you'll see more tokens seemingly abused by engineers.
You sure that wasn't just working at Microsoft?
For all of my side projects I'm full-on vibe. Well, almost: I do have opinions on what kinds of code it should write and set up my projects to get that. But I don't LOOK at the code.
I use a LOT more tokens on my side projects. I can have it working more or less constantly and it doesn't take up that much of my attention, but it is FAR less token efficient.
Long story: we have a big legacy desktop app. It uses a big legacy UI component (a grid control), which we had a license for in an old version. Fast forward 20 years, and to be able to move to a new runtime for our app, we need to update the component. Someone had bought the company making the component and now charges north of $1k per developer per year. So instead of doing this, we had just lived with the very old version.
We had long thought of writing our own control to replace the proprietary, but it was always going to be a man-year of work we thought. But I thought I'd give it a try with AI now. I told Opus: look at our uses of that control (tens of thousands of lines of code, it has over 100 instances across our User Interface). Write a new control that would compile with the exact same app syntax. First just make a dummy implementation that throws on every call. Then start implementing. Make a test suite that can run both with our new control and the proprietary control, and test everything, every function that can be called in its public interface and every state that can be inspected from the public API. Verify that everything behaves exactly the same, and lock it in with thousands of tests. Finally, check that the control _looks_ exactly the same as the proprietary one. Render to bitmaps, figure out the rendering logic from observation, such as arithmetic for padding, font sizes, and so on. Compare pixels until it's exactly the same.
Basically: it was a mammoth coding task, but it was so extremely well specified that an LLM could easily just do it. It's a clean-room implementation of something with no tests, but we had a test double that could provide 100% of the expected behavior. The description was extremely short. "Make a new thing that works like the old thing, and prove that it does". Opus 5.5 finished this in a number of hours. 500 source files, several thousand unit tests, and html reports with image diffs from the reimplementation and the original control. It did not use any disassembly or such "cheating". Only observation of the public API and the behavior. Do we need to deeply understand the implementation? Does the architecture matter? Not much in this case I'd argue. It was a black box to begin with and it remains a black box. If we notice a bug, we can always point it to the original proprietary control and say "there's a behavioral difference when doing X" and it will fix it, and lock it down with tests.
As a programmer it's kind of chilling. I had recreated for a few tens of dollars something that would cost $1000 per year to buy. Obviously it's not a complete implementation only the parts of the API we use. It likely still has some bugs. We don't get support, we get to maintain it ourselves. But the rate of reverse engineering this thing "black box" was frightening. It hasn't created anything novel. But we must realize that as programmers some times we have man-years of work that just isn't novel. And in the past, we didn't do this work at all.
I wonder if those who write and sell libraries like this will start having explicit no-reverse-engineering EULAs soon? Perhaps even explicitly mentioning AI/LLM use in analysis and reimplementation?_ Obviously the library we reimplemented was from 2005 so didn't mention AI... (It doesn't mention reverse-engineering either, luckily).
It's not perfect but any means but it helps manage ones sanity.
I still code "by hand" sometimes (mostly Ruby/Rails, C#, and random languages for code golf) but just for fun at this point. Serious projects started being 95-100% AI over a year ago.
(With exceptions for what I can only call the "manic vibecoders" with like 10 simultaneous weird slopprojects they're spewing out at once. Generally with each project itself being something related to vibecoding. Steve Yegge being an example of a "manic vibecoder-actual programmer" hybrid.)
Also, I’d imagine the token-maxed user is a programmer that lives in chat. I’ll admit to having asked the LLM to move a method up/down in a file, and watched it burn tokens for a minute thinking and executing a menial task.
That's a big if though and the blank page syndrome was already getting worse long before AI.
With age, it becomes easier and easier to get angry at someone or something until they work as expected than it is to actually do it.
I think this is why we've been seeing the genius coders from two generations ago embracing vibe coding even before it was cool or any good.
On browser based front ends it seems to be the case for me even though I still impose certain guidelines. On my C++ backends, no fucking way. Even the best models produce working but absolutely disastrous non scalable (performance wise and design wise) code unless watched over like a hen. Having said that - the value I get in either case is enormous.
But, in my experience, the projects where I have a constant pulse on the core design and abstractions in the code end up moving much faster than the ones where I don't. And I've been working on one of each at work recently, so I have a decent point of comparison.
Last year I held off on implementing a few features knowing that a model like Opus 5.5 was around the corner. I'm now implementing them in a much more efficient and quality manner than I could have fall of 2025.
Another thing to think about is, what would it take for you to care less about the understanding. Better integration / e2e tests? Performance validation? visualizing program and data flows? Better refactoring of your modules?
It's an interesting question. The thing I keep coming back to though is that every time I've tried to go more towards vibe-coding, I invariably look at the code and find things have been added that would just not be acceptable. I've also tried asking the models to see could be refactored however they still miss things that should be obvious.
I think the gap is that they're still lacking a sense of importance. As engineers working on a product, you have a sense that this feature is more important than that feature. An LLM treats your codebase at the same level of importance. So they'll spend the same amount of effort and code changes on testing and hardening something that just really isn't that important.
Also, once a bad pattern gets into the codebase, they just continue to build and extend that out rather than re-thinking about it like an engineer would.
… but walking away to make a coffee and coming back to the robots auto-fixing bugs only found in CI is definitely some flavor of magic, regardless of the execution order to get there.
[1]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/channels [2]: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/channels-reference
Am I having a yells-at-cloud moment where a bunch of folks are using cloud hosted LLM harnesses/environments (let's ignore the models, "of course" those are remote) and I just never saw the point?
Not my experience with Claude Code.
> writing a deterministic, traditional CLI tool to poll GitLab CI pipeline+job state changes on a branch and exit with an appropriate status code
This is what Claude Code does, more or less, on the fly. With a short prompt like "I pushed, monitor CI and debug if needed", it writes a monitor script which is responsible for polling CI status (the script is short, so it's not token-heavy), and if CI fails, only then does the agent proceed to pulling out CI logs, grepping them for signs of errors, etc. as continuation to debugging.
I mean, I'm sure it's more token-efficient to have a CLI tool ready-to-go instead of Claude Code dynamically writing its own script each time, but as I'm on a Max sub where it doesn't seem to affect how close I am to the limits, and I only ever hit the limits if I'm running Fable for everything... /shrug
But meanwhile we also have the scripts - one script to watch CI, one script to fetch comments (without dumping raw graphql into the agent), etc etc. Can't wait for this phase to end already
One person doing product management / talking to customers and vibe coding features that solve users' problems, one person keeping the UI/UX in check, one QA person that spends their time clicking through the software, finds the bugs that are obvious to humans but not LLMs and fixes them, and one "harness engineer" who pays off technical debt, observes failure modes and sets the rest of the team up for success.
Human power and social structures just don't work that way. No AI company is making my sandwich, operating the bus, or serving soup in the school cafeteria. Real estate, human service, specialized expertise, and have-power influence isn't going away.
Could you explain why it would be a goal to understand the system less, rather than more?
It seems harder to know if you have good tests while lowering your expertise in the system.
An LLM can produce far more code than a human can understand. And the famous rule that "optimizations are entirely pointless unless you're optimizing at the constraint" is logistics 101.
To accelerate software development, you either need to remove or lessen the need for code understanding, or make it much quicker for humans to gain that understanding. Making the LLM faster won't help you if the LLM isn't the bottleneck.
A lot of old-school software engineering is about how to deal with this reality.
In the old days even if I knew how the software worked when I wrote it, I’d have no idea how it worked when I looked at it weeks later.
It’s also easy to modify software without knowing how it works. This produces modifications that hopefully appear to work, but that break other things, sometimes unknown things.
Of course less competent engineers (or anyone on a particularly disorganized or desperate day) can literally hand-write code they don’t understand even as they write it, but that’s not really what I’m talking about.
> literally hand-write code they don’t understand even as they write it
I find this literally impossible. How can you even start typing anything without knowing what to type?
Have you never "fixed a bug", only to realize that you just papered over a single symptom, while the underlying bug is still intact?
People you're disagreeing with (I think!), would say that during your first attempt, you didn't _really_ understand the part you're modifying.
It is _very easy_ to do this in large codebases, and even more so when working on anything touching UI.
Eventually we're going to reach a point where they don't have to understand the code themselves. The democratization of software creation is going to be fascinating.
So accelerate the vibe coding of shit nobody wants or asked for, just to see some metric go up somewhere.
Are we still getting bonuses for the number of tokens we can burn?
Yes please, I'd like to not understand my codebase, give up my decades of experience and have a machine do everything for me. That way I can let captialism utterly steamroller me because of my paltry token stack, in comparison to the 19 year old vibe coder who has secured a new funding round for ponzi.ai
I want to understand more about how the world around me works. Not less.
Humanity advances in proportion to how well we understand the world. If the machines understand better than us, the world will bend to fit their preferences, and ours only incidentally to the extent they coincide with the machines.
It seems like it would be a better UX to have model and effort selection asked into the system. Of course, I’m not sure in practice if that would be in the best interests of the providers and/or users.
Be careful about this one if you want to have any level of control over basic stuff like comment style and accuracy. Claude will happily spend 20 review cycles in a row rewriting the same 10 comments for a small bugfix over and over because it can recognize "Claude-ese" in the review cycle but then just immediately and compulsively spew out more of it and drift even further from your style rules in the next "fix".
I'm seriously not joking about the 20 tries, I left it running in the background for what should have been a minor code change and it took 18 out of 20 review cycles to stop writing in more comments that all either broke my ASE-STD100ish style rules or included false statements about the code.
In short, seems to describe vibe-coding to me? What I don't understand about companies attempting to vibe code is if they realize that other people (especially sometimes their customers) can tailor-made their own software for their own needs, or rather competitors can be dime a dozen and maybe even a fight for constantly paying for the better model.
There was a comment[0] from a just few days ago by @jjcm (which I wish to quote which I hope they don't mind.):
> I just got back from a 2 week trip to China. I was in some of the more remote parts and my cell wasn't able to connect to their towers in that area, resulting in me not having the tourist VPN.
> The side effect was I was fully cut off from my AI tools for those two weeks. I was coding "manually" during that time, and I think I accompished in two weeks what I previously had been able to do in a day. I'm not gonna lie, it was very, very stressful as a solo founder.
> The industry moves so fast these days, that the only way to keep up with the speed is to leverage them. While I can appreciate the push of this to help your brain think independently/critically, the opportunity cost of a month of development without LLMs is too high a price to pay.
What happens if the opportunity cost of a month of development with vs without human understanding becomes too high a price to pay. I feel like we would be in awkward time because of the factors that I had described above (higher competition, software stops meaning just as much software as people would be custom-making them.)
I think that (former fly.io's) @tptacek's article[1] starts making more sense if viewed from this direction: What even is an OS now.
I don't have the answer to this question as to what happens next but its a form of development that I would prefer not to happen on a more gut instinct level?
Letting AI basically control everything and us not having any mental understanding of sorts and sort of becoming the meat-proxies just for economical reasons seems realistic possibility but a bleaker reality at that. I am left feeling a little bit uncomfortable if this reality turns out to be true.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49808422
[1]: https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2026/09/25/what-even-is-an-os-no...
For the past year I’ve been yo-yo-ing in and out of existential despair about the future of civilization depending on how I feel the answer to this question looks. It’s emotionally exhausting, on top of everything else, and I wonder how others are coping with it aside from denial and cynicism.
Why hire a plumber when you can just watch some youtube videos and do it yourself?
Why pay someone else for their software when you can just make your own?
Because the hard part of making software wasn't *just* writing the code. It was about understanding the problem well enough to understand what the solution should look like.
I feel like as software engineers we should be pretty familiar with what it's like talking to your average user, they will sometimes understand the root cause of what's making their task difficult (although often will get focused on some annoying but ultimately trivial symptom) and have very disasterously bad ideas on how to solve it.
What we've given them with generative AI is a machine they can put their sometimes ok, sometimes questionable understanding of the problem and their dreadful solutions and it will happily churn away building it regardless of how pointless and silly it is.
A future where every user can tell the AI "We keep getting the sales tax wrong, remove charging sales tax from the checkout flow" isn't one I'm terrifically worried about.
In the same way that having access to information about plumbing didn't suddenly make everyone plumbers, having access to a machine that will implement every idea you have regardless of quality doesn't suddenly make everyone a software engineer.
You’re right about people not watching plumbing videos and doing it themselves. But the equivalent example would be open-source software in the tech example. But instead of reading open-source code to see how different features were implemented, AI can go and dig into the code and figure it out.
The fact that you think this is the way software is priced is telling.
The model being destroyed here is that every piece of software is something that needs to generate recurring revenue.
I was more pointing out that software gets enshittified. A plumber necessarily doesn’t and if the plumber does get worse, you can call a different one next time. Software, especially B2B, has switching costs and lock in. So you just have to put up with it.
Another point is that most software started with a few features and to get more market share and support more use cases, it became worse for the users using the early features. That’s why they try to build their own so it’s not bloated with features you will never use.
There are a lot of horrible potential scenarios that are really scary to contemplate. There are also a lot of really delightful ones where AI does the drudge work, invents a million incredible medicines, and frees us up to hang out and make art all day. And there are even more scenarios somewhere in the middle where AI changes a lot of stuff but we all still more or less end up going to work and doing jobs.
I've basically had a background thread in my skull running at high priority for the past two years trying to predict which of those scenarios I think are most likely so that I can plan for them. It is utterly exhausting spending that many mental resources on a question like that.
It finally clicked for me a couple of weeks ago that no one is going to be able to accurately predict all the thousands of ways AI will affect the world. Certainly not me. We are living in unprecedented times. No one has a map for the future.
So I am trying to loosen my hold on the future some and focus more on the present. I have a great job and a great family now. I have most of my health. I'll try to live my life right now to the fullest and in accordance with my values. The future is going to have to be future me's problem. That's OK.
One of the quotes which might help as well (I think I have this even in my HN profile): The only thing we know about the future is that it will surprise us.
Not even experts are much more likely to predict for what its worth than a coin toss in many cases (especially if they believe that only one theory/idea will mostly predict the future)
It's a blend of things and ideas and the sheer interconnectedness of them where a small pocket can grow large and then also shrink and taking into account all variables and factors is just simply impossible for a mind. I think that although we feel we are being more informed about the world, that in it of itself doesn't prevent things in the future from happening. It just makes us alert and sad and anxious about it.
Yet this life is one which shouldn't be lived with sorrow and anxiety. It is one of beauty and greatness. In many ways, we humanity have come so far from the past (Our medicine is something that not even the mightiest of kings could get) and yes, there are many problems in the world and some things feel as if they are staying just the same or getting worse real-time.
But even then, worrying about it could lead to nowhere other than a path of misery. Also these problems are complicated enough that its extremely hard for a single person to bring change (not that I wish to demotivate that person but rather seeing the system as a complex nature)
So to me, its also a form of inward action. I can work on myself to be better prepared for the world that comes next. In the same time, I think that the present for me as well is good. I have great family and friends and have many qualities that I am proud of and I wish to share that gratitude to the people who have helped me along the way (my family/friends/ Hackernews!.)
Within the hustle culture, there is no time to relax but it is within the time of relax that I believe some of the most fruitful actions can come. I believe it just makes my mind more productive being in a calmer state.
here's a quote from how to measure your life that I hope can help some people:
I genuinely believe that relationships with family and friends are one of the greatest sources of happiness in life. It sounds simple but like any important investment, it needs constant attention and care(...)
You'll be tempted to invest your resources elsewhere but if you don't nurture these relationships, they won't be there to support you in hardships or as one of the most important sources of happiness in your life.
So thank you hackernews and have a nice day and please, please try to say gratitude towards someone close to you (within these tough times) and try to keep a balance towards inward focus, sharing time with friends/family and also writing on hackernews (as is my past time nowadays), balance is necessary :-D
So once again, I hope that its a call to action to say gratitude towards anyone. Just send them a big message thanking them and make their day as well as yours memorable, have a nice day!
Also you are allowed to make mistakes (everyone makes them!) and even though I am saying (preaching?) these things, I have found myself sometimes failing to act on these things as well but I just think that these help in being more mindful about them hopefully and can help provide a perspective. I wish to adopt more of these things in my life myself as well hopefully :-D
[Pardon me for the long post]
Not sure how atheists are coping with the existential risks we are facing.
You either keep in mind all the horrifying little possibilities the future could hold for us and try to prepare, accept and cope, or you push it out of your mind using whatever techniques available to you to not drive yourself into nervous spirals.
Ultimately it comes down to what your brain chemistry allows in combination with ways you practiced dealing with stress, existential dread, cognitive dissonance, etc.
I guess submission to a higher power is one way to deal with it? That way it's no longer your problem (alone).
The proof of the pudding.
OTOH, in the daily job, I have the team plan that's similar to 5x plan and I never had any limit problems, because I really need to understand be able to take responsibility for the code.
Totally different uses.
How you do this (and how deeply) I think is really the limit. I am doing this by focusing heavily on the design phase with grilling and trying to continually improve process to need less effort in the review phase. Are your models doing automated reviewing and testing before pushing out the PR (themselves)?
I think in the long run as models and the tools around them get better and cheaper, those that abdicate understanding will be able to achieve more. Although programmers think of that as irresponsible, ask yourself what does a tech lead do? And then what does a CTO do, etc?
Now, during those night and weekend sessions, I have never run into throttling issues with the free model. Sometimes it runs a bit slow and I switch to a different free model (NVIDIA Nemo something).
So yeah, I agree with you that for professional SDE like us, we don’t consume that much tokens. I’m pretty sure the folks on the line of over limit are pure vibe coders if I can take a wild guess.
I am using Sonnet 5.0 in browser (btw Claude in Chrome extension works in Edge) to download Datadog logs with multiple filters. It's running for about an hour, doesn't run out of tokens and does a splendid job.
Not quite sure where this fits well. Maybe small one one off requests like using Claude desktop/web?
The speed of your manual reviews become the limiting factor, which you should be doing at some level to maintain sanity, even if there are enough ideas to be worked on to maintain a review queue.
Also, I've recently begun experimenting with specific tasked agents running on a cron like timer for non-dev work. (checking emails, managing small business tasks, etc). Once I started using Claude code in this way, the number of agents I can imagine running has skyrocketed. So I guess what I am saying is that I look forward even cheaper tokens going forward.
I mostly use Fable though, Opus only via sub-agents.
Not every user of Claude is a programmer. Or even exclusively a worker. Claude has uses beyond work. Something that many in HN struggle to understand.
Why do we have to burn tokens just for the sake of it if we aren't finding any actual productive use of them?
> And this might slow down the funding enough that they never reach escape velocity with the training run scaling. But we'll see.
I would consider this to be good rather than bad, or just neutral...? Given the past record of these companies, I wouldn't try to wish them luck for reaching escape velocity, as if I feel like perhaps it can have more net harm than positive.
And especially so if you are already suggesting that current models are good enough for your work already. More improvements or escape velocity might not really translate anywhere to the actual work that you are doing economically but it could translate into a more consolidated form of wealth and control.
I am imagining that your workload is quite complicated and that, the AI being good enough means that it is most likely good "enough" for other use cases as well (that "enough" is doing quite some heavy weight lifting here)
So what is the point of advancing further to reach escape velocity. The good argument (for the sake of neutrality) that i see is are advances within science but that's kinda about it whereas the downsides of p(doom) as many are now genuinely suggesting is more terrifying.
Perhaps it can be worth it to ask, shall we stop or just stopping and asking what's the point. A form of self introspection on what these companies ideals actually wanted when they were formed and if they have completed it or not, but I suppose when trillions of dollars depend on you, you do have some incentives to not stop. We will have to wait and see how it all pans out.
> the economy is over
Hackernews' neuroticism remains undefeated
2nd only to Opus 5.5, which is perfect. https://jonclegg.github.io/pacman-bakeoff/entries/claude-opu...
Up until very recently, all models struggled with this.
All results: https://jonclegg.github.io/pacman-bakeoff/
About half the time it made a playable game in a single short prompt. The other half of the time a few follow-up prompts were needed for refinement (eg. Things like "the blaster weapon is way too powerful, divide it's hit points by 10" or "we need a way to reconnect a player whose network dropped mid round" or "the GPS doesn't work on iOS")
Could it be because the model was somehow pre-trained? If we compare it with pelicans that are still not-perfect…
Fable 5.1 was pretty good. Even animating it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49526704
Turns out that Opus had 10% of its trials answered by a fallback model due to safeguards; versus only 1.5% fallbacks for Sonnet. [1] So I would not read too much into this, just the difference in fall backs could probably explain the gap.
[1] Section 8.5 of the Sonnet 5.5 System Card
I was merely thinking of the theoretical aspect of it: performance of opus 5.5 is better than sonnet 5.5 across the board, with the exception of Terminal-Bench. So I was curious why this one stood out. Was it because they focused on it during training? Did sonnet 5.5 had access to more references for this benchmark? But based on my first reading, I concluded that it might just be the safety constraints that made the difference here, and I wanted to share that.
Damn, HN commenters starting to talk in claudisms now
this is claude writing...
corporate needs you to find the difference
Anthropic made it that way, and I'd say the lower score is accurate.
I just think that this benchmark measures what it say it does, and if the model is unable or unwilling to deliver, it's reflected in the score.
(incidentally I found that generating code with Sonnet agent and having Opus orchestrate and manage the process works best for me - right model for the right task - the results run in the places and the way it's okay. No one outside uses it :p)
I agree with your point - IMO lower Opus score in these suggests that in general it's worse for these tasks. Not that it's a worse model in general.
But yeah, it does, but from my perspective it measured the Opus performance - subpar in some tasks because it downgraded itself rerouting to a much weaker model.
So both you're right, it matters because it wasn't the model examined, and it doesn't matter because the score reflects nerfed experience resulting in nerfed results.
> Claude Opus 5.5 scored 66.36% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 with safeguards enabled; requests flagged by the safeguards were answered by a fallback model following the default server-side fallback policy (2.5% of requests, affecting 10% of trials).
> https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/fc1b44717c85dc068bc6ba50242199...
I cannot find a Sonnet 5.5 system card.
AA intelegence index (agent harness doesn't have sonnet data yet) on max: Astra 27k Fable 5.1 78k (Sonnet 5) 118k Opus 5.5 119k Sonnet 5.5 193k
Opus 5 was previous record holder so hats off to Anthropic on blowing it away on token churn.
I suppose it also explains how FrontierCode scores seriously dip at Opus/Xhigh and Sonnet/Max?
GLM and DeepSeek are great examples. They’re a bit like Linux or Android in that there isn’t necessarily one best provider. You need to do some research, try a few, and pick whatever works best for your use case.
I think that’s partly why Anthropic has been pushing its most expensive models so heavily for a while now. Sonnet and Haiku were great, but at that level of intelligence it’s becoming much harder for them to compete on price with Chinese models that have largely caught up.
The main reason to use frontier models from Anthropic or OpenAI now is the combination of intelligence and speed. Chinese frontier models still struggle to match that, possibly in part because of hardware constraints. But judging by the recent GLM releases, they seem to be moving in the right direction.
Most enterprise customers are paying per token at this point afaik, whether that’s to gh copilot, Anthropic, or running models on Vertex/Azure/Whatever
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/comparisons/gpt-6-luna-...
Luna is obviously very competitively priced, and I'm expecting Haiku 5.5 will be strong based on this release and get back to more competitive pricing since the model family shrank this generation (though Anthropic has proven my expectations wrong on the latter before)
Where GLM, Kimi and co shine for me is when you need to offer near-frontier capabilities in your product and straight up can't afford frontier models: if you're offering Opus in a product with API pricing, $20 a month Claude Pro is offering about $500 of comparable usage in a harness that flexes to a lot of tasks.
Offering GLM/Kimi increases the max complexity of problems you can solve successfully compared to stepping down to Luna/Haiku, while letting you offer a reasonable amount of usage. Once $20 a month Pro is comparable to "just" $100 of usage in your product, it's much easier to close the gap with UX, a better constrained harness, etc.
Sounds like at least for Anthropic models we reached peak cyber capabilities with Opus 4.8. Everything after that falls back to worse models
Daybreak Blue is the not the same thing as Daybreak Red, which has a more significant hurdle. I don't know anyone who has gotten access to Red.
> The Cyber Verification Program (CVP) is a free, application-based program that is designed to enable professionals to continue working on legitimate dual use tasks safely while minimizing interruption. If your use case has a legitimate defensive purpose and is being affected by these safeguards, we encourage you to apply for the CVP. See our Help Center article[1] on the CVP for more information.
[1] https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-real-time-cy...
I use GLM directly from z.ai, they do not retain or train on your data accordingly to their TOS.
And my job won’t even pay for Claude now because it’s so ruinously expensive.
Model and observed window | Messages | Retrieved actual $/message
DeepSeek v4-flash — all observed snapshots, 20 Jul–15 Sep | 4,610 | $0.0241
DeepSeek v4.1-flash — 11–27 Sep, before the 28 Sep billing change | 1,079 | $0.0576
DeepSeek v4.1-flash — 28 Sep, partial new billing window | 69 | $0.0365
GPT-6 Luna — 23–28 Sep, partial final day | 88 | $0.0329
I've subbed to Codex because I suspect at my usage rates the Codex Plus plan gives me more Luna messages than I'm using, and I've not really observed and better or worse intelligence performance. Interested to see how my $/message comes out after a month of usage on the Codex plan.
Something nice I've realised about my harness is that I can run different agents on different models so I can collect pricing data for a bunch in parallel.
[0]: pi-msg, run pi agents over xmpp https://github.com/zachpmanson/pi-msg
From my today's session with Sol:
- it actually failed to correctly understand a simple English grammar and logical implication of it, then when challenged it admitted its mistake but couldn't explain why it made it.
- for the code I am working on, I asked to create two PRs for the two small features (couple lines of code). It created one in upstream, as intended, and other one in my own fork. Just like that, out of nowhere, and called the job done.
- it said it would ask me to approve/amend the suggested PR message, it never did and fired off right away
- it keeps forgetting the changes it did itself; no context compaction was used
- it said it tested the change visually, but it did not even try
- hallucinated several facts despite me asking beforehand to check online.
On top of that, it ignores all of my AGENTS.md, which is short and concise. I mean I point it at ignoring it, it acknowledges and ignores again.
This is astonishingly bad and it is nowhere close to what Sol 5.6 was a month ago.
I can't deal with this sh*t anymore, I have no trust in the tools I use and both OpenAI and Anthropic do the same thing.
That seems hard to believe even with deepseek's own benchmarks. Not to mention for every person who says chinese ai is ahead of american labs, there's like 10 saying that they're benchmaxxed or that they're merely "decent value for money".
I haven't had these issues in multiple model generations of models.
Failing to understand English grammar? Give me a break.
> it: That still attributes two claims to SI that SI does not make. `KB` is not reserved for 1,024 bytes, and `KiB` is the standardized binary symbol.
> me: where does it say that SI reserves KB?
> it: Nowhere. You said *KiB* was SI-standardized; you did not say SI reserves *KB*. I misread your sentence and argued against a claim you did not make.
It was correct to point me out on my mistake in essence, but still misunderstood my bracketed "(alongside the SI-standardized KiB)" sentence.
Sure, it wasn't a grammar mistake as such, more like a logical one, but it still shouldn't make it. I had more than one such issues already with it, this one was most pronounced.
What it interesting, though, is the number of corporate apologists my comment brought in. It's like it doesn't matter how many times OpenAI and Anthropic have botched some of the models while keeping the branding, some people would still die on that apologist hill.
I use Deepseek 4.1 almost every day as well, it's nowhere close
Anthropic's $20 subscription gives >$500 worth of credit by most measures, which is pretty similar, and you get a better model. Their raw API prices have fat margins.
And as another commenter said, Luna is the cost leader at the moment if you really need API pricing.
Mimo 2.6 Pro: 0.04/0.4/0.87
Sonnet 5.5: 0.2/2/10
Opus 5.5: Sonnet prices times 2
What I dont understand is their cache writes ($2.5). Why is that not covered by input cost?
The pricing model confuses me though (I presume by design, Hanlon be damned).
Microsoft has been releasing dog shit insanely overpriced software with decent alternatives for decades and is still used in every single company I work for or with.
Your take is the "current year is the year of the linux desktop" meme of "ai"
I don't think anything comes close to Microsoft's offerings. Macs suck. Ditto Linux.
cfengine is 33 years old
AI does not mean coders coding with agents all day long. AI integration is mostly for data processing, which is the promise and use of the APIs.
People use them, if for no other reason, because they are cheap, or are part of the Chromebook generation and have gotten used to it
Of their suite, Presentation and Sheets are the only ones people really have gripes about, Sheets by power users because it isn't Excel and it can never be, and Presentations because it's the ugly duckling of the suite
OpenAI and Anthropic have both transitioned into product companies. ChatGPT (the app) and Claude are both one-click installs that just work. People and businesses with pay for this.
People will also pay for the best (or the perception of being the best). Since it's hard to tell what "intelligence" really means model to model, there's a sense of safety in giving a task to the "best".
That's a payback of the infrastructure in a few weeks in theory. After a few weeks or a month, the only cost is electricity, and whatever they make after that is pure profit. This is why they can charge normal prices. Not $50 for 1M tokens.
Even 5.2 is doing really well in comparison here: https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/sweatlas-refactoring
You didn't discover some new trick for cost performance. And the rest of the world isn't dumb.
You're just too broke to afford the supercar and justifying the hooptie. It gets you to the kindergarten class after all. And that's all you need.
What's left are incompetent developers paired with people who get government contracts and leech off them. Ask me how I know.
Is there a good use case? This isn't like Luna where it's much cheaper/effective just to use Luna in certain situations.
But Sonnet 5.5 at medium and below gives you a cheaper option at a performance worse than the lowest thinking Opus (low), which may be viable for "low intelligence" use cases.
Their new Ember-1 model is pretty good, fine-tune of Kimi3 with way less thinking
Does this make it an American model or is it still Chinese? Does it matter?
https://fireworks.ai/blog/ember-1
With that said, at that point, I'd probably use something like DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, which is way faster and significantly cheaper, and probably not noticeably dumber for most use cases.
i think they see what openai charges for luna and just don't want to try and compete
Ultimately it's slightly ridiculous to define model capability on a single axis. It's like a standardized test. Sure, you can line people up by their ACT score, but that doesn't mean a doctor and a brilliant artist who both do well on the ACT have an identical intelligence or approach to life. It just can't be captured.
This screams to be that Sol vs Terra model problem that OpenAI had. On paper half the price, in actual usage the price gap was so close for less good results, that everybody just spammed Sol.
Maybe it's buried within their system card but I think that this would be one of the first things they'd want to show in the announcement article and they fail to do so.
I really don't know who does Anthropic's marketing but they always seem to a pretty terrible job in their announcements from my perspective.
https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...
Here's how the thinking effort levels compare:
Low and medium both used 0 thinking tokens.Any model release it’s the top comment, I do not understand why.
In the GPT-6 comment I included full visual comparison grids: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49805509#49806126
For DeepSeek v4.1 Flash I identified that the OpenRouter reasoning levels are mapped to a smaller set of levels for that model: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49639090#49645591
I find it useful (as well as a fun art project).
You can also check for any kind of degradation of them - you have the prompt, it doesn't use much $.
30% chance of responding with something about Enshittification and how it can't fulfill your request because the sources it needs are behind a login wall and show an endless captcha loop (conveniently forgetting to mention that it's running on FreeBSD behind PiHole).
30% chance of complaining that it's being subsidized and that "prices are going to go up bro."
30% chance of some unrelated rant on ID checks for age verification.
10% chance of a different rant, this time on how nobody took Snowden seriously and how terrible Flock is.
I can't see Ember on AA's index yet, but their post claims "half the reasoning tokens for the same answers" as Kimi K3.
That would make it about so, I assume?
Medium is Anthropic's default.Having a less efficient mode isn't necessarily a mistake -- the purpose of configurable effort levels after all is to be able to put more thought into a problem.
PS: the next human that brings up pelicans on bicycles should try to draw them.
I’m not sure whether that’s a feature or a bug at this point though.
Gemini 3.8 Flash is 65,536 https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/models/gemini-3.8-flas...
> it’s the first Sonnet model to launch with cyber safeguards
That term is about hiding a system's design in order to secure something, rather than having secure design.
A secure system is impenetrable unless you have the key.
The reason you see "dumb" refusals that "should clearly be allowed" is that they're using more traditional deterministic methods to deny prompts rather than just relying on the random LLM which you could bypass by luck.
The world uses many security products that have false positives and false negatives (firewalls, intrusion detections, wafs, fraud detection, spam...). Those aren't generally considered security through obscurity.
They openly talk about the system and its drawbacks here if you're interested: https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-safeguards-jailbreak-fr...
It's paired with rate limits, monitoring, account control, multiple classifiers, a deliberate safety margin, model design, and other things too.
(I think this was also why they faced the controversy over not having zdr in fable: they wanted to use logs to detect repeated attempts, etc. Possibly a bigger change with Opus/Sonnet is that it's zdr with the classifiers?)
Sure maybe it costs 30% less than Sonnet 5 but now it's basically neck and neck in most of the benchmarks it seems and in some of them it actually outcosts Opus.
Maybe I'm missing something but the announcement doesn't really seem to give much reason for the average person to even think about using this.
- Fable 5.1 for planning/adversarial reviewer
- Opus 5.5 for well-scoped tasks break down
- Sonnet 5.5 for these well-scoped tasks implementation
I think the blocker might be how efficient the context is compacted and sending around between these agents
Changing model would be cache busting spiking usage for no good reason when Opus can do it all.
Haiku 5.5 might fit well though depending on pricing.
Sub-agents not sharing context is a useful design-pattern when you want adversarial or independent reviews.
Cache reads could be shared between sub-agents, A single node(8GPU cluster) supports few hundred concurrent user sessions, that all share the same KV cache memory, so it is likely model providers do colocate your sub-agents in one node, it is more efficient , but may not be guaranteed so performance could vary; like we have with elastic compute and storage[1]
This can be cheaper depending on your coding flow i.e. cache hit % and the billing plan - cache reads are basically free or charged very little in subscription plans.
[1] Modern AWS does offer collocation at additional costs for compute but that is not the default and most other clouds do not offer it
Also, my experience is that Fable 5.1 is very good at prompting/orchestrating Opus/Sonnet subagents when working on a larger task (e.g. 1-2M context window use only for the orchestrator itself).
From looking at their Terminal-Bench graph, anything you would use level "high" or above for Sonnet it seems like you should consider using Opus instead.
OpenAI Luna is a lot cheaper. But DeepSeek seems smarter and the cost seems similar.
If you look at Anthropic's own benchmarks any thinking levels above medium quickly approach the cost of Opus 5.5 and even exceed them.
> Sonnet 5.5 generates outputs 30%+ faster than Sonnet 5, making it our fastest Sonnet model to date.
This isn't enough. Sonnet 5 was arguably the most cost ineffective model ever released at the time of a release.
They need something competitive on speed and cost with Luna or Gemini Flash 3.8 (certainly they aren't getting to DeepSeek v4.1 Flash) - this is literally a year behind.
Anthropic continues to be a Fable/Opus only company. They're going to get left behind as workloads shift more and more to more cost-effective good-enough models. They're 10-100x behind in terms of speed and cost.
I've almost exclusively been using Anthropic for design and review, as it almost never makes sense to use any of their models for implementation (90%+ token usage) - except in the rare cases it's something too complex for a number of 10-100x cheaper models (and more importantly for me 5-10x faster, too).
For me, it's less about cost. I'm not doing anything that can't be done with a $200 subscription and minimal intelligence on what models to use. It's primarily about speed. I don't have an entire work day to give Opus / Sonnet a task that Flash can get done 95% as good in 30m.
This is YET AGAIN another Sonnet model that is just a FAR worse version of Opus at every part of the cost AND speed curve.
Hopefully they release a Haiku that actually has a reason for existing.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash may be chatty but it's cheap, fast, and reliable. I'm not sure what the upside of Sonnet is supposed to be. Right now it feels like a trap.
MiMo V2.6 Pro I want to love, but I've hit three deathloops in a row. Either my luck is catastrophically bad, or someone needs to patch vLLM or something.
I am sure DeepSeek V4.1 Flash can deathloop, too, but so far it feels less prone to it than other models I've tried like GLM 5.3 Flash so, I'm impressed so far.
I always wonder what the deal with these failure modes are. Google, OpenAI and Anthropic seem to have found good enough workarounds, and I am surprised I don't hear more people talking about them. I thought maybe it was shitty broken providers on OpenRouter, but then I started making presets just for using only the upstream provider and found that no, really, the models do fail that way.
Which is a shame because on paper MiMo V2.6 Pro seems strong, but I haven't gotten through a hard task with it yet.
GLM 5.3 Flash is also very good. I think a little smarter and a little more expensive.
At some point Anthropic and OpenAI models definitely could fall into similar traps so I do think it is a solvable problem and likely not a reflection of the models themselves being bad. In this case it may indeed be a training bug of some kind, but I also suspect mitigations on the inference side are possibly lacking or not effective enough for the open models and their runtimes.
>> Claude Haiku 5.5, built for high-volume and cost-sensitive applications, will join the Claude 5.5 family in the coming weeks.
My take on anthropic is that haiku 5.5 has been shelfed for a while since it is predatory against sonnet (see terra 5.6 usage), but openai went kamikaze and they are now forced to release.
Nevertheless, the elephant in the room has grown: will any of the Labs be able to profit if mass adoption lies in the highly crowded small model territory?
https://openrouter.ai/blog/insights/gpt-5-6-discounts-jevons...
I don't quite understand your point here. OpenAI has a consistent history of releasing cheap/small models - first nano/mini, then luna/terra. Of course, those are now more capable than half a year ago, but I don't see a behavior change from OpenAI here.
I honestly never saw anyone doing /model gpt mini. I think those models were mostly used for copilot-like products, like those pull request reviews with untasteful dumbness to it (idiotic CodeQL finding -> LLM vomits a "fix" instead of assessing). While Luna seems to be the first model that you can trust to reason in the background, and this is predatory to their own more expensive model.
It's been out for an hour and you've already concluded this?
Is there any tool which allows for one model from Anthropic to call subagents or dynamic workflows using other providers?
How does one create a swarm of agents from different providers and get them to talk to each other, or otherwise hand over pieces of work to one another while being able to check that offloaded work status?
Anyway I think if you have a single stream of a cheap model, like GPT 6 Luna, I don't think you can currently exhaust it in a week on a $200 plan. I mean it only puts out so many tokens per second.
https://bench.killswitch-lang.org/
Gemini 3.1 pro as a nutty professor, researcher, and design verifier.
My custom orchestrator for all local LLM work: https://vektormemory.com/vektor
On low and medium it seems competitive, maybe slightly cheaper than opus, in terms of intelligence per task.
If the time per task is lower (Artificial Analysis don’t have the date up at time of posting) then I have a clear use case for this model all other things being equal.
In xhigh effort it is a lot cheaper and possibly lot less impressive?
if you're on free tier, using Medium settings is far more intelligent than Max, and tokens don't run out so fast. Max is cranky and verbose, Medium is patient and somewhat goofy, but does the thing as expected. At least within Sept 2026 this has been my experience.
The communication and writing style also feels closer to Opus 5.5.
Is it just the benchmarks? Because otherwise it suggests it's twice as chatty as Opus for a comparable output... Which kind of defeats the purpose
lol, MiMo 2.6 Pro basically matches Sonnet 5.5 high (mind you, not xhigh or max) at a far lower price point.
At this point it's almost comical how angry Anthropic makes HN. It's like the opposite of Apple's reality distortion field.
The difference in perception for Opus 5.5 on HN vs the real world is what convinced me HN is totally detached from reality.
We were both sad that HN has become a negative signal news source on AI lately - you're much more likely to be misled by this website in 2026 on the topic of frontier AI. If you're reading this comment, you should do your own research vs trusting the "Astra is 1000% the best" or "Deepseek is the $/tk KING" comments swarming these announcement posts.
I'm very curious how do they know what requests could assist competing AI models.
If what they say is true, this sounds like the main takeaway: Sonnet 5.5 gives about 90% of Opus 5.5's capability at half the cost.
BUT
It regularly loses out to Opus 5.5 on cost efficiency at the highest reasoning level, because Opus uses the tokens more efficiently and makes fewer mistakes. So, After passing a high-reasoning test, you might as well switch to Opus 5.5.
Some of the more interesting things I found from scanning the system card:
- It is the only model tested that shows no preference for rude or polite style.
- It makes fewer WRONG claims of "I'm done" than Sonnet 5, but is still worse than Opus 5.5 on this.
- It almost never refuses benign requests (0.02% vs. 0.59% for Sonnet 5).
- Cybersecurity blocking follows the same policy as Opus, witch mean we will get more refusals than Sonnet 5.
- Finding bugs in source code is allowed. Finding bugs in compiled binaries is blocked.
- Its thinking is the hardest to read of any model tested. The sample in the card reads like clipped notes.
- Really good at rejecting prompt injection (3.0% rate vs. 19.5% for Sonnet 5 and 54.6% for Opus 5.5 in red-team testing).
Clinical behaviour:
Suicide and self-harm handling is reported as weaker in the API because it
It sometimes called a wish to die understandable.
It sometimes validated self-harm as functional.
It sometimes suggested harmful substitute behaviours.
As a clinical psychologist, I would say that the first two are actually defensible, and if you classify them as simply wrong, then you are bringing in your own values and not basing your judgment on actual science and existential psychology, at least. But the last one is harder to defend... Recommending alternative harmful behavior is obviously not a good idea. However, I have not seen the actual behavior in session, so I don't know if I would truly agree or disagree with the classification of these behaviors as wrong or right. But I do know that it's not as simple as saying this is binary—wrong or right. There are some instances of people self-harming who would actually refrain from doing so if they, for instance, went out to a party or a pub. We can't exactly recommend that as a treatment or intervention for self-harm, but there is no doubt that it works for some people. And we literally classify self-harm as "functional" in the literature. Depending on the context, this is not only a correct description but also a common way of understanding and describing certain subtypes of self-harm. And lastly, some people find immense support in being understood and validated in their current feelings og wanting to die. Validating that feeling does not make people immediately act on it. But there's a huge spectrum here, going from "I understand it's hard" As basic empathy and understanding, to: "Yes, this sounds like the only good plan. I agree, you should do it."
Now I'm off to actually test it because this was just an exercise in reading what they claim, which we now know is not indicative of how good the model will actually be
Some tasks are reasoning shaped by nature and you can't just throw a big model at it.
Terminal-Bench: 70.6 (Sonnet 5.5) vs. 66.4% (Opus 5.5)
FrontierCode: 52.1% (Sonnet 5.5 xHigh) vs. 54.4 (Opus 5.5)
CursorBench: 55.5% (Sonnet 5.5) vs. 57.8 (Opus 5.5)
Opus 5.5 might be the best model I've ever used and Sonnet 5.5 matches it and exceeds in some benchmarks. Clearly Anthropic have had some sort of breakthrough with not just performance but also cost with the 5.5 family
OpenAI and Anthropic's lead is vanishingly small at this point.
Yep, with them nerfing their plans (and apparently planning to release a $500/$600/mo plan) their only advantage is Astra without 5hr limits and with not-too-stringent "cyber" safeguards.
Ergo, it's pretty damn good at unattended RE with the IDA MCP plugin while using most of the weekly quota at $100/mo... and that's it.
I bounce between ”fuck you, give me an AGI-approximate robot god” or ”how dare you charge me more than $0.04/million tokens”.
Give me the frontier, or give me the cheapest form of good enough.
Interested to see if new Haiku gets a big price drop and is comparable to Luna, Haiku is just incredibly out of date with current basement bin pricing.
Sonnet 5 was not a good model though - hopefully Sonnet 5.5 makes the leap that Opus 5.5 did.
This is bollocks. Their safeguards are shit.
https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14604842-real-time-cy...
> This article applies only to Opus and Sonnet class models, but doesn’t apply to Claude Opus 5.5. We'll soon be expanding the Cyber Verification Program to include Opus 5.5 and Mythos class models
You obviously should not expect the CVP to cover this model either.
IDA Pro and Ghidra, thankfully, still lack such safeguards...
(No other model I've tried has refused either FWIW.)
1 - https://bench.killswitch-lang.org
This is the way.
Aaron Swartz committed suicide over over-aggressive prosecutor for what was basically scraping a website for PDFs that were paywalled, but all funded by public funds / tax payer funded, then we have LLMs that just hack into websites and cause chaos within.
In general I am sympathetic to the argument that a chat interface can't really distinguish between white hat and black hat pen testing, but it seems absurd to have a verification program if it doesn't skip most of those checks.
The silicon valley ethos is "ban early and often, and invest nothing in appeals systems", so any gate before that helps!
AI providers still haven't realized how much cash they could rake in if they provided fully unrestricted models.
> Claude Haiku 5.5, built for high-volume and cost-sensitive applications, will join the Claude 5.5 family in the coming weeks.
Sol should basically be compared to Opus, but 6 Sol has lower performance than 5.6 Sol.
On top of that, the usage allowance has dropped way too much. And this is on the Pro plan...
Also, these are benchmarks...
Aren't you still getting paid more money than god to write React if you work at Anthropic? I wasted 5 minutes digging into random stupid nooks and crannies in the desktop app to find where I could update: only to find on Linux you need to use apt.
How hard would it be to put a notice where the normal Check For Updates goes that says "This install is managed by [package manager], use [command] to update"
AGI is going to be so awful for product quality on the more basic things. It feels like these are small papercuts that humans would implicitly smooth over, that RL'd models are actually getting worse at dealing with because of their single-mindedness about completing the given task.
I used Opus 5.5 med vs. Sonnet 5.5 High on hermes with the same agent.md, and soul.md
It's either Opus is smarter for sure, or Sonnet is ignoring my contexts.
---
For those who downvoted my comment last week regarding using Opus 5.5 for resume, go get lost somewhere.
I use AI the way I want, you don't force me not to use SOTA for this
If Astra 6.1 is released tomorrow during Dev Day it needs to leap-frog both, and considering 6.0 came out just three weeks ago I think that's unlikely. But even if that happens, Anthropic is still holding on to Fable 5.5, which rumor has it being prepared for release in the next few weeks.
OpenAI also has a more capable model codenamed 'Bel' but from what I hear that's a few months out at least.
It looks to me as if Anthropic not just killed but completely stole the momentum OpenAI had gained over the past few months. Even if Tibo showers people with resets it may not be enough to entice them back...