My habits have changed quite a bit with Opus 4.5 in the past month. I need to write about it..

▲ godelski 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What's concerning to many of us is that you've (and others) have said this same thing s/Opus 4.5/some other model/

That feels more like chasing than a clear line of improvement. It's interrupted very different from something like "my habits have changed quite a bit since reading The Art of Computer Programming". They're categorically different.

▲ mkozlows an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's because the models keep getting better! What you could do with GPT-4 was more impressive than what you could do with GPT 3.5. What you could do with Sonnet 3.5 was more impressive yet, and Sonnet 4, and Sonnet 4.5.

Some of these improvements have been minor, some of them have been big enough to feel like step changes. Sonnet 3.7 + Claude Code (they came out at the same time) was a big step change; Opus 4.5 similarly feels like a big step change.

(If you don't trust vibes, METR's task completion benchmark shows huge improvements, too.)

If you're sincerely trying these models out with the intention of seeing if you can make them work for you, and doing all the things you should do in those cases, then even if you're getting negative results somehow, you need to keep trying, because there will come a point where the negative turns positive for you.

If you're someone who's been using them productively for a while now, you need to keep changing how you use them, because what used to work is no longer optimal.

▲ pertymcpert 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Opus 4.5 is categorically a much better model from benchmarks and personal experience than Opus 4.1 & Sonnet models. The reason you're seeing a lot of people wax about O4.5 is that it was a real step change in reliable performance. It crossed for me a critical threshold in being able to solve problems by approaching things in systematic ways.

Why do you use the word "chasing" to describe this? I don't understand. Maybe you should try it and compare it to earlier models to see what people mean.

	▲	godelski 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		`> Why do you use the word "chasing" to describe this?` I think you'll get the answer to this if you read my comment and your response to understand why you didn't address mine. Btw, I have tried it. It's annoying that people think the problem is not trying. It was getting old when GPT 3.5 came out. Let's update the argument...

▲ v64 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Looking forward to hearing about how you're using Opus 4.5, from my experience and what I've heard from others, it's been able to overcome many obstacles that previous iterations stumbled on

▲ indigodaddy 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you expound on Opus 4.5 a little? Is it so good that it's basically a superpower now? How does it differ from your previous LLM usage?

	▲	pertymcpert 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To repeat my other comment: > Opus 4.5 is categorically a much better model from benchmarks and personal experience than Opus 4.1 & Sonnet models. The reason you're seeing a lot of people wax about O4.5 is that it was a real step change in reliable performance. It crossed for me a critical threshold in being able to solve problems by approaching things in systematic ways.

▲ remich 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Please do. I'm trying to help other devs in my company get more out of agentic coding, and I've noticed that not everyone is defaulting to Opus 4.5 or even Codex 5.2, and I'm not always able to give good examples to them for why they should. It would be great to have a blog post to point to…