chunky1994 3 hours ago

As a counterpoint I haven't seen opus doing that much better than the latest gpt models? Astra is definitely comparable to fable and sol has been as good as opus for me. So this rings a bit anecdotal and that's probably what people will be seeing affect the growth trajectory too.

▲

0x1F8B 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IMO Opus 5.5 has quietly been a revelation. It basically requires no hand holding from me given a sufficiently articulated prompt. At this point I'm limited by reviews and end-to-end validation of changes.

▲

chunky1994 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It basically requires no hand holding from me

> given a sufficiently articulated prompt

Are these two statements not at odds with each other? You can always say a prompt is not sufficiently articulated if you need to add additional handholding and vice versa, thereby invalidating any meaning of measurement.

	▲	0x1F8B 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What I mean is just a modest effort to guide the model up front is adequate for the full end to end session -- one-shotting, basically. I used to go through planning mode prior to 5.5, to make sure it understood my intentions but I no longer need to. I just ramble off the desired outcome and some broad architectural guidelines into wisprflow, hit enter, answer any questions it has and then a PR that tends to only get minor feedback is produced. It's basically fire and forget.
	▲	plorkyeran 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		With earlier models simply describing your desired end result often went poorly, and instead you had to break your prompt down into incremental steps. A single “sufficiently articulated“ prompt would result in the model forgetting about some of the things you told it to do by the time it got there.
	▲	XenophileJKO 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No, because "sufficiently articulated" is relative to the model. Opus 5.5, often is "please handle this ticket someone assigned me, check this link it might be useful..."

▲

kasey_junk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’ve felt that way since the 4.1 releases. Opus 5.5 is a good model, especially after the disaster at the 4.7 mark.

But sol 6.1 is at least in the conversation as being as good and is much cheaper. I farm out bunches of my tasks to Luna and Haiku these days and have a working prototype of a glm 5.3 workflow at work that shows it being competitive.

The price pressure is very real and if you aren’t on a subscription then there is virtually no reason to pay the Anthropic premium

▲

adam_arthur 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've found Sol 6.1 a regression over 5.6.

Not due to capability per se, but writing style and polish is much worse.

It will leave really bad comments in the code, commit messages etc without strong explicit steering. Though I've basically moved away from having the model write any documentation at all.

It also tends to talk very circuitously and referencing things implicitly instead of just being direct and clear.

Certainly it's more capable in debugging, but I much prefer Astra over Sol now.

Of course, Astra has its own problems of code golfing everything. But at least it's very concise and direct

▲

senderista 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sol 6.1 is definitely not comparable to Opus 5.5 for me.

▲

meric_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

if you go on short form social media, Opus's ability to do agentic work in things like blender, css animation, etc. have spawned hundreds if not thousands of channels of people pumping out content with it. That and all the video game shenanigans (and now Anthropic is even modifying its system prompt to limit some of these things!)

There's definitely unique things that so far only Opus is capable of doing.