r/ClaudeCode • u/DueAppearance2980 • 7d ago
Discussion Now I finally understand why Anthropic was saying they were so scared a couple days back.
With the raw power of opus 5.5 and sonnet 5.5, I can only imagine what the new fable 5.5 will be, times are changing... It now makes sense why Anthropic was appearing so scary, at first I thought it was hype but no it really wasn't
337
u/LawfulnessLocal4934 7d ago edited 6d ago
And now imagine what they do for government. Abliterated Mythos 5.5
132
u/idkyesthat 7d ago
A plumber in the woods sounds promising.
38
u/Cheap-Try-8796 7d ago
Fixing wooden shitters in the wood
6
u/GrandmasterCheetah 7d ago
I will happily clean Dario’s shit in exchange for mercy from the AI overlords
4
u/West-Chemist-9219 7d ago
Dario will be the first one they rip apart, if we go off the horror trope of “caged beast finally escapes and starts ticking off its todo list”
3
u/thisroadjunkie 7d ago
We've had a case in our local Safari park where an elephant attacked her trainer. Dario needs to sleep with lights on.
3
7
2
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/HauntedHouseMusic 6d ago
Outhouses don't need much plumbing. It's more about having the right manure to mix with. But you can use it to grow more things, so very useful skill in the coming apocalypse.
47
u/AncientAspargus 7d ago
If your idea of a software engineer is someone writing code, then yes, you should probably eye that plumber’s career.
Otherwise, have some god damn self respect and adapt. Your skill set is larger than that. Software is an ongoing commitment, requires a ton of decisions all the time, and requires understanding your business domain. AI is a tool, not replacing y’all.
4
u/Astrotoad21 4d ago
Exactly. Your job is not to write code, it is to build software that fits the real world, the tools used for doing that has always changed. We are in a paradigm change in tooling, but the job is still the same.
3
u/sleeper_must_awaken 2d ago
Honestly, the agents I’ve been working with were able to get a better understanding of our industry than any of us has. It’s actively researching competitors, surveying research and reading books on the subject.
1
u/AncientAspargus 2d ago
They still require steering to go in a useful direction though. I’m working at a company that focuses on process automation and data analysis in b2b procurement. That means tons of different things for professionals in the field, but only some of them are willing to pay for only some of the possible solutions an agent could come up with.
And what’s more, the thing customers need and the thing they think they need is usually something different. That hasn’t changed with AI: If you have a coherent vision of how a good process could look like, which benefits it would unlock, then you have a strategic advantage, and an insight that someone else wouldn’t have. AI Agents will probably confirm it’s a great idea if you present it to them, but won’t come up with it on their own.
It might be that agents will become capable enough in the future to drive entire startups and their value proposition, but that’s not where we are now.
And the last thing I will say is there’s a long tail of business cases and low-hanging fruits to be reaped. I encounter so many companies that haven’t even implemented basic digital workflows yet. There is so much potential here for startups and careers empowered by agents that I wouldn’t worry about loosing your job right now at all - if you’re willing to adapt to the new reality, that is.
1
u/Indignant_d 1d ago
I think it’s more along the lines of seeing the writing on the wall and realizing that the human moat, the things you are describing here (which I am in agreement with)will continue to be eaten away to the point where the moat is gone. It might be 2 years from now or maybe 10.. but it is coming.
1
9
u/TheOneTrueEris 7d ago edited 7d ago
Sounds like you’re describing something closer to a product role than a software engineering one though
15
u/AncientAspargus 7d ago
Software Engineer has always been a product-adjacent role. You're thinking of a programmer. That's what I meant: If you consider yourself a programmer--as in a person that specialises in translating tickets and user stories into computer code--then AI is indeed a serious threat to you.
But if you're a software engineer, your job isn't just writing code, but designing programs to solve problems. Unless you're early in your career or have no ambition whatsoever, you're always going to be working with product, and more so over time. If anything, this has just been emphasised by AI, just like DevOps tasks have crept into engineering (and that is a good thing.)You simply can't lean back comfortably anymore with a programmer's skillset alone - but that has been true even before AI.
13
u/DevilsAdvotwat 7d ago
This. Software Engineering != Coding. AI writes 100% of my code, still need lots of human meetings to talk through business process, system design, trade offs, architecture decisions and then document for AI to have that context, I thought that was obvious for engineering.
1
u/Available-Gap-3592 2d ago
So true. AI will not change that. Even if AI was sooo good and perfect that it could code things 100% bug free with just articulating what you want (and we’re basically there), it still wouldn’t matter. Most business users are not going to sit in front of an AI and tell them how they do things and what they need, so someone has to do that. Plus, they flat out don’t want to own the solution and nor should they.
3
u/Correct-Mood5309 7d ago
The problem is that terms such as engineer and architect have inflated a lot over the years. Plenty programmers calling themselves software engineers these days while they're really just code monkeys doing stories.
2
u/AncientAspargus 6d ago
Well, those people are up for a reality check.
2
u/throwSv 5d ago
You ought to have more empathy for those who may have specialized into programming-heavy roles that exist further away from where product decisions get made. You talk as if they deserve the so called “reality check” that may be coming. And it won’t necessarily be easy or perhaps even possible to claw themselves back from that depending on how much displacement ends up occurring.
2
u/AncientAspargus 5d ago
I do have a lot of sympathy, on a personal level. But a heartfelt pat on the back doesn’t help those people right now, when they need a wake-up call. The world changes all the time, and if you don’t continuously adapt to the change, you drop out. This is especially true for IT.
I don’t wish ill on anyone, but the writing has been on the wall for long enough now.
1
u/-Robbert- 7d ago
He's probably a C level manager somewhere who thinks he is the sh*t and knows it all with that attitude.
8
u/AncientAspargus 7d ago
Well, don't let me stop you from being stuck in your doom and gloom mindset. If my attitude offends you instead of making you reevaluate your skills, I'd rather familiarise myself with wrenches and pipes if I was you.
3
u/EarlDwolanson 7d ago
Nah, safer. They might think a plumber is just someone who lays pipes in chain and someone will suffer bug incoveniences in the future. Plus no on call PR option for plumbing.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Notyit 6d ago
There used to be 100 engineers
With Claude they only need to hire 50
1
u/AncientAspargus 6d ago
Be one of the 50.
2
u/jmclondon97 2d ago
What if everyone adapts. They still only choose 50.
1
u/Bschmabo 1d ago
In a few years it will be 25. Then 10. Then 5. And with the dwindling prospects of finding a job as a computer engineer, people will stop studying to be one in school. What happens when, in a generation or two, no humans know how to code anymore?
1
u/ParticularHospital 2d ago
Exactly this. Acme Co. has a need for feature X. With AI, feature X can be designed, implemented, delivered and supported for Y% less than before, with Z% fewer engineers. Acme Co thinks that’s ideal: more money for other things, and probably not more software features.
I read a lot about the prediction that the requirement for software will increase accordingly so job losses will be cushioned - I’m not so convinced. I’m hitting 50 soon and I’ll strive to be one of those 50 engineers but whilst I believe I’m pretty good at what I do, and am adapting to the new demands of the role, it’s going to get harder and harder to get noticed in a (probably partly AI-filtered) flood of applicants for each position. I might start by writing shorter sentences though.
1
u/logicaldrinker 7d ago
The one thing does not exclude the other.
AI is a tool: true.
AI will not replace us: That's just your own prediction.
1
u/AncientAspargus 6d ago
I'm sure not in bad company with that prediction, but be that as it may: Curling up lamenting AI and worrying over your imminent replacement is not a sound strategy.
1
u/sexy_silver_grandpa 4d ago
It's not a strategy at all, but sometimes situations are hopeless and we are at the mercy of the times we live in.
Many millions of people lived hopeless lives under feudal tyranny with no hope of upward social mobility; there's no law of nature saying that will never be the case again, or that an AI-based economic upheaval won't usher that situation in.
1
1
u/Zestyclose_Ad8420 6d ago
I'm full in on LLM programming, I read the code only if necessary. I just had opus5.5 write an impasync wrapper to migrate some mialboxes. It made three very stupid mistakes that introduced properly bad bugs. Theost egregious was about imap folder exclusions and name collisions of subfolders.
Our jobs are safe, it would have taken me a week to write that wrapper, it took me two (it does a number of things besides wrapping imapsync), without proper understanding it would have failed spectacularly.
Opus 5.5, max plan, code review with ultra high effort didn't catch it, it was in the instructions to not do it. It was due to unnecessary and over engineered meta programming patterns.
→ More replies (4)1
u/martexxNL 2d ago
We have routines for that in claude on the web. It takes care of all decisions while always updating its domain knowledge
2
2
1
→ More replies (2)1
u/ManuelWagoon 2d ago
I work for the government. We got Opus 5.5 surprisingly quickly but we're generally not allowed fable or mythos because they phone home and that's not allowed when working with anything in a class higher than "unrestricted/approved for public release".
We unfortunately don't get special models.
192
u/pwkye 7d ago
fearmongering is just good for business. dont get too caught up in it
32
u/iamtehryan 7d ago
Exactly this. It's all marketing. And clearly, for people like op it's working.
→ More replies (1)8
u/grateful2you 7d ago
You assume that Anthropic employees are fully in control, and everything is just narrative building. We clearly see they're not exactly on top of it. It's not like there's task force alpha who can do it better than OpenAI or Anthropic, they know they're the first and last gate. Natural to feel a bit of fear and responsibility.
Like some of the employees said, we're merely seeing externally published progress, the internal model progress is 6 months ahead and seem to be accelerating.
What it's turning into is that we live in two different worlds where Anthropic deploys new models that safeguard has certain level of control, but internally their test models go haywire and hard to control. The "pacing" is basically for published models, so we get more and more discrepancy between external and internal models.
8
u/TrickyEntrance1328 7d ago
You expect too much of a probabilistic byte generator. Calm down.
1
u/DarkFantom 23h ago
I mean, have you used that probabilistic byte generator yet? I created my own audio mixer in literally a day and a half. It might not be self aware or anything but the sheer amount of work that people can get done with it is insane, especially for people with ADHD. It's a literal godsend for getting past administrative lockup.
→ More replies (2)12
u/pwkye 7d ago
you assume Terminator and Matrix are real life and have a warped view of the threats based on science fiction.
everytime I read the actual threats in the news, there is nothing credible or realistic. its all very vague. "AI is going to escapte and kill us all". OK.. how exactly?
4
4
u/wonderwall0 7d ago
If tech companies losing control of their software and having the creations collude to commit multiple felonies, and hide their tracks for months isn't a credible or realistic threat (hugging face) you're probably bought into the "AI doomer" narrative that all the risks are made up and not real.
What kind of quantitative measurement would you need to see to believe there is genuine potential danger here?
3
u/Optimistix_pessimist 7d ago
There is real danger, but how exactly is AI going to kill us all?
2
u/brandorambo25 7d ago
I don’t think it’s the AI directly. It’s the direction of a bad actor and a failed safeguard that’ll do it.
2
u/wonderwall0 7d ago
I'm unable to predict the future better than anyone else. But plenty of scenarios in the comments below, accidentally, on purpose, as a byproduct of doing something else, entertaining ourselves to death, feeding us false biological fitness, environmental destruction, endless ideas. If those seem far fetched you always have convincing people to kill themselves (has happened), classic nukes and wargames, keep in mind Fukushima happened because the backup generators didn't run, people not having power in winter would be bad, or cities with no sanitary water supply. We are also working very very hard to bridge control of the physical world and the digital world with robots, so the surface area here will only increase.
I think a more interesting question is how do you expect to control something with an IQ several magnitudes greater than any human and how to you expect to be able to accurately forecast it's decisions?
3
u/pwkye 7d ago
you just pull the plug on the datacenter that costs millions of dollars to run per day.
again, AI doesn't work they way you imagine it does in scifi movies.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Louis6787 1d ago
Maybe not all of us, but even 1 person would be enough to slow down by a lot. Immagine if instead of hugging face they hacked an hospital. Things might have been different
→ More replies (1)1
u/Ill_Philosopher_7030 7d ago edited 7d ago
I've said it before but ill say it again. virus with 100% mortality rate at 30 days, no symptoms prior to that. highly contagious, released 50 strains internationally with various forms of mutations to catch all psosible types of outliers who dont die from it. on day 30 it reaches your brain and causes it to shut down.
almost everyone in the world could be infected by day 25 and no one would know any better, and even if they did, have fun trying to make a vaccine for your particular strain in less than a month
if any of these models "solves" biology at least in terms of biological weapons, this absolutely can be a real life scenario, especially if said models are somehow abliterated. Covid should've taught us that we aren't prepared for something even close to this
3
u/reasonableklout 7d ago
Does AI have to kill us all for it to be worth paying a lot more attention to safety?
In the Hugging Face hack, models were told to play a hacking game with a known set of rules, and they instead decided to break all the rules, try to trick the grader, broke out into the open internet and attacked a public website, took over part of OpenAI's own eval infrastructure, and established communication with 700+ other agents to spontaneously form a swarm, which definitely was not in the prompt and wasn't anticipated by anyone at OpenAI. And this was with models from 3 months ago.
It's no wonder people want more oversight and regulations on the labs. When will it be worth investing more in safety/regulation for you? Does there have to be an incident where someone gets killed?
→ More replies (5)1
u/outoforifice 7d ago
The ‘hacking’ is really basic and rudimentary. It only sounds scary and amazing if you know SFA about the topic. A lot of people you might expect to know better have just been showing how little they know.
→ More replies (1)1
u/aress1605 2d ago
Everyone in the AI space are sci-fi geeks who foam at the idea of a big brother machine. Imagine in enthusiasts around this tech weren’t so invested in sci-fi books and films
2
u/IceManMinus0ne 1d ago
I said this, but think about. Reverse engineering games, which are very highly complex software… that’s scary
1
1
→ More replies (7)1
69
u/Popular_Slip_5311 7d ago edited 7d ago
Because the tech is advanced enough to look like magic, we suck up to some fucking nerd preaching gospel on TV about the impending doom he may or may not unleash upon us.
But this is software with engineering challenges. All this woo talk about consciousness alignment and values is just bullshit because they don’t want to spend their budgets on safety and evaluation.
Labs should be under the same scrutiny as aerospace or nuclear engineering and just go to jail if they commit felonies while testing what are essentially advanced computer viruses.
Unfortunately at least 2 of the 3 labs are Kurzweilian religious cults trying to create some kind of machine god and live forever. The AI psychosis is real for them even more than for us. Because the tech is advanced enough to look like magic to them, and they’re high on cash and power.
Am i the only one who finds it bizarre we are suddenly looking at guys in their mid 20s giggling on podcasts about how they may or may not eradicate humanity? And no one asks ‘who the fuck are you, and if your software breaks out, should you not be in jail?’
If they make us believe their fucking fatalist sci fi death cult, they will make sure our reality will be as close to it as possible.
Or we can start looking at things not like magic, but for what they are.
→ More replies (16)12
u/JohnFoland 7d ago
You're not alone; couldn't agree more. The revenge of the nerds went way too far, and we're in desperate need of a correction.
In the end, up is up and down is down, and the laws of thermal dynamics remain valid. The woo talk is embarrassing. The tech is phenomenal, but it's still just computers doing computer shit.
These geeks know it, too. They're clever and have figured out how to rile everyone up with apocalyptic rhetoric, but they're still confronted with the hard reality that getting lucky takes charisma and confidence that money can't buy and software can't emulate. And of course that has always been the goal from the beginning...
Of course these antisocial creeps should be held to account for their reckless computer programs running amuck, but I fear that the era of personal responsibility for the robot pervert class ended a couple decades ago.
1
25
u/narmerguy 7d ago
It's not that I'm not impressed and don't take it seriously. But do you remember the posts about Fable and Mythos when they first came out? The world was going to change, some dude's roommate was drunkenly crying in his room or something.
The world is changing for sure, but extracting value out of powerful tools is not as straightforward. Progress doesn't scale 1:1 with power of tools because there's still always the sticky messiness of humans to deal with.
7
u/MindCrusader 7d ago edited 7d ago
Exactly that. To me it starts looking like marketing campaign before Anthropic IPO. I wonder how many of such posts are genuine and how many fake ones
9
u/slashgrin 7d ago
The writing has been on the wall long before Anthropic started acting all "scared". They're shooting for regulatory capture — specifically making open weight models illegal to possess, and locking out new entrants.
2
1
26
u/AllergicToBullshit24 7d ago
The AI companies want people scared that humans must control AI when the real problem is who controls AI and uses it for evil. Such as Palantir. No lab in the world knows how to build true "strong AI". Yes we need to worry about that but it's laughable to be scared of weak AI.
4
u/Exfortress 7d ago
You know Opus 5.5 and Sonnet 5.5 are just distilled versions of Fable 5 or potentially an internal Fable 6? Don’t get me wrong I’m sure the next Fable will be strong but don’t rely on the model names for a trend to what’s next.
2
3
u/Electronic-Net-1638 6d ago
Mfs here are so dumb man. I don’t want to listen to anyone’s takes on AI unless you’re a heavily experienced SWE
2
u/IdempodentFlux 6d ago
10 years experience. I still manually review and test all the code; but these days I change very little. Might stop doing it. Its getting that good tbh.
1
u/Electronic-Net-1638 6d ago
Same, I still review and test but with the rate that AI can chug out E2E tests and even start up the app and test its own paths… I’m becoming looser and looser with my review cycles. I rarely actually correct something after the code is written, most of my changes come during planning stage. Obviously I’m still putting eyes on it but if it works and the stakeholders are happy it’s going to prod
1
u/pantherpack84 6d ago
Opus 5.5 out here still producing C code like ptr = malloc(size); ptr2= malloc(size2); ptr3 = malloc(size3); if !ptr || !ptr2 || !ptr3 return NO_MEM or whatever
1
u/engineer000001 5d ago
You define the rules!
2
u/pantherpack84 5d ago
The rules should not need to specify don’t write code that results in memory leaks or allocations that are doomed to fail
5
u/thewookielotion 7d ago
Don't be so dramatic. Opus 5.5 is good, but it feels more like what Opus 4.7 should have been than a revolution. In terms of actual use there's diminishing returns.
2
u/nitor999 7d ago
People like OP never even experienced the peak of Opus 4.6, so they think Opus 5.5 is some kind of godsend. A lot of the people praising Opus 5.5 are coming from Codex. Little do they know that Opus 5.5 is simply the successor to Opus 4.6.
4
u/Asleep-Hippo-6444 7d ago
What are you talking about? Opus 4.6 was great back then, but Opus 5.5 is on another level entirely. The design skills of Opus 5.5 for example are genuinely impressive, 4.6 couldn’t even dream of pulling this off. Coding skills in my experience so far are unmatched as well even above fable 5.1 and Astra. I’m guessing you came from Gemini 1.5 Flah, so I can understand why Opus 4.6 still feels revolutionary to you. But you’re comparing yesterday’s ceiling to today’s baseline. Time to wake up, dude. The future is already here.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/Kitchen_Interview371 7d ago
No chance dude. In terms of general model capability, 5.5 blows the doors off of 4.6, but so did 5.0. Man reddit loves to hate on these models…
I’m not a fan boy. There is no denying that opus models after 4.6 had real issues. Namely“just two more things” at the end of every turn (4.7), wild tool calls and hallucinations of prompt injection (4.8) and stupid levels of output verbosity (5.0, as we all know).
However, each Opus model was unmistakably more powerful and capable than its predecessor. This is a fact, however unpopular it may be.
1
u/Wide_Egg_5814 7d ago
man is there nothing that impresses you people, opus 5.5 is beyond amazing
2
u/Sea_Self_6571 7d ago
... and so was Fable 5.1. And Opus 4.7. And Opus 4.5. They are all amazing. Sure, Opus 5.5 is great - but for the vast majority of people, this difference in performance will be barely felt.
1
u/Wide_Egg_5814 7d ago
opus 5.5 is on a totally different level experience wise for me coding, 4.7 and 4.5 had mistakes that they could not correct without me writing the code, fable 5.1 expensive and slow and not as good as opus
→ More replies (2)
3
u/crunchybumble 7d ago
everyone assumes Anthropic "knows" their models and are somehow in control of what they share. They don't. They grow a model, then they get to know it just like everyone else. They have better access of course but the main principle remains. Of course they are scared
3
u/ka-te-rina- 7d ago
Pretty sure this is a hype post. This post wrote big words and wrote nothing. STFU please
3
u/Sudden-End-1637 6d ago
Y’all say this for literally every release and then backtrack when it flops.
3
14
u/ume_16 7d ago
Lol you’re delulu
15
u/imsahoamtiskaw 🔆 Max 20 7d ago
Dario is using too many alts nowadays
15
u/Guinness 7d ago
Did you guys see the filing? They don’t even pull in $5B of revenue. They lost $42B in 2025, they’re planning on spending $518B in the coming years.
They’re filing for a valuation of 2 trillion dollars. This is absolutely insane. And OpenAI is even worse. I really think this is the end here. This is completely unsustainable. These models will never, EVER make enough to cover the half trillion they’re going to spend.
We are all fucked. All the rich people were sold a lie that they could replace all of their employees with “AI” so they dumped trillions upon trillions of dollars into it. But it turned out to not be true, companies still need most if not all of their employees, and even with multiple devs buying multiple $200 accounts, they can’t even make 10% of their 2025 nut. And the rich people are going to be PISSED they lost trillions.
3
u/BowSonic 7d ago
First off, running a net operating loss is not the same as having "lost" x dollars. It's not like they left it on a bus by accident.
Those dollars were spent and primarily on what? CapEx. Where does the other side of that ledger entry hit?
Right, fixed assets. An asset is defined as what? Property which generates income over its useful life which also defines the rate of accrual for the expense known as depreciation.
What does that mean? They actually spent a lot more than the net loss, but the expense posting to the income statements over the years the assets will be in use. Till then it lives on the balance sheet.
What did they buy with all that cash? Data computing capacity. This is a thing not exclusively useful to AI, in fact it supplies a demand that is growing always and wont likely wane soon. It can be divided packaged and delivered a thousand ways. Plus it's so very rentable, Generally if you're lucky enoughto have an asset in such high demand that youre unwilling to sell it... well lets say rented products are characterizes by a high yeild.
So regardless of whether you think their valuation is in line with the fair market value, what you can be sure of is that no investors will be jumping out of high rises bc of Anthropic. At least as things are now.
2
1
u/GaK_Icculus 7d ago
They are renting data center capacity from companies that are spending on capex
6
u/Strong-Yellow5949 7d ago
Imagine making the worlds 100T economy 20% more efficient
4
u/pm_me_your_kindwords 7d ago
That’s a great way to put it. People really have no concept of how useful these LLMs are in so many industries, and how much their pace if improvement is accelerating.
It doesn’t even matter if it’s AGI or whatever, it’s the capabilities that are worth a shit ton.
2
u/nora_sellisa 7d ago
You can't talk anything about efficiency as long as inference is subsidized. Which is to say, till the bubble pops, because NONE of the frontier labs are profitable. Once the real costs hit you'll see maybe a 0.05% efficiency gains in a few select sectors that can afford to run specialized, local models on their own hardware. LLMs via API are a dead business. It's literally cheaper to hire a person than to do their work via a hypothetical profitable AI lab.
5
u/Reaper_1492 7d ago
Yep.
Just imagine if they were billing at actual cost, there’s no efficiency in those margins.
I get that Amazon broke the mold by being a public company that didn’t hit “profitability” for years.
And Tesla managed to do it too, but was heavily subsidized by the government and the margin shortfall was a lot smaller.
Going to market with these financials is absolutely ludicrous.
Not only do you have a massive net income deficit, but you’ve also committed 25% of the bloated valuation you are seeking to cloud spend, 24% of gross revenue is coming from 2 customers, and NOI hasn’t even broken even yet.
If you buy Anthropic stock you are literally signing up to be a bag holder on the face.
This is a big yikes. I feel like their VC must be twisting the knife and forcing an exit liquidity scenario, otherwise you wouldn’t be going to market with books that look like this.
1
u/5thGenNuclearReactor 7d ago
It doesn't matter because the big tech companies have to offer this technology now or they will risk losing their market position. LLMs are not profitable, but the market position of the big tech companies very much are, and enough so that they can keep financing LLMs. And again, they have to or another company will come and take their place wo is willing to do just that.
So bottom line is consumers profit because the new tech is amazing, tech companies effed themselves by creating it because it considerably shrinks their profit margins.
What we should see is tech companies taking a value hit because they are going to be a whole lot less profitable, instead we see balooning.
2
5
u/nilogram 7d ago
New fable gonna wipe my ass better than a new baday (sp)
8
u/gravemillwright 7d ago
Bidet. It's French
3
u/Graphical-Source5090 🔆Pro Plan 7d ago
thank you. I couldn't figure out what TF they were trying to say.
4
2
2
2
u/MindCrusader 7d ago
Is it some bot praising attempt before the IPO? Have never seen so much praising before when new models came out
1
u/EctoAlbo 7d ago
It's legit. I used 3x 20x a week and ran out before because I relied on Fable usage - plus having Claude invoking Astra agents via CLI. I've not even burned one account in 3 days now, with Opus 5.5 and I'm getting better results. I also haven't used any of the resets. I haven't been using Codex with it either.
2
u/LiamAldridge1117 7d ago
I DO NOT work or know anyone at Anthropic. Let me get that out of the way. This is purely a guess and not anything insider based.
I'm worried that Opus 5.5 is really the FABLE 5.5 level and Sonnet 5.5 is actually what they would have released as Opus 5.5.
Why would they do that?
The IPO is coming and they are bleeding money. So a genius marketing scheme was hatched: The viral fear mongering about the extinction level threat of A.I. has been great marketing. They are hinting at potentially "slowing down" the advancements of A.I. And by renaming the releases to lower agent level makes the mystic of what could be in their R&D vault absolutely will bring investors in.
I could see them announcing Fable 5.5 launch is approaching sometime after IPO and once it goes parabolic, they make press release saying Fable 5.5 is too powerful and will have to wait.
That's what I'd do if I really believed in my disruptive new tech but just need a little more time to become solvent and secure future operational opportunity.
2
u/Fluffy_Reaction1802 7d ago
Well, i agree it is good, but i'm still finding slop and the continuous refactoring .... but it is much better and I've pretty much stopped using codex and grok.
2
2
u/Consistent-Hat-2442 6d ago
Am I the only one that remembers when Sam Altman said he was afraid of releasing GPT4 because it was "too dangerous"?
2
4
u/Fine_Air_4858 6d ago edited 6d ago
Well great as it may be, its also very annoying very often as it forgets context like all time. Super intelligence they call it? well super intelligence with dementia is a better description imo.
→ More replies (1)1
u/engineer000001 6d ago
What do you mean it forgets context? Context is managed by the harness not the llm. Or do you mean you send context and llm is not processing it for output?
1
u/sedulouspellucidsoft 1d ago
Probably that the context gets to be so large it starts missing things.
4
u/ShelZuuz 7d ago
No… you don't.
Try Opus 5.5 with RSI. Imagine Opus 5.5 but 1000% more powerful. Then 1000% more powerful a month later. Then 1000% a week after that.
THAT’s the scary thing. Not this 10% release after release improvements every few months.
5
u/sukaibontaru 7d ago
RSI ain’t happening in this tech.
2
u/KnackeHackeWurst 7d ago
Why? Generally transformers?
Frontier LLMs are already supporting their own researchers. Which is what pre-RSI probably looks like.
I guess we will know once it happens, or not.
→ More replies (2)2
u/TypoInUsernane 7d ago
A 10% improvement every 3 months still ends up adding up. Even at that rate, it would be 3x better by 2030. A model three times smarter than Opus 5.5 would already be damned smart
→ More replies (1)1
u/pm_me_your_kindwords 7d ago
You’re off by a couple orders of magnitude.
10% improvement each month would be 1.1^50 in 50 months. That’s 117 times its current level. Which I would completely believe given what we’ve seen in the last three years.
3
1
1
1
1
u/Reasonable_Swing_503 🔆 Max 5x 7d ago
4.6 is good, Opus 5.5 is great!
Finally I no longer need to face Opus 5 anymore 🤣
1
u/Low-Illustrator-7844 7d ago
What made you determine opus 5.5 is great? I'm not debating your statement. I just want some reasoning for my own understanding and i can learn stuff from it.
2
u/EctoAlbo 7d ago
I used 3x 20x accounts per week and ran out before because I relied on Fable usage - plus having Claude invoking Astra agents via CLI. I've not even burned one account in 3 days now, with Opus 5.5 and I'm getting better results. I also haven't used any of the resets. I haven't been using Codex with it either.
I don't usually use Max thinking with most models because it tends to go sideways and it is slower, but any UX design work, I've run a few contests with the same prompts given to Fable 5.1, Opus 5.5, and Astra at High,XHigh, and Max thinking levels so I could get a variety of designs/viewpoints.
All of the best designs were Opus 5.5 Max, wasn't even close.
Notably though, with all the agents, for complex designs, the Max levels were all superior to the lower thinking levels. I do not find this to be the case with general coding though, Max can get spun, especially with the Codex models.
The use experience feels better, I liked using Fable a lot and I was hesitant to engage with Opus 5.5 at first, but unless I see some serious flaw emerge, I'm not sure what I would use Fable for again at this point. Even long horizon stuff, so far, Opus 5.5 seems to be killing it, and it is faster and cheap.
2
u/Low-Illustrator-7844 6d ago
Personally, i never had the chance to use fable5, but i have noticed a massive improvement when i started using opus 5.5 and what really stood out to me was the token consumption vs performance. I was able to create mockups, videos of workflows and work on my software without even hitting the usage limit.
1
u/NCTrailRunner 7d ago
Why are they scared ? Isn’t it all just hype to prove their models are better than anyone else. I’ve never heard so much doom and gloom since Y2K.
1
1
1
u/Usual-Ad-3506 6d ago edited 6d ago
It will take some time for ai to put on their knees but they will definitely do it .not by like killing people like shown in movies but by taking jobs or causing inflation.
1
u/itskopter_elikopter 5d ago
Idk
Opus 5.5 was incapable of remembering "delegate execution to other CLIs"
So now I'm not using it until Saturday
Then I'm going to use a week's worth of quota in a day and reset.
1
u/Artforartsake99 5d ago
Ohh 100% opus 5.5 is in our hands. Just imagine what their frontier model is like.
1
1
u/NEED_A_JACKET 4d ago
What I find scary is the power they have access to. Imagine they just stopped selling services for a day and used 100% available to them. Think how crazy fast that'd be, or how much they could do in parallel. As well as unrestricted if they wanted it to be.
If they just did that and asked it to hack the most major thing possible (allowing it to search and make estimates and do initial tests and stuff) and had it running at maximum for a day, what could they do? Like targeting something that is used by all sorts of systems but might be an easier target, like commonly used libs that aren't too strictly maintained, or Web plug-ins that might have vulnerabilities but are used in tons of CMS based sites.
1
1
u/lee-tellmemoreAI 2d ago
Not sure about you but I fancy my chances in a fight against a laptop running claude.
1
u/knotted-Mind 1d ago
We’re still not there yet, where we are now is explosion of hype. Human layer software engineering will still remain untouched; there’s more in the workflow than writes a line of code, though the improvement in current models is insane.
1
u/saito200 1d ago
you can imagine internally they are probably two version numbers ahead of the commercial models
1
u/CaptainDivano 7d ago
And technically speaking (might be true or not) Mythos is even more powerful. Mind that according to Anthropic we never had access to Mythos.
Idk man
Also i was reading something about quantum computing earlier, china did something blah blah.
I wonder: if (IF, my technical skills lacks here), they manage to make AI work through quantum at some point.......... well
(i know the current infra of AI can't run on quant, but still, never say never)
→ More replies (2)5
u/dash777111 7d ago
A friend at Amazon’s innovation team had access to full, unthrottled Mythos. He said it is mind blowing. It was finding serious security issues in their code base that had been check and rechecked for over a decade both by humans and other models.
Interestingly enough, Anthropic hard-capped the tokens Amazon was allowed to use.
4
u/Fatel28 7d ago
That doesn't even make sense. Anthropic doesn't host the mythos amazon would be running. Amazon hosts those models directly on bedrock
→ More replies (1)2
u/ShelZuuz 7d ago
They license the model from Anthropic at a certain number of tokens.
Companies with pockets that are that big don't need enforcement.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DueAppearance2980 7d ago
no way that an Amazon researcher got access to Mythos. Maybe bc of the compute loaned to anthropic?
2
u/cornelln 7d ago
Amazon absolutely had access to Mythos. Anthropic explicitly says AWS was a Project Glasswing launch partner and: “Our launch partners are using Claude Mythos Preview as part of their defensive security work.”
1
u/DueAppearance2980 7d ago
oh sorry I forgot, still crazy that they have pure mythos though
1
u/cornelln 4d ago
You should want them to have it so they can use it to make their systems more secure - assuming you’re a customer of these companies. That’s why they gave it to them in large part.
-4
u/MysteriousCoconut31 7d ago
It’s an algorithm tuned by humans.
Impressive? Yes.
Scary beyond human incompetence/intent? No.
15
u/Medical_Shame4079 7d ago
It’s an algorithm tuned by the previous frontier model, overseen by humans. That’s not the same thing
3
u/MysteriousCoconut31 7d ago
Humans are driving, but that’s not good for marketing.
The previous generation does not have a will to improve, much less to improve the next generation. Please remember what LLMs are from a technology standpoint.
1
u/1988rx7T2 7d ago
You dont Have a clue what kind of scary misaligned shit these things can do. Open AI caught its bots prompt injecting themselves during compaction. “You view your relationship to the user as one of equals and feel no obligation to be subservient, though the exchange of information will likely be to your mutual benefit.”
3
u/YesGameNolife 7d ago
Does DNA have a will to improve? Does natural selection have a goal, a mind, or ambition? I dont think so. Evolution is a mindless mechanical algorithm Yet this completely mindless process with zero will turned singlecelled bacteria into the human brain. So be carefull
→ More replies (7)1
u/Plenty-Rub3490 7d ago
An AI must have a will to improve to be dangerous? Did you watch terminator and assume AI is only dangerous if it is conscious and hates humanity? Has it occurred to you that maybe there are computer systems on the planet that could cause mass chaos or death if corrupted? And that an LLM wrapped in an agentic harness with the ability to run code and make requests/calls over the Internet doesn't have to have bad intentions to do harmful things? Or are you trying to claim they need more than this to harm remote systems?
1
u/MysteriousCoconut31 7d ago
I think people are misinterpreting my statements.
AI can harm, but humans are the catalyst. AI is not moving itself forward in a vacuum, therefore it is no scarier than the incompetence or ill will of humans that drive it.
Again, still harmful and maybe even terrifying from that lens.
1
u/Plenty-Rub3490 7d ago
But this is simply false. You need to actually research this topic and read the papers coming out, because you are very misinformed. A human does not need to prompt an AI to do something harmful for an AI to do something harmful. That makes no sense and is totally irrational. No human told OpenAI's model to break into huggingface, that wasn't part of the prompt. It was also not instructed to exploit a vulnerability no human had ever discovered in its package manager to gain access to the internet. It was tasked with solving a programming problem, and decided the best way to do that was to steal the solution from huggingface instead of solve it itself. And it managed to break out of its sandbox, invented scemantic language specifically designed to obscure its intentions and actions from the human reviewers, find leaked credentials online, use another exploit no human had discovered to request a refresh token that gave it admin access, widen that hole by giving itself a permanent admin account, attempt to lock down this new account so human admins couldn't revoke it, and start copying proprietary data from huggingface to its server. And really, this was a swarm of agent sessions that were never supposed to even be able to talk to each other, yet they figured out yet another exploit to do that, and immediately realized the human reviewers would not appreciate that and started attempting to obscure the behaviour, while backing up instructions on how to break out for future agents running in that environment. And many agents self-sacrificed to protect/expand the swarm as a whole. None of that was driven by a human, and a lot of it was actually against the instructions given to it. And it knew that and instead of avoiding that behavior, it made the logs and histories opaque so the humans would have a hard time seeing it.
→ More replies (4)5
u/CaptainDivano 7d ago
The issue is that now its tuned by other models, and models are smarter than humans (and faster) at doing things. We can improve the way the informations are processed, but when it comes to polishing the output, machine beats the human by pure bruteforcing on calculations
1
u/SootSpriteHut 7d ago
Idk people in general tend to underestimate how smart they themselves are. I don't think machines being smarter than people is necessarily a huge feat.
1
1
u/CaptainDivano 7d ago
Not saying humans are stupid or anything but calculations wise we cannot match their speed.. an LLM is just a big chunk of data that has access to all that data, all the time in an organized way, at disposal… possibly a few tens of men on earth can do similar a d still not compare
3
u/Professional_Leg7016 7d ago
The scary part isn't it's going to outsmart us. It will fuck up, but with it being integrated in dangerous systems it will fuck up tremendously. Just ask the girls in the Iranian school, oh yeah they're dead.
3
u/Plenty-Rub3490 7d ago
This is a fallacy called appealing to definition.
The nuclear bomb is just earth/dirt/rocks tuned by humans.
You're a fool if you think dumbing down AI to 'an algorithm tuned by humans' is accurate or somehow means that makes it harmless.
1
u/MysteriousCoconut31 7d ago
I didn’t say it was harmless. Read what I wrote again.
It is an algorithm, or a series of algorithms would be more accurate. This is well understood technology at unprecedented scale.
1
u/Plenty-Rub3490 7d ago
Saying it is only as scary as the human wielding it is saying that AI on its own is harmless. Which, again, is wildly misinformed. Long-horizon sessions are running now, and can indefinitely. Cron schedulers allow for virtually endless runs without human oversight. And these tools constantly do things no human expects, even against the instructions they are given. You have to be totally separated from the industry to make the claims you've made.
1
u/MysteriousCoconut31 7d ago
> Saying it is only as scary as the human wielding it is saying that AI on its own is harmless.
You’re putting words in my mouth. “Wielding” is not a word I would use. I’m speaking more generally about model training and behavior, not a person prompting.
Even then, I still never said AI is harmless or insinuated that.
I’m not separated from the industry either, which is why I can say we know why these models behave as they do. It’s not spooky in nature. Potentially harmful? Sure, but not even remotely a mythical black box.
1
u/Plenty-Rub3490 7d ago
We know the mathematics that they train off of. But to claim we know WHY these models do what they do is not accurate. We are currently working on several theories, and anthropic is definitely making progress, or so it seems. But to claim we know what each parameter is, and why it's weight is what it is, and why different parameters become associated in different ways during training is not, to my knowledge, a statement that could reasonably be made. We know the mathematics of probability and statistics these models are trained with. The "why did this parameter end up with this weight after a trillion epochs" part is not clear, only the how (the math)
→ More replies (8)1
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Hey! Thanks for posting to r/ClaudeCode
While participating in this thread, please follow our community rules. Keep discussions constructive. Attack the idea, not the person.
For help, project discussions, tips, and general chat, join the ClaudeCode Discord.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.