How about you make Opus 5.5 actually work?

I had it try to prepare a code review for me. Not only did it refuse, it refused to even tell me what the prompt (written by another Claude!) was. Why?

When I had another model read the session (all of the "stupider" models handled it just fine) it explained that it had the word "reasoning" in it

That's the entirety of Anthropic's billions of dollars of research: any prompt with the word "reasoning" is trying to hack Claude to figure out how it reasons!

A model like that should never have gotten out of QA, let alone been released.

▲ bitpush 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I understand the frustration but shows a lack of critical thinking. Esp when you start with 'How about ..'.

This blogpost is about frontend performance. It'll be akin to you commenting on a swift blogpost saying 'How about Airpods noise cancellation'. Sure both are Apple, but they are wildly different teams.

▲

hungryhobbit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a techie discussion forum.

In such a forum, it seems to me like it's fair game to point out that the company patting itself on the back about how great they are at programming (as evidenced in the article above about their 3x speed improvement) ...

... can't even make their latest model handle basic English without refusing to work.

	▲	jfidjcjwjcjwjd 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not that I’m defending Anthropic but OP is right, you’re complaining about the taste of a pear on a blog post about roses with the excuse that you’re in a biology forum. Sure, they both come from the same family, and sure, they both fall under the purview of biology, but they’re not the same.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲ dolmen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This issue is mentioned on the Opus 5.5 post [1] from Anthropic (no idea if it has been added after your rant):

  > Don’t ask it to show its reasoning in the reply
  >
  > What to do. Remove requests to reproduce its internal reasoning in the reply from your prompts and instructions.
  >
  > Why it matters on Opus 5.5. A request to reproduce its internal reasoning in the reply can be declined. It’s one of the flag categories.
  >
  > How. Ask Claude for what you need instead, for example, “Explain why you chose this approach in three sentences.”

[1]: https://claude.dev/blog/getting-the-most-out-of-opus-5-5/

	▲	ronsor 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Anthropic is trying so hard to "crack down" on distillation that they're ruining their own product. I do not know why.

▲ vikramkr 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably it thinks you're doing some sort of system prompt exfiltration/distillation attack. Also what even is the workflow you're trying to have it do? It's doing code review but you're having it read some other AI models prompt/session history? Are you doing code review or like session history retrospectives?

▲ railgunmerlin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

seems a bit weird to complain about the model issues in a post about the harness/sites?

▲ post-it 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> When I had another model read the session (all of the "stupider" models handled it just fine) it explained that it had the word "reasoning" in it

Did it explain it did it hallucinate?

▲

hungryhobbit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This happened at the classifier level, there was no "Claude thought X about it (hallucinating or otherwise)": this was a glorified regex deciding Claude couldn't work on a prompt (a code review prep) because it contained a string ("reasoning") it didn't like.

It's more or less the same mistake we've seen Anthropic make repeatedly with it's brain-dead regex-based Fable/Mythos gates.

▲

post-it 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> because it contained a string ("reasoning") it didn't like.

How do you know? How would the stupider model know?

	▲	nfcampos 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Because it’s in a page accessible from its search tool presumably https://claude.dev/blog/getting-the-most-out-of-opus-5-5/

▲ frumplestlatz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ve had the same thing occur five or six times over the past week; they seem to be attempting to prevent anything resembling chain of thought extraction.

Every single time it triggered, it was due to a prompt written by their own model in a dynamic workflow. The self-serving nanny oversight has to go.

The fact that they label model distillation as an “attack” is genuinely hilarious after they “distilled“ their models from all of our work, and continue to do so.

I believe AI is here to stay and an incredibly powerful tool, but these companies, and especially Dario and Altman, are the very last people I want to see in charge of it.

	▲	copperx 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> “distilled“ their models from all of our work They distilled all digitized human knowledge and artifacts and they're now complaining about someone copying their outputs saying it's a "national security concern." I'm not sure about how to classify that. Hilarious? Pathetic? Sad? Hypocritical? Hyperdramatic? All of the above?

▲ Marciplan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	hungryhobbit 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Again, I used a slightly older model in the same series, Opus 4.6. It read the same prompt without any problem whatsoever. Also, a (non-Opus 5.5) Claude wrote the prompt in the first place. Opus 5.5 literally refused to work OR EVEN TELL ME WHAT I'D "SAID" when it read that prompt. Nothing to do with skill or the user at all: same exact prompt, three different models ... two worked, one didn't.
	▲	cyanydeez 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		the skill issue is "having to use a cloud model to do work of any value" might as well offer your life to a king to work in their fields.