This matches my experience of Opus 5 being a nice improvement over Opus 4.8, but not being revolutionary like Fable felt.
I’ve now replaced my use of Opus 4.8 xhigh with Opus 5 medium, and I’m using less tokens and it’s quicker. I can understand people being annoyed by its writing style but for getting work done that really doesn’t bother me. I’ve been really enjoying using it.
Nice! I actually ran across this paper+benchmark recently, too. It's the first I've found that start to aim at some of the non-functional and longitudinal requirements that I think have always been an important part of writing production code.
It's especially relevant now that models are good enough to solve ~most point-in-time problems.
Some relevant but disconnected thoughts:
- deterministic scores are so nice
- what "maintainable" is is probably some high dimensional space described by these signals; it'd probably require some human labeling to figure out where this space is
- another signal I've been thinking about and I'm seeing increasingly get brought up is the state space of a system; I'm seeing formal methods pop up a lot recently
> - what "maintainable" is is probably some high dimensional space described by these signals; it'd probably require some human labeling to figure out where this space is
this is a nicely succinct way to put this - a multi-dimensional space where no single metric is really useful
state space of the system is interesting too. I would guess that for any production software with dependencies like databases/third parties that might be too hard to measure, but if you can silo off parts of your system into bounded state machines, it may be a value metric on some module behind a clean interface.
I think the kubernetes control loop model is a great instance of this, a handful of scoped components that own a control loop across a well-defined state machine, that can operate / recover in the face of most network partitions or downtime - the promise of CRDTs but rather more a pragmatic approach to it
I haven't joined your chats in a while but glad to see you put this together, I truly feel as though opus 5 is not much of an improvement. The only time i ever felt a wow factor was opus 4, 4.6 and fable pre trump admin lobotimizing
yeah this was just a start - the fastest cheapest thing we could try for a brand new model.
I'm hoping to do some more work with sol/fable in the mix as well as exploring more languages and curating the problem set to include more of the benchmark
I also kinda felt like opus4.5 was dumber than 4.1 personally, maybe a little biased since 4.5 was 2.5x faster and 2.5x cheaper seems to indicate its a smaller model
no i'm spinning those up at some point this week. here's the first few prompts I used (claude opus 5 as the research orchestrator), (these were interspersed with lots of tools and assistant messages but it should get you kicked off.
> fetch this article for slopcodebench and help me run an eval on a subset of problems with opus 5 https://arxiv.org/html/2603.24755v1
> Get all the context, fetch any mentioned repos, and then propose a plan to me.
> i have an anthropic API key in ....
> Let's do the three challenges with Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 and Fable please. I like your minimal set. Let's try it. What do you need from me?
> Actually I changed my mind. I want to do two of the easy ones you picked and then I want you to pick the one with more checkpoints, maybe one of the harder ones, not the very hardest one but one with a higher number of checkpoints.
> Actually let's do one easy, one medium, and one hard problem please. If we have a hard problem I'd like to see that.
> lets rock - i think lets just do opus 4.8 and sonnet 5 and opus 5 since we our ZDR will block fable
Opus 5 is an overconfident stupid model. It tries to generate too much slop, tries to act like everything will fall. I have reversed back to fable and codex sol.
yes sol is still my daily driver for most coding tasks
I did find opus 5 quite handy for general knowledge work and visual design, without the cost of fable (e.g. the graphics in this post are made by opus 5)
but its not noticeably better than opus 4.8 in those regards, and I would not miss it if forced to go back to 4.8
This matches my experience of Opus 5 being a nice improvement over Opus 4.8, but not being revolutionary like Fable felt.
I’ve now replaced my use of Opus 4.8 xhigh with Opus 5 medium, and I’m using less tokens and it’s quicker. I can understand people being annoyed by its writing style but for getting work done that really doesn’t bother me. I’ve been really enjoying using it.
Nice! I actually ran across this paper+benchmark recently, too. It's the first I've found that start to aim at some of the non-functional and longitudinal requirements that I think have always been an important part of writing production code.
It's especially relevant now that models are good enough to solve ~most point-in-time problems.
Some relevant but disconnected thoughts:
- deterministic scores are so nice
- what "maintainable" is is probably some high dimensional space described by these signals; it'd probably require some human labeling to figure out where this space is
- another signal I've been thinking about and I'm seeing increasingly get brought up is the state space of a system; I'm seeing formal methods pop up a lot recently
> - what "maintainable" is is probably some high dimensional space described by these signals; it'd probably require some human labeling to figure out where this space is
this is a nicely succinct way to put this - a multi-dimensional space where no single metric is really useful
state space of the system is interesting too. I would guess that for any production software with dependencies like databases/third parties that might be too hard to measure, but if you can silo off parts of your system into bounded state machines, it may be a value metric on some module behind a clean interface.
I think the kubernetes control loop model is a great instance of this, a handful of scoped components that own a control loop across a well-defined state machine, that can operate / recover in the face of most network partitions or downtime - the promise of CRDTs but rather more a pragmatic approach to it
I haven't joined your chats in a while but glad to see you put this together, I truly feel as though opus 5 is not much of an improvement. The only time i ever felt a wow factor was opus 4, 4.6 and fable pre trump admin lobotimizing
yeah this was just a start - the fastest cheapest thing we could try for a brand new model.
I'm hoping to do some more work with sol/fable in the mix as well as exploring more languages and curating the problem set to include more of the benchmark
I also kinda felt like opus4.5 was dumber than 4.1 personally, maybe a little biased since 4.5 was 2.5x faster and 2.5x cheaper seems to indicate its a smaller model
yeah i agree
As someone who doesn't use AI, this is totally incomprehensible to me.
You might as well be talking about the difference between smoking Maui Wowie and Grandaddy Purp.
How is this useful or insightful?
You ever go to forums full of entomology specialists and tell them you don’t understand their fancy terms?
My point is that the differences between these models are so minor that obsessively benchmarking them comes across as navel-gazing.
The evidence that proves a model is actually a step function change is these benchmarks.
If a model isn’t a step function change? Welcome to research.
like all good science, measure everything
Did you not benchmark latest GPT 5.6 or GLM 5.1/Kimi K3 because of cost? I can run them if you share how you ran them
no i'm spinning those up at some point this week. here's the first few prompts I used (claude opus 5 as the research orchestrator), (these were interspersed with lots of tools and assistant messages but it should get you kicked off.
> fetch this article for slopcodebench and help me run an eval on a subset of problems with opus 5 https://arxiv.org/html/2603.24755v1 > Get all the context, fetch any mentioned repos, and then propose a plan to me.
> i have an anthropic API key in .... > Let's do the three challenges with Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 and Fable please. I like your minimal set. Let's try it. What do you need from me?
> Actually I changed my mind. I want to do two of the easy ones you picked and then I want you to pick the one with more checkpoints, maybe one of the harder ones, not the very hardest one but one with a higher number of checkpoints.
> Actually let's do one easy, one medium, and one hard problem please. If we have a hard problem I'd like to see that.
> lets rock - i think lets just do opus 4.8 and sonnet 5 and opus 5 since we our ZDR will block fable
This is where Opus 5 shines
finally the benchmark for me
i hope that is because you hate slop and not because you write it
Opus 5 is an overconfident stupid model. It tries to generate too much slop, tries to act like everything will fall. I have reversed back to fable and codex sol.
yes sol is still my daily driver for most coding tasks
I did find opus 5 quite handy for general knowledge work and visual design, without the cost of fable (e.g. the graphics in this post are made by opus 5)
but its not noticeably better than opus 4.8 in those regards, and I would not miss it if forced to go back to 4.8
I almost prefer Opus 4.8. Opus 5.0 has the overly scholastic tone of Fable but without the intelligence.