Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • First thing it did when I tried it, was roaming through files in directories way outside of the project. I tried to get it to explain why it did it multiple times, but I never got anything resembling an explanation.
    by bronlund
  • > In Anthropic's testing, at its default "medium" effort the model matched or beat Claude Opus 5 at "high" effort on such tasks, in fewer steps and with fewer tokens

    Opus 5.5 has been amazing, but I'm confused by how this is worded. It "matched or beat" Opus 5? There is no matching. There is only surpassing. By miles. Like Opus 5 was the biggest disappointment of the year. Opus 5.5 is even better than Fable. I do not understand why they're not acknowledging it for the leap that it is?

    by skerit
  • "the biology safeguards are the same as Claude Fable 5.1's ... Everyday health and educational questions are unaffected"

    Yet here we are, "why my calves hurt more than any other muscle after training" being classified as a naughty question.

    by silversmith
  • That "mark pasted text" thing is interesting: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt...

      Summarize the main complaints in this thread.
  
  <pasted_content id="ab12">
  ...text the user pasted...
  </pasted_content id="ab12">
    Where those IDs are randomly generated and unknown to the user, and the model is told to use that markup to help avoid it suffering prompt injection attacks.

    In the past I've been very skeptical of this kind of protection. Anthropic have clearly trained their models for this though, so maybe Opus 5.5 is smart enough for this to work?

    Will be interesting to see if minds more devious than mine can break it.

    by simonw
  • > Fourth, if long tool-calling turns still go quiet for longer than you want, have your harness ask for an update

    I'm not sure I understand this complexity. In all harnesses I've ever used, tool calls themselves are surfaced to the user as an indication of progress. When the UI/UX around this is engineered well, the user should be able to infer roughly what is going on. Different tools have different ideal presentations. You can't reduce everything to plaintext blobs.

    If I absolutely needed intra-turn progress updates, I'd accumulate a separate per-turn transcript and feed it into a cheaper model at deterministic intervals.

    by bob1029
  • Opus 5.5 is a good model, but I've tried to understand the extreme hype about it on social media about Opus' ability to do 2d work, as we got with Astra doing 3d work. In both releases, the models required extensive access to third party apis to generate assets for it, and a lot of the models work was essentially coordinating everything.

    There's so many "x generated this in one shot, this is agi" stuff that gives you the impression that you can vibe operate modern models the same way you operated last year's models. There's so much more to it than that. It requires you to put a faith in the leap in the capability of models, one that would've surely been a waste of time in previous models.

    Not sure where i'm going with this other than I think most can relate that it's exhausting keeping up with. I cant imagine what it'd be like parenting a kid that went from toddler to puberty in the span of a year and planning for them to go to college the next year. This industry is moving so fast that it's becoming fact that it's the user that's "holding it wrong" every six months.

    by prodigycorp
  • This is a failure of the AI foundries; if we have to use totally different prompting techniques for every model, this wont work.

    AI is rapidly saturating it's ability to be useful and these products need to start to mature.

    It's not 'fun' to manage 50 different broken MCPs and their variety of ways in which they are broken.

    It was 'fun' at the start, now it's just 'broken technology'.

    Astra and Opus 5.5 are the 'starting point' for the next era of AI where we expect robust tooling.

    by bluegatty
  • All that keeps jumping out at me is how they've set it to refuse giving users thinking tokens and prompts for full reasoning in output. Just drives me further away; I may not stop using Claude completely for now, but I'll be moving even more of my primary workload to Chinese providers. That's where openness and freedom is now at.
    by skeledrew

Explore Birbla archives