In my experience with the models (watching Claude play Pokemon), the models are similar in intelligence, but are very different in how they approach problems: Opus 4.5 hyperfocuses on completing its original plan, far more than any older or newer version of Claude. Opus 4.6 gets bored quickly and is constantly changing its approach if it doesn't get results fast. This makes it waste more time on"easy" tasks where the first approach would have worked, but faster by an order of magnitude on "hard" tasks that require trying different approaches. For this reason, it started off slower than 4.5, but ultimately got as far in 9 days as 4.5 got in 59 days.

▲

KronisLV 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I got the Max subscription and have been using Opus 4.6 since, the model is way above pretty much everything else I've tried for dev work and while I'd love for Anthropic to let me (easily) work on making a hostable server-side solution for parallel tasks without having to go the API key route and not have to pay per token, I will say that the Claude Code desktop app (more convenient than the TUI one) gets me most of the way there too.

▲

alkhatib 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Try https://conductor.build

I started using it last week and it’s been great. Uses git worktrees, experimental feature (spotlight) allows you to quickly check changes from different agents.

I hope the Claude app will add similar features soon

▲

bredren 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Can you explain what you mean by your parallel tasks limitation?

	▲	KronisLV 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Instead of having my computer be the one running Claude Code and executing tasks, I might want to prefer to offload it to my other homelab servers to execute agents for me, working pretty much like traditional CI/CD, though with LLMs working on various tasks in Docker containers, each on either the same or different codebases, each having their own branches/worktrees, submitting pull/merge requests in a self-hosted Gitea/GitLab instance or whatever. If I don't want to sit behind something like LiteLLM or OpenRouter, I can just use the Claude Agent SDK: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/overview However, you're not supposed to really use it with your Claude Max subscription, but instead use an API key, where you pay per token (which doesn't seem nearly as affordable, compared to the Max plan, nobody would probably mind if I run it on homelab servers, but if I put it on work servers for a bit, technically I'd be in breach of the rules): > Unless previously approved, Anthropic does not allow third party developers to offer claude.ai login or rate limits for their products, including agents built on the Claude Agent SDK. Please use the API key authentication methods described in this document instead. If you look at how similar integrations already work, they also reference using the API directly: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/gitlab-ci-cd#how-it-works A simpler version is already in Claude Code and they have their own cloud thing, I'd just personally prefer more freedom to build my own: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrcCS9oHjtI (though there is the possibility of using the regular Claude Code non-interactively: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/headless) It just feels a tad more hacky than just copying an API key when you use the API directly, there is stuff like https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/21765 but also "claude setup-token" (which you probably don't want to use all that much, given the lifetime?)

▲

Jach 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I haven't kept up with the Claude plays stuff, did it ever actually beat the game? I was under the impression that the harness was artificially hampering it considering how comparatively more easily various versions of ChatGPT and Gemini had beat the game and even moved on to beating Pokemon Crystal.

▲

DaKevK 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Genuinely one of the more interesting model evals I've seen described. The sunk cost framing makes sense -- 4.5 doubles down, 4.6 cuts losses faster. 9 days vs 59 is a wild result. Makes me wonder how much of the regression complaints are from people hitting 4.6 on tasks where the first approach was obviously correct.

	▲	MrCheeze 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Notably 45 out of the 50 days of improvement were in two specific dungeons (Silph Co and Cinnabar Mansion) where 4.5 was entirely inadequate and was looping the same mistaken ideas with only minor variation, until eventually it stumbled by chance into the solution. Until we saw how much better it did in those spots, we weren't completely sure that 4.6 was an improvement at all! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/e/2PACX-1vQDvsy5D...