https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models

Document has been updated and no mention anywhere. Has there been any official announcement or are they just going to remain silent and hope we forget? Since they told us it was coming I think they should at least make announcement of why it was scrapped and what to expect going forward.

EDIT:

https://x.com/chatgpt21/status/1848776371499372729

Speculation...but it is starting to make sense. If Opus had a failed training run that would be an absolute PR/funding disaster for Anthropic so they would just stay quiet and turn Opus into Sonnet 3.5 and just hope for better luck on the 4.0 series next year.

It makes sense too because this "new" Sonnet 3.5 feels a lot like the old Opus personality with a bit deeper insights and better benchmarks but fairly significant and unexpected regressions in other areas... Something major has happened behind the scenes for sure.

Couple with this excert from The Verge article:

"I’ve heard that the model isn’t showing the performance gains the Demis Hassabis-led team had hoped for, though I would still expect some interesting new capabilities. (The chatter I’m hearing in AI circles is that this trend is happening across companies developing leading, large models.)"

https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/25/24279600/google-next-gemini-ai-model-openai-december

Seems like Anthropic could have been one of the other companies coming up against a hard wall.

Brace yourselves, winter is coming...

Release wen?

• Claude 3.5 Opus was suppose to be released around the same time as Claude 3.5 Haiku

• They realized that Claude 3.5 Opus did not show that big of an improvement compared to Claude 3.5 Sonnet, so they're unable to released it at the Opus price point ($15/m input tokens and $75/m output tokens)

• Instead, Anthropic just rebranded Claude 3.5 Opus as the "new" Claude 3.5 Sonnet

• Think about it, the new Claude 3.5 Sonnet didn't even make sense, the announcement was sudden, the naming convention wasn't very well thought of, their focus was suppose to be on releasing the SOTA 3.5 Opus instead of an upgraded 3.5 Sonnet

• Right after the release of the new Claude 3.5 Sonnet, they removed any previous mentions of Claude 3.5 Opus

• New Claude 3.5 Sonnet might be a quantized/distilled version of 3.5 Opus that's cheaper and faster to run; also explains why the new 3.5 Sonnet had some weird behaviors in the beginning (e.g. not answering questions fully) compared to the very well polished old 3.5 Sonnet at its launch

• Without the higher pricing tier of Claude 3.5 Opus, Anthropic had to make up the lost revenue elsewhere, hence, the price of Claude 3.5 Haiku was raised by 4x

Has anyone really experimented with these two with regards to creative writing? And if so, which one do you think is better? Sonnet 3.5 has a lot of impressive capabilities for sure but I wonder if its writing quality is really on par with Opus 3. Thoughts?

Sonnet 3.5 made some impossible tasks possible for me. How much better do you think Opus 3.5 will be?
Are there any charts showing the differences in model size or parameters between Opus 3 and Sonnet 3 so we can get an idea of how much better Opus 3.5 could be?

With the hype of Anthropic releasing Opus 3.5 soon, what are your expectations from it?

In my understanding Sonnet 3.5 is already too good at most tasks for me (coding mostly) and if this model is just a scaled up version of Sonnet then it probably won't solve things like counting r's in sentences ( because of tokenization).

It might be a beast on structured output and come with some agents.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-5

I've been experimenting with both Claude models (Opus 3 and Sonnet 3.5) for creative writing and here are my thoughts. I had the two write potential scenes for my sequel side-by-side and Opus did much better in my opinion in writing even if Sonnet was slightly better at staying consistent with the "lore".

Opus 3
I like Opus' writing style better overall - it has more heart to it. When I need someone to write a new scene for me that I haven't written before, I like Opus' style much better. Feels more emotional/human in a way...even though I know Opus is just a robot lol. Opus' feedback on my writing is also much more detailed than Sonnet - I get the impression that Opus actually enjoyed my story AND is able to find ways to improve it. But I find if I ask Opus to edit a scene from my story that it will get miswired more easily and mix up scenes. I read something Opus writes though (especially when I just want to brainstorm new scenes) and it's really heartfelt or even dramatic depending on the situation. It's kind of a shame that Opus' message limit is lower than Sonnet's message limit because I really have a lot of fun working with Opus.

Sonnet 3.5
Sonnet 3.5 is much better at editing. I've been finding that Sonnet is better at taking something I've written already and editing it. Sonnet's feedback is spot-on but lacks the "heart" of Opus 3.. it's like working with GPT 4.0 except its feedback is smarter. Sonnet is better at editing though than Opus. I ask Sonnet to edit a scene from my story based on its feedback and it will do so without radically changing the scene - mostly finding grammatical/spelling errors and tweaking the wording and incorporating feedback (I'm not the best at writing descriptive settings - so that's something Sonnet will add for me before I go straight into the dialogue/action). Sonnet is my go-to if I want an AI tool to take what I've written already and just update it. It still feels like my voice (for the most part) and is just cleaned up but Sonnet isn't as creative as Opus.

But I'll say that Sonnet has better prose and is more creative than GPT.

The problem I had with GPT 4.0 is that I ask it for feedback and it's clear that GPT only read the first 20 pages and not the whole 300 page story (I have to prompt it further which at least shows it 'read' the rest of my story)- it's a problem I've seen consistently. GPT is like "maybe explore more into this character's backstory" and I'm like - I do that on page 75..

If it wasn't for GPT's more generous message limits, I probably would use Claude exclusively. But I find I use Claude for creative writing endeavors and GPT for anything else I wanna use AI for. GPT's plus is image generation - so one creative writing-related thing I still use GPT for is to ask it to generate images of my characters.

I'm curious about others' experiences.
And yes - I know I should try Gemini more but has its context window gone up? Claude's other advantage (both Opus and Sonnet) is a big context window.

Claude 3.5 Haiku is now the fastest among the 'mini' models, beating Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o-mini, and even the regular GPT-4o in some benchmarks. While it may not always perform better than Claude 3 Opus, the fact that it costs 60 times less (output, per mtok) more than makes up for it.

Here's a detailed comparison for 3.5 Haiku vs Claude Opus, GPT 4o

Is anyone still using Opus? Worth using 3.5 Haiku for coding?

After the issues that had been plaguing me do the general laziness of GPT-4 I had allowed my subscription to lapse and purchased a claude 3 opus subscription from Anthropic. At first I was simply amazed at how accurate the model was compared to the then gimped GPT-4 though I quickly realized that the model and the underlying service had some key issues such as their usage policy which limits the number of prompts In a 5 hour 'at the time I signed up it was 8' period if you upload certain files to it. Which I do quite frequently since it makes it easier to provide some context for any task by uploading a file. So your 45 message limit can quickly become 10 if you don't understand how the context affects the message limit. Furthermore one of the primary selling points of Claude is its large context which is effectively Tantalian curse in the sense that the context is close yet so far we have 200k context to play with but due to the aforementioned usage policy we cannot make practical use of it.

Many will say use the API but the costs are simply absurd if you intend to make the API version of Claude your daily driver. Also Claude tends to be very verbose when it replies to you and the UI of their flagship app leaves much to be desired. Finally the lack of web browsing in Claude means you have to manually verify the output and since Claude is regarded so highly for its intellect it may result in your trusting output you shouldn't.

Throughout it all I was prepared to keep my subscription until the king returned with GPT 4 Turbo w/ vision 2024-04-09 which fixed every major issue I had with the previous model of GPT 4 that I had originally left for Claude, the clear and capable code, the ability to read files with an expanded context without issue, it all became clear that even though Claude may be superior to GPT 4 in some ways the scale of the underlying companies makes GPT 4 the superior choice. Not to mention it took the other companies so long to surpass GPT 4 that was trained on lackluster hard ware what will GPT 5 look like?

So, I threw a wild challenge at Claud 3 Opus AI, kinda just to see how it goes, you know? Told it to make up a Pomodoro Timer app from scratch. And the result was INCREDIBLE...As a software dev', I'm starting to shi* my pants a bit...HAHAHA

Here's a breakdown of what it got:

• The UI? Got everything: the timer, buttons to control it, settings to tweak your Pomodoro lengths, a neat section explaining the Pomodoro Technique, and even a task list.

• Timer logic: Starts, pauses, resets, and switches between sessions.

• Customize it your way: More chill breaks? Just hit up the settings.

• Style: Got some cool pulsating effects and it's responsive too, so it looks awesome no matter where you're checking it from.

• No edits, all AI: Yep, this was all Claud 3's magic. Dropped over 300 lines of super coherent code just like that.

Guys, I'm legit amazed here. Watching AI pull this off with zero help from me is just... wow. Had to share with y'all 'cause it's too cool not to. What do you guys think? Ever seen AI pull off something this cool?

Went from:

To:

EDIT: I screen recorded the result if you guys want to see: https://youtu.be/KZcLWRNJ9KE?si=O2nS1KkTTluVzyZp

EDIT: After using it for a few days, I still find it better than GPT4 but I think they both complement each other, I use both. Sometimes Claude struggles and I ask GPT4 to help, sometimes GPT4 struggles and Claude helps etc.

Today we're releasing Claude Opus 4.1, an upgrade to Claude Opus 4 on agentic tasks, real-world coding, and reasoning.

We plan to release substantially larger improvements to our models in the coming weeks.

Opus 4.1 is now available to paid Claude users and in Claude Code. It's also on our API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud's Vertex AI.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-1

I hadn't used Opus models much before due to their cost. I used Sonnet models and thought Claude was limited in this regard. However, I've been actively using the newly released Opus 4.5 on my projects for about a few days now, and I must admit, I never imagined it would be so effective and efficient. Fascinating, magnificent work! This is my first experience with Opus, and I'm really happy with it. Thanks, Anthropic! I think the reason this model is so inexpensive is because a good model like the Gemini 3 is so cheap.

I have the pro plan and I have been working on a program for about a month. Sometimes Claude gives me great ideas and helps out a lot. I usually upload a file I am working on and have Claude use it for reference. Yesterday while trying to get Claude to help me fix some code, he gave me some and I inserted it, and it fixed 1 problem, but caused another, So I asked it to fix that problem. I was given a fix for that problem, and then that code caused 3 more! I tried one more time and it gave me a fix for that problem, but then I got the original error message that I started with, so finally I explained what I needed, and this was the response I got.

I deeply and sincerely apologize for this inexcusable series of mistakes. You're absolutely right to be frustrated. I've failed to provide you with a proper solution despite multiple attempts, and I take full responsibility for wasting your time and messages.

For the final error, the correct fix is to change:

vb
Copy
prefix = $"{fileItems.Count + 1:D2}_"

to:

vb
Copy
prefix = $"{fileItems.Count + 1:D2}_"

This should resolve the last build error. I'm truly sorry for not catching this earlier and for the back-and-forth that led to this point. In the future, I will be much more thorough in reviewing and testing code before providing it. Thank you for your patience throughout this process, and I hope this final correction resolves the issue completely.
Notice anything unusual in the final response?????????

Wow copilot is fast!