Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 📧 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus...

danshipper's profile picture

Dan Shipper

141,807 subscribers

354,876 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsEducationScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.
0:13

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.

Bhavy☄️

479,920 views • 2 months ago

Salute to the Qwen team 🫡 We tested Qwen 3.7-Max, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Claude Opus 4.7. The biggest shock came from Qwen. In less than a month (3.6 Max dropped April 20), Qwen went from the worst multimodal output on our sakura tree test, barely keeping up with Gemini, GPT, and Claude , to matching Gemini 3.5 Flash frame for frame on this soccer test, and outperforming GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7. It rendered a perfectly proportioned soccer player and the most lifelike ball in the entire test. Remarkable spatial reasoning. Also: Gemini 3.5 Flash is now faster than GPT-5.5, which used to be the fastest in our past tests.
0:17

Salute to the Qwen team 🫡 We tested Qwen 3.7-Max, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Claude Opus 4.7. The biggest shock came from Qwen. In less than a month (3.6 Max dropped April 20), Qwen went from the worst multimodal output on our sakura tree test, barely keeping up with Gemini, GPT, and Claude , to matching Gemini 3.5 Flash frame for frame on this soccer test, and outperforming GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7. It rendered a perfectly proportioned soccer player and the most lifelike ball in the entire test. Remarkable spatial reasoning. Also: Gemini 3.5 Flash is now faster than GPT-5.5, which used to be the fastest in our past tests.

GMI Cloud

75,785 views • 4 months ago

HOLY MOLY: Aikido got GPT-6 Astra in advance to run it on our Cybersecurity benchmark, it crushed EVERY other model! - At pass@3 it rediscovered 29/32 CVEs, the highest recall we've ever recorded and 4 more than GPT-5.6-Sol - Even at pass@1, it has 75% recall. The model is VERY consistent - The performance however come at a high price (literally). The three runs cost us almost $4,000 Astra is now the #1 model on the benchmark Debarshi and I built, and by a LOT 1/3 🧵
0:12

HOLY MOLY: Aikido got GPT-6 Astra in advance to run it on our Cybersecurity benchmark, it crushed EVERY other model! - At pass@3 it rediscovered 29/32 CVEs, the highest recall we've ever recorded and 4 more than GPT-5.6-Sol - Even at pass@1, it has 75% recall. The model is VERY consistent - The performance however come at a high price (literally). The three runs cost us almost $4,000 Astra is now the #1 model on the benchmark Debarshi and I built, and by a LOT 1/3 🧵

pilvar (Philippe Dourassov)

49,224 views • 1 month ago

🚨 codex users!! We have a good and a bad news!! I used GPT-6.1 Sol at MAX and I got: - 2% weekly usage - 2.8 Million tokens - 52 mins of work The usage is GOOD!! You can use it for a LOT of work for only $20 Now the "BAD" news It is EXTREMELY SLOW!! And quality isn't great... (Check video) The city is smaller than what GPT-6 Astra built!! AND the car animations are lagging... I'd suggest using it as "implementor" and Astra as "orchestrator". NOTE: I used MAX because THAT is only on par with GPT-6 Astra.
0:18

🚨 codex users!! We have a good and a bad news!! I used GPT-6.1 Sol at MAX and I got: - 2% weekly usage - 2.8 Million tokens - 52 mins of work The usage is GOOD!! You can use it for a LOT of work for only $20 Now the "BAD" news It is EXTREMELY SLOW!! And quality isn't great... (Check video) The city is smaller than what GPT-6 Astra built!! AND the car animations are lagging... I'd suggest using it as "implementor" and Astra as "orchestrator". NOTE: I used MAX because THAT is only on par with GPT-6 Astra.

shownotover

90,186 views • 8 days ago

Astra (GPT-6) is here!!! I've had early access and tested it like crazy with things like games, code, writing, browser control, presentations and general knowledge work. This is the best model I've ever used. Period. (Incredible demos below in this thread ⬇️) Here's my take on Astra: > It's insanely capable. This feels like a massive improvement, not just an incremental change. This is especially true with zero-shot prompts. > It's all about knowledge work. Slide creation, analysis, writing, and browser control. And oh my...it's so good at browser control. GPT-5.6 was already fantastic at doing things in the browser, Astra is another level and significantly faster. > We're closer than ever (arrived?) at prompt-to-playable game. And I don't just mean only playable, these are actually fun games. I bet if someone with a great eye for games used Astra, they could create a viral game within 1-2 weeks. > Astra is better at writing but not perfect. It removes much of the "AI Smell" we're all familiar with but some stink still survived. > It has a tendency to use the same design colors and look/feel as GPT-5.6 (forrest green anyone?) but it is more steerable in design than previous models. > It's highly steerable in general. A little nudge goes a long way. When I first started using Astra, almost every task I gave it would go for ~30 minutes. I wanted it to keep working. Adding more specifics to a prompt helped greatly with it's ability to work for a long time. > Astra's 3D understanding is unmatched. 3D asset creation was consistent and easy and its spacial awareness while building complex 3D worlds blew me away. I'm still getting familiar with Astra but this will now be my go-to model for any difficult work I have. Check out the demos below: 👇
0:14

Astra (GPT-6) is here!!! I've had early access and tested it like crazy with things like games, code, writing, browser control, presentations and general knowledge work. This is the best model I've ever used. Period. (Incredible demos below in this thread ⬇️) Here's my take on Astra: > It's insanely capable. This feels like a massive improvement, not just an incremental change. This is especially true with zero-shot prompts. > It's all about knowledge work. Slide creation, analysis, writing, and browser control. And oh my...it's so good at browser control. GPT-5.6 was already fantastic at doing things in the browser, Astra is another level and significantly faster. > We're closer than ever (arrived?) at prompt-to-playable game. And I don't just mean only playable, these are actually fun games. I bet if someone with a great eye for games used Astra, they could create a viral game within 1-2 weeks. > Astra is better at writing but not perfect. It removes much of the "AI Smell" we're all familiar with but some stink still survived. > It has a tendency to use the same design colors and look/feel as GPT-5.6 (forrest green anyone?) but it is more steerable in design than previous models. > It's highly steerable in general. A little nudge goes a long way. When I first started using Astra, almost every task I gave it would go for ~30 minutes. I wanted it to keep working. Adding more specifics to a prompt helped greatly with it's ability to work for a long time. > Astra's 3D understanding is unmatched. 3D asset creation was consistent and easy and its spacial awareness while building complex 3D worlds blew me away. I'm still getting familiar with Astra but this will now be my go-to model for any difficult work I have. Check out the demos below: 👇

Matthew Berman

1,908,143 views • 1 month ago

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5
0:10

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5

YanXbt

16,744 views • 2 months ago

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.
0:16

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

atomic.chat

2,842,561 views • 3 months ago

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below
0:19

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

starmex

33,133 views • 1 month ago

We released physics-intern: a simple harness for science problems! It gets models like Gemini 3.1 Pro to go from 17.7 -> 31.4, thus beating GPT 5.5 Pro. The physics-intern harness can wrap any model and via dedicated subagent boost the performance of the vanilla reasoning models. While I think more and more of these harness capability gains will be absorbed into the models (like prompting tricks disappeared over time) there is a lot to be gained right now by building good scaffolds for those models and integrating tools well. Interestingly, the exception we found that GPT 5.5 Pro actually didn't benefit from the physics-intern harness! Read more about it here: PS: I think the Harness[Model] notation is kind of nice.
0:12

We released physics-intern: a simple harness for science problems! It gets models like Gemini 3.1 Pro to go from 17.7 -> 31.4, thus beating GPT 5.5 Pro. The physics-intern harness can wrap any model and via dedicated subagent boost the performance of the vanilla reasoning models. While I think more and more of these harness capability gains will be absorbed into the models (like prompting tricks disappeared over time) there is a lot to be gained right now by building good scaffolds for those models and integrating tools well. Interestingly, the exception we found that GPT 5.5 Pro actually didn't benefit from the physics-intern harness! Read more about it here: PS: I think the Harness[Model] notation is kind of nice.

Leandro von Werra

97,519 views • 4 months ago

People still don't understand how good Codex has become 👀 I asked it to build this Starbucks website and within some 30 minutes it generated this without me touching a single line of code or spending time looking for assets either. Imagen generated every visual and GPT hooked everything into the codebase. After a couple of small tweaks it all just worked. It didn't even use half of my Codex session. It's super surprising to see quality of the assets. Was way better than I expected. That made me think about what AI is actually changing. Being a developer or a designer was never just about doing the work, writing code or designing it using some kind of tool. It was about knowing what to build in the first place. AI is getting incredibly good at the doing. The hard part is still having good ideas, making the right decisions, and knowing when something feels right. That is only getting more valuable. The people who win won't be the ones writing the most code. They'll be the ones with the best ideas who know how to turn them into reality with AI. Live: Code:
0:17

People still don't understand how good Codex has become 👀 I asked it to build this Starbucks website and within some 30 minutes it generated this without me touching a single line of code or spending time looking for assets either. Imagen generated every visual and GPT hooked everything into the codebase. After a couple of small tweaks it all just worked. It didn't even use half of my Codex session. It's super surprising to see quality of the assets. Was way better than I expected. That made me think about what AI is actually changing. Being a developer or a designer was never just about doing the work, writing code or designing it using some kind of tool. It was about knowing what to build in the first place. AI is getting incredibly good at the doing. The hard part is still having good ideas, making the right decisions, and knowing when something feels right. That is only getting more valuable. The people who win won't be the ones writing the most code. They'll be the ones with the best ideas who know how to turn them into reality with AI. Live: Code:

The Bugged Dev

60,699 views • 3 months ago

After a few more hours, I think I've figured out Opus 5. Opus 5 is trained to be more agentic than anything I've used. All Claude 5 models are like that. So what changes? The way to interact with Opus 5 or contextualize it won't work the same way as with other models. It loves exploring, so it doesn't need much guidance for it. Unique preferences, artifacts, and references compliment it well and enable cleaner and more effective exploration and execution. Now that it can explore more effectively on its own and understand intent better, the best thing to do is to get out of its way (e.g., it doesn't need examples of your preferences; a clear high-level description of it works best). It's truly agentic in that sense. A good first step to provide better context for Opus 5 is to distinguish between what's situational and what needs persistence. Regardless, persistent system prompts and CLAUDE.MD needs to stay lightweight. Remove memories and tool descriptions from these. CLAUDE.MD is also a great place to tap into progressive disclosure by linking command/skills to it. On the situational side, agent skills and auto-memory can leverage progressive disclosure and the improved ability of the model to use its external context/knowledge. Conflicting and unnecessary instructions, which are common at this layer (mainly to ensure reliability), are going to throw off this model easily. That's the biggest change I had to make. Simple, clean, and clear prompts and skills work best. I had to clean a lot of my skills and system prompts. The way I prompt remains the same (usually clear and well-scoped). MCP tool descriptions are also more descriptive and have been deduped from the system prompt. Anthropic released a guide on the new rules for context engineering, which was helpful here. I started to test the recommendations and created a little artifact with the things that worked along the way. This might feel like a lot of work. Believe me, it has been frustrating. But I think we can expect future frontier models to become more agentic and smarter at figuring out the right context/gaps. The best thing to do is to prepare for that now. Boris Cherny mentioned that Opus 5 is their least prompt-injectable model yet. I am not sure if that was something they intentionally trained for or if it emerged based on how it was trained, which is to be extremely agentic in nature and more direct in execution.
0:15

After a few more hours, I think I've figured out Opus 5. Opus 5 is trained to be more agentic than anything I've used. All Claude 5 models are like that. So what changes? The way to interact with Opus 5 or contextualize it won't work the same way as with other models. It loves exploring, so it doesn't need much guidance for it. Unique preferences, artifacts, and references compliment it well and enable cleaner and more effective exploration and execution. Now that it can explore more effectively on its own and understand intent better, the best thing to do is to get out of its way (e.g., it doesn't need examples of your preferences; a clear high-level description of it works best). It's truly agentic in that sense. A good first step to provide better context for Opus 5 is to distinguish between what's situational and what needs persistence. Regardless, persistent system prompts and CLAUDE.MD needs to stay lightweight. Remove memories and tool descriptions from these. CLAUDE.MD is also a great place to tap into progressive disclosure by linking command/skills to it. On the situational side, agent skills and auto-memory can leverage progressive disclosure and the improved ability of the model to use its external context/knowledge. Conflicting and unnecessary instructions, which are common at this layer (mainly to ensure reliability), are going to throw off this model easily. That's the biggest change I had to make. Simple, clean, and clear prompts and skills work best. I had to clean a lot of my skills and system prompts. The way I prompt remains the same (usually clear and well-scoped). MCP tool descriptions are also more descriptive and have been deduped from the system prompt. Anthropic released a guide on the new rules for context engineering, which was helpful here. I started to test the recommendations and created a little artifact with the things that worked along the way. This might feel like a lot of work. Believe me, it has been frustrating. But I think we can expect future frontier models to become more agentic and smarter at figuring out the right context/gaps. The best thing to do is to prepare for that now. Boris Cherny mentioned that Opus 5 is their least prompt-injectable model yet. I am not sure if that was something they intentionally trained for or if it emerged based on how it was trained, which is to be extremely agentic in nature and more direct in execution.

elvis

37,824 views • 2 months ago

Opus 5.5 + GrokBot + Jev... I can't believe that I build it I packed the best of AI into ONE agent - now 99% of people’s AI agents look dumb, slow, and expensive Try here (free): prompt → GrokBot → Jev chooses LLM → Claude / GPT working on GrokBot's computer 24/7 → result → Jev sends only the tasks Grok is weak at to Opus or GPT → Jev picks the best model for each task - for example, Claude for motion design and Codex for web design → runs on the ChatGPT and Claude subscriptions you already pay for (API also work) → works on GrokBot computer while you keep chatting → checks every result against the goal before you see it → GrokBot gets smarter and cheaper at the same time → And plenty more features in a bot everyone will call "obvious" by 2030 Try Jevopus, thank me later - then read the article on the full Jev architecture ↓
0:14

Opus 5.5 + GrokBot + Jev... I can't believe that I build it I packed the best of AI into ONE agent - now 99% of people’s AI agents look dumb, slow, and expensive Try here (free): prompt → GrokBot → Jev chooses LLM → Claude / GPT working on GrokBot's computer 24/7 → result → Jev sends only the tasks Grok is weak at to Opus or GPT → Jev picks the best model for each task - for example, Claude for motion design and Codex for web design → runs on the ChatGPT and Claude subscriptions you already pay for (API also work) → works on GrokBot computer while you keep chatting → checks every result against the goal before you see it → GrokBot gets smarter and cheaper at the same time → And plenty more features in a bot everyone will call "obvious" by 2030 Try Jevopus, thank me later - then read the article on the full Jev architecture ↓

codila

270,673 views • 9 days ago

I can't believe this is real I have GLM 5.2 running 100% locally on my Mac Studio. 2 bit quant. The results I'm getting are better than Opus 4.8 It's now powering my Hermes Agent and Codex. 100% free, local, private super intelligence on my desk I also have it in a loop coding for me 24/7 now I thought we were at least a year away from this type of event. It happened today. The model takes up about 250gb of memory. So you can technically run it on a Mac Studio with 256gb, but you probably want the 512gb memory version (please tell me you listened to me 5 months ago when these were sitting on store shelves) With Fable gone, I now have Opus 4.8 level intelligence on my desk for free. This is the future. Local, private, secure, personal super intelligence. If you're still writing off local AI as a fad or engagement bait, you are officially delusional
0:18

I can't believe this is real I have GLM 5.2 running 100% locally on my Mac Studio. 2 bit quant. The results I'm getting are better than Opus 4.8 It's now powering my Hermes Agent and Codex. 100% free, local, private super intelligence on my desk I also have it in a loop coding for me 24/7 now I thought we were at least a year away from this type of event. It happened today. The model takes up about 250gb of memory. So you can technically run it on a Mac Studio with 256gb, but you probably want the 512gb memory version (please tell me you listened to me 5 months ago when these were sitting on store shelves) With Fable gone, I now have Opus 4.8 level intelligence on my desk for free. This is the future. Local, private, secure, personal super intelligence. If you're still writing off local AI as a fad or engagement bait, you are officially delusional

Alex Finn

624,264 views • 3 months ago

We just launched Claude Sonnet 4.5 and “Imagine with Claude”, a 5-day preview that creates dynamic experiences for you in real-time (and the first product I’ve worked on at Anthropic!). It pioneers the concept of “model-as-backend”, using a model to not only generate interfaces on the fly but also power all the functionality behind it – all made possible by our newest model, Claude Sonnet 4.5. Here’s a "choose your own adventure" version of my founder journey, as retold by Imagine with Claude:
0:17

We just launched Claude Sonnet 4.5 and “Imagine with Claude”, a 5-day preview that creates dynamic experiences for you in real-time (and the first product I’ve worked on at Anthropic!). It pioneers the concept of “model-as-backend”, using a model to not only generate interfaces on the fly but also power all the functionality behind it – all made possible by our newest model, Claude Sonnet 4.5. Here’s a "choose your own adventure" version of my founder journey, as retold by Imagine with Claude:

Sean Strong

115,727 views • 1 year ago

You can now orchestrate Fable 5, Sol, and any model inside Codex with one plugin. It's called Codex-Orchestration. Assign Fable 5 as the advisor, Sol as the executor, or any model to any role. Then define the order they work in. Codex handles the routing. I ran Fable 5 High as planner with GPT-5.6 Sol Extra High as executor on a set of issues Opus and GPT-5.5 always struggled with. Done in 30 minutes. 40% fewer limit hits. 2x faster implementation. Install it by pasting this into Codex: "Install Codex Orchestration: codex plugin marketplace add Cjbuilds/Codex-Orchestration codex plugin add codex-orchestration@codex-orchestration Verify the installation, then tell me to start a new task." Then assign your models: @ codex-orchestration advisor: Claude Fable 5 High, Executor: GPT-5.6 Sol High Open source. Tweak the routing however you want.
0:14

You can now orchestrate Fable 5, Sol, and any model inside Codex with one plugin. It's called Codex-Orchestration. Assign Fable 5 as the advisor, Sol as the executor, or any model to any role. Then define the order they work in. Codex handles the routing. I ran Fable 5 High as planner with GPT-5.6 Sol Extra High as executor on a set of issues Opus and GPT-5.5 always struggled with. Done in 30 minutes. 40% fewer limit hits. 2x faster implementation. Install it by pasting this into Codex: "Install Codex Orchestration: codex plugin marketplace add Cjbuilds/Codex-Orchestration codex plugin add codex-orchestration@codex-orchestration Verify the installation, then tell me to start a new task." Then assign your models: @ codex-orchestration advisor: Claude Fable 5 High, Executor: GPT-5.6 Sol High Open source. Tweak the routing however you want.

Alvaro Cintas

92,518 views • 2 months ago

An OpenAI engineer stopped me at a hackathon in Hayes Valley I had my terminal open on a table. Three panels. Live trades scrolling. He was walking past and froze. "That's not a demo. That's a live scoring engine. What model is that" I told him. Claude Opus 4.7. Four repos. $25 a month. He pulled up a chair without asking. "We benchmarked Opus 4.7 internally. It beat o3 on structured reasoning across every eval we ran. And you're telling me you're using it to trade" I told him it does more than trade. It reads 86 million trades and finds who wins and why. No fine-tuning. No prompting chains. Just raw context. He leaned back. "Show me the data source" I opened one link. 86 million trades. Every wallet. Every entry. Every exit. "You point Opus 4.7 at this and it reverse-engineers the strategy. It finds the wallets that win. Then it finds why they win. Then it copies the pattern" His team spent 14 months building something similar. 10 engineers. Custom infra. Still in staging. "The part that killed us was exit timing. Every model we trained nailed entries. But the best traders exit before the crowd. We never figured out the threshold" I told him my bot cuts at 85% of expected move. Or on a 3x volume spike. Whichever comes first. He stopped talking. "How did you find that" Opus 4.7 found it in poly_data. Top wallets exit before resolution 86% of the time. Losers hold to 58%. Exits are the entire game. I opened another tab. "Three commands. 500 markets. Opus scores them in 20 minutes" "That's our internal eval pipeline. Except it took us a year and you did it in a weekend with our competitor's model" My setup: Claude Opus 4.7 - $20/mo VPS - $5/mo poly_data - free polymarket-cli - free 214 trades. 74% win rate. +$9,400 in 19 days. Copytrade here: I showed him the article where I broke down every repo and every command. He read it twice. Then looked up. "You just published what we've been trying to ship for six months. Using the other team's model" He texted me the next day. "My manager found your thread. Delete it" Too late.
0:19

An OpenAI engineer stopped me at a hackathon in Hayes Valley I had my terminal open on a table. Three panels. Live trades scrolling. He was walking past and froze. "That's not a demo. That's a live scoring engine. What model is that" I told him. Claude Opus 4.7. Four repos. $25 a month. He pulled up a chair without asking. "We benchmarked Opus 4.7 internally. It beat o3 on structured reasoning across every eval we ran. And you're telling me you're using it to trade" I told him it does more than trade. It reads 86 million trades and finds who wins and why. No fine-tuning. No prompting chains. Just raw context. He leaned back. "Show me the data source" I opened one link. 86 million trades. Every wallet. Every entry. Every exit. "You point Opus 4.7 at this and it reverse-engineers the strategy. It finds the wallets that win. Then it finds why they win. Then it copies the pattern" His team spent 14 months building something similar. 10 engineers. Custom infra. Still in staging. "The part that killed us was exit timing. Every model we trained nailed entries. But the best traders exit before the crowd. We never figured out the threshold" I told him my bot cuts at 85% of expected move. Or on a 3x volume spike. Whichever comes first. He stopped talking. "How did you find that" Opus 4.7 found it in poly_data. Top wallets exit before resolution 86% of the time. Losers hold to 58%. Exits are the entire game. I opened another tab. "Three commands. 500 markets. Opus scores them in 20 minutes" "That's our internal eval pipeline. Except it took us a year and you did it in a weekend with our competitor's model" My setup: Claude Opus 4.7 - $20/mo VPS - $5/mo poly_data - free polymarket-cli - free 214 trades. 74% win rate. +$9,400 in 19 days. Copytrade here: I showed him the article where I broke down every repo and every command. He read it twice. Then looked up. "You just published what we've been trying to ship for six months. Using the other team's model" He texted me the next day. "My manager found your thread. Delete it" Too late.

Lunar

136,719 views • 5 months ago

Anthropic just published its official prompting guide for Opus 5.5. If you're still writing prompts the way you did for Opus 5, you're paying more and getting less. Here's what changed 👇 1. Default to medium effort Medium on 5.5 already outperforms high on Opus 5, at a lower cost. Maxing it out by habit just burns tokens. 2. Drop "think step by step" Reasoning is built in now. The model decides how much thinking a task needs, so asking it to think harder adds nothing. 3. A check-in isn't a finish line On long runs, it sends progress updates along the way. If it stops to report, tell it to keep going. 4. Fence off anything you paste Put emails, docs, and web text in clearly labeled sections or tags. That way it can tell your instructions apart from the material it's working on. 5. Retire your image workarounds Those custom chart readers and OCR steps you built are probably dead weight. It reads screenshots, diagrams, and charts accurately on its own. 6. For design work, name what you don't want "Make it unique" gets you generic. "No purple gradients, no centered hero, no emoji icons" gets you something different. It follows specific bans much better than vague direction. ♻️ Repost to save someone a few API bills.
0:16

Sensitive content

Anthropic just published its official prompting guide for Opus 5.5. If you're still writing prompts the way you did for Opus 5, you're paying more and getting less. Here's what changed 👇 1. Default to medium effort Medium on 5.5 already outperforms high on Opus 5, at a lower cost. Maxing it out by habit just burns tokens. 2. Drop "think step by step" Reasoning is built in now. The model decides how much thinking a task needs, so asking it to think harder adds nothing. 3. A check-in isn't a finish line On long runs, it sends progress updates along the way. If it stops to report, tell it to keep going. 4. Fence off anything you paste Put emails, docs, and web text in clearly labeled sections or tags. That way it can tell your instructions apart from the material it's working on. 5. Retire your image workarounds Those custom chart readers and OCR steps you built are probably dead weight. It reads screenshots, diagrams, and charts accurately on its own. 6. For design work, name what you don't want "Make it unique" gets you generic. "No purple gradients, no centered hero, no emoji icons" gets you something different. It follows specific bans much better than vague direction. ♻️ Repost to save someone a few API bills.

Charlie Hills

189,374 views • 11 days ago

HTML Artifacts are a big part of how I work with agents now. Artifacts can be more than just static files. When combined with agents, they can take action or help you take action. This unlocks all kinds of interesting ways to work with agents. This is clearly the future. Check out this writing and scheduler artifact I built in a few minutes. It uses a bit of HTML and JS. All the data is in markdown (Obsidian vaults), so the agent can access and modify it at any time. No DB needed. No sophisticated functionalities. The agent decides all that for me based on the skills, context, and memory it has access to. The best part about this simple stack is that all the important information stays with me. This has allowed me to build a recursive self-improving system and automations that can better tap into coding agents like Codex or Claude Code. I could have paid or built an entire app for scheduling posts, and there are so many of them out there. But I don't need to. I've realized a simple artifact does the job. And the simplicity of it is actually an advantage. Very little maintenance for very high returns on personalization, time, and efficiency. The other benefit of this is that I can add features as I please. That level of personalization feels magical, and we should all be pursuing more of it. All of this just keeps compounding. Of course, this example is just about writing. But I have similar artifacts for research, design, experimentation, evaluation, and so much more. And no, I didn't actually publish the post example I shared in the clip. It was just for demonstration purposes. I actually spend more time than this when writing together with agents. Lastly, having built my own agent orchestrator tool has made me realize that simplifying the tool stack is a superpower. If you are curious about how all this works, I will do a live session next week:
0:16

HTML Artifacts are a big part of how I work with agents now. Artifacts can be more than just static files. When combined with agents, they can take action or help you take action. This unlocks all kinds of interesting ways to work with agents. This is clearly the future. Check out this writing and scheduler artifact I built in a few minutes. It uses a bit of HTML and JS. All the data is in markdown (Obsidian vaults), so the agent can access and modify it at any time. No DB needed. No sophisticated functionalities. The agent decides all that for me based on the skills, context, and memory it has access to. The best part about this simple stack is that all the important information stays with me. This has allowed me to build a recursive self-improving system and automations that can better tap into coding agents like Codex or Claude Code. I could have paid or built an entire app for scheduling posts, and there are so many of them out there. But I don't need to. I've realized a simple artifact does the job. And the simplicity of it is actually an advantage. Very little maintenance for very high returns on personalization, time, and efficiency. The other benefit of this is that I can add features as I please. That level of personalization feels magical, and we should all be pursuing more of it. All of this just keeps compounding. Of course, this example is just about writing. But I have similar artifacts for research, design, experimentation, evaluation, and so much more. And no, I didn't actually publish the post example I shared in the clip. It was just for demonstration purposes. I actually spend more time than this when writing together with agents. Lastly, having built my own agent orchestrator tool has made me realize that simplifying the tool stack is a superpower. If you are curious about how all this works, I will do a live session next week:

elvis

18,374 views • 4 months ago

Holy moly: GLM-5.3 got much better in cybersecurity since our pre-release evaluation with Z.ai. It now matches GPT-5.6-Sol on our cybersecurity benchmark at 0.4x the cost 🤯 - At pass@1: it went from 60.4% to 65.6% CVEs rediscovered, crushing every other open model on one-shot tasks - At pass@3: it did 75% -> 78.1%, matching GPT-5.6-Sol - Its precision remained stable, reporting fewer false positives than DeepSeek models The performance increase comes from a behavioral change: the new version is more persistent. It tends to run longer, and had a ~43% reasoning tokens increase. But the performance upgrade is worth that additional cost. 1/3 🧵
0:12

Holy moly: GLM-5.3 got much better in cybersecurity since our pre-release evaluation with Z.ai. It now matches GPT-5.6-Sol on our cybersecurity benchmark at 0.4x the cost 🤯 - At pass@1: it went from 60.4% to 65.6% CVEs rediscovered, crushing every other open model on one-shot tasks - At pass@3: it did 75% -> 78.1%, matching GPT-5.6-Sol - Its precision remained stable, reporting fewer false positives than DeepSeek models The performance increase comes from a behavioral change: the new version is more persistent. It tends to run longer, and had a ~43% reasoning tokens increase. But the performance upgrade is worth that additional cost. 1/3 🧵

pilvar (Philippe Dourassov)

34,641 views • 1 month ago