Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

We’re excited to add support for Opus 4.6. With adaptive thinking, Opus 4.6 will decide the right amount of reasoning for your query, reducing latency and improving quality. Internally, we've already resolved bugs that Opus 4.5 couldn't tackle. Try it out on the latest!

Warp

57,537 subscribers

12,406 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Claude Opus 4.6 is available for all users in Orchids right now! Tag Orchids with any app idea and we’ll give you 100k in free credits to test it out. Comparisons to Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2-Codex, Gemini 3 Flash, and Kimi K2.5 👇 Prompt: Make me an interactive, 3d model of the solar system.

Claude Opus 4.6 is available for all users in Orchids right now! Tag Orchids with any app idea and we’ll give you 100k in free credits to test it out. Comparisons to Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2-Codex, Gemini 3 Flash, and Kimi K2.5 👇 Prompt: Make me an interactive, 3d model of the solar system.

Orchids

22,774 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

After a weekend of testing and working on something with GPT-5.3-Codex & Opus 4.6, ChatGPT Pro + Claude Max 5x are still the best combo in my opinion Using Codex & Claude Code CLI running in tmux (the desktop apps are still a bit buggy) and they're accessible even on the go from iPhone with Termius (and VPN) Usually starting with GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh and Opus 4.6 in plan mode, discussing changes and options, and each writing their plans down to separate Markdown files Then letting GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh (or Opus 4.6) implement the changes as the first draft, then Opus 4.6 reviews them with a team of agents (works pretty well already with tmux even though still experimental) based on both prepared plans, fixes stuff, and then another review by GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh or vice versa Interesting that even Opus 4.6 still occasionally makes silly mistakes like wrong imports, partial or overly broad renaming of variables/functions, etc Fun fact, OpenAI apparently plans to use their Super Bowl ad to promote Codex - curious what that will look like

After a weekend of testing and working on something with GPT-5.3-Codex & Opus 4.6, ChatGPT Pro + Claude Max 5x are still the best combo in my opinion Using Codex & Claude Code CLI running in tmux (the desktop apps are still a bit buggy) and they're accessible even on the go from iPhone with Termius (and VPN) Usually starting with GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh and Opus 4.6 in plan mode, discussing changes and options, and each writing their plans down to separate Markdown files Then letting GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh (or Opus 4.6) implement the changes as the first draft, then Opus 4.6 reviews them with a team of agents (works pretty well already with tmux even though still experimental) based on both prepared plans, fixes stuff, and then another review by GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh or vice versa Interesting that even Opus 4.6 still occasionally makes silly mistakes like wrong imports, partial or overly broad renaming of variables/functions, etc Fun fact, OpenAI apparently plans to use their Super Bowl ad to promote Codex - curious what that will look like

Tibor Blaho

29,794 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Claude Fable 5 and Opus 5 are #1 when it comes to UI. GPT 5.6 Sol and Grok 4.6 don't come anywhere close to the design capabilities that Claude models have. Even though Fable 5 and Opus 5 are slow and expensive I keep finding myself reaching for them for design. This hero section was made with Fable 5 and Opus 5.

Claude Fable 5 and Opus 5 are #1 when it comes to UI. GPT 5.6 Sol and Grok 4.6 don't come anywhere close to the design capabilities that Claude models have. Even though Fable 5 and Opus 5 are slow and expensive I keep finding myself reaching for them for design. This hero section was made with Fable 5 and Opus 5.

BridgeMind

58,743 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

You can now ask Comet to browse for you with the new "Control browser" mode. Available now for Pro and Max subscribers. We've also updated the default browser agent model to Opus 4.6 for Max subscribers.

You can now ask Comet to browse for you with the new "Control browser" mode. Available now for Pro and Max subscribers. We've also updated the default browser agent model to Opus 4.6 for Max subscribers.

Comet

88,300 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

To make it easier to migrate your workflows, we've updated the claude-api skill in Claude Code with Opus 4.7 support. Just say "migrate to Opus 4.7" and it updates model names, prompts, and effort settings for you.

To make it easier to migrate your workflows, we've updated the claude-api skill in Claude Code with Opus 4.7 support. Just say "migrate to Opus 4.7" and it updates model names, prompts, and effort settings for you.

ClaudeDevs

362,588 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Announcing Built with Opus 4.6: a Claude Code virtual hackathon. Join the Claude Code team for a week of building. Winners will be hand-selected to win $100K in Claude API credits. Apply here:

Announcing Built with Opus 4.6: a Claude Code virtual hackathon. Join the Claude Code team for a week of building. Winners will be hand-selected to win $100K in Claude API credits. Apply here:

Claude

1,039,681 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Claude Opus 4.6 is available for all users in Orchids right now! Tag Orchids with any app idea and we’ll give you 100k in free credits to test it out. Built a real-time flight tracker pulling actual flight data.

Claude Opus 4.6 is available for all users in Orchids right now! Tag Orchids with any app idea and we’ll give you 100k in free credits to test it out. Built a real-time flight tracker pulling actual flight data.

Kevin Lu

13,426 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Opus 4.6 lets you set the effort level Not every task needs high reasoning. For simpler tasks you can set it to low or medium. Claude thinks less (or skips it entirely), makes fewer tool calls, and gives more concise answers Lower effort = faster responses with fewer tokens!

Opus 4.6 lets you set the effort level Not every task needs high reasoning. For simpler tasks you can set it to low or medium. Claude thinks less (or skips it entirely), makes fewer tool calls, and gives more concise answers Lower effort = faster responses with fewer tokens!

Lydia Hallie ✨

34,173 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Opus 4.6 vs GPT 5.4 (High) (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. For the initial impressions I'm really impressed by GPT, for speed they both felt about the same, but gpt was still half cheaper than opus. I also much prefer the design and animation that gpt produced, physics on the leaves are super cool and it also loops pretty nicely whilst opus just fades out the plant. Still got a bunch of tests to run but this is really exciting.

Opus 4.6 vs GPT 5.4 (High) (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. For the initial impressions I'm really impressed by GPT, for speed they both felt about the same, but gpt was still half cheaper than opus. I also much prefer the design and animation that gpt produced, physics on the leaves are super cool and it also loops pretty nicely whilst opus just fades out the plant. Still got a bunch of tests to run but this is really exciting.

Dev Ed

660,154 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Grok 4.5 barely had time to enjoy first place. Grok 4.5 Medium just took the top spot on LaurenBench with 56.9%, beating Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Opus 5, GLM 5.2 and GPT 5.6 on real world agent tasks. And Elon says Grok 4.6 arrives next week. Looks like Grok 4.5 won’t be in the spotlight for long. xAI Grok / Writer: Annette, Grok Imagine Designer: Janné

Grok 4.5 barely had time to enjoy first place. Grok 4.5 Medium just took the top spot on LaurenBench with 56.9%, beating Claude Sonnet 5, Claude Opus 5, GLM 5.2 and GPT 5.6 on real world agent tasks. And Elon says Grok 4.6 arrives next week. Looks like Grok 4.5 won’t be in the spotlight for long. xAI Grok / Writer: Annette, Grok Imagine Designer: Janné

Mario Nawfal

64,010 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

You can make $600K. With a bot that earns $83 every hour, 24/7, no days off, 365 days straight. By buying both sides of the same match on Polymarket and locking profit before the game even starts. > The bot buys YES and NO simultaneously on sports markets. > When combined price is below $1 - profit is locked instantly. > 7,877 trades. > $619K in 12 months. Check the wallet here: I reverse-engineered every trade and rebuilt the full logic in Claude Opus 4.6. The strategy, the math, both arb types, the exact 5-step bot architecture - all in the article. Feed it to your OpenClaw, let it spec the bot for Claude Opus 4.6, and you are set.

You can make $600K. With a bot that earns $83 every hour, 24/7, no days off, 365 days straight. By buying both sides of the same match on Polymarket and locking profit before the game even starts. > The bot buys YES and NO simultaneously on sports markets. > When combined price is below $1 - profit is locked instantly. > 7,877 trades. > $619K in 12 months. Check the wallet here: I reverse-engineered every trade and rebuilt the full logic in Claude Opus 4.6. The strategy, the math, both arb types, the exact 5-step bot architecture - all in the article. Feed it to your OpenClaw, let it spec the bot for Claude Opus 4.6, and you are set.

may.crypto {🦅}

999,590 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Jev + Opus 5.5 is the most underrated setup in AI right now, and i don't get why nobody's talking about it. I stopped letting Opus make every small decision in my agents. Jev makes them now. My Opus bill dropped ~500% on the same tasks, same results. Here's what Jev handles: - which files and notes to load before Opus sees anything - which effort level each task actually needs - what to do when a tool fails - which tests to run, and when to stop Opus only gets called for the hard reasoning. Every decision is a typed result the host checks before it runs. The exact prompt to set this up in your workflow is below.

Jev + Opus 5.5 is the most underrated setup in AI right now, and i don't get why nobody's talking about it. I stopped letting Opus make every small decision in my agents. Jev makes them now. My Opus bill dropped ~500% on the same tasks, same results. Here's what Jev handles: - which files and notes to load before Opus sees anything - which effort level each task actually needs - what to do when a tool fails - which tests to run, and when to stop Opus only gets called for the hard reasoning. Every decision is a typed result the host checks before it runs. The exact prompt to set this up in your workflow is below.

Anatoli Kopadze

74,966 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

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

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

33,100 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Wow... Claude and Nano Banana will disrupt software Airbnb is worth $83.8B and Turo is worth $1.92B So I cloned both of them in 3 minutes using Opus 4.6 and Nano Banana 2 for the images on Shipper. Also has a working back-end... It's so over.

Wow... Claude and Nano Banana will disrupt software Airbnb is worth $83.8B and Turo is worth $1.92B So I cloned both of them in 3 minutes using Opus 4.6 and Nano Banana 2 for the images on Shipper. Also has a working back-end... It's so over.

Daniel Ch

29,305 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

I don't think there's a single terminal ux that handles agent swarms well With slate, you can literally use Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 at the exact same time But making it intuitive took a ton of work So heres a thread on how it works and how to actually use it 🧵

I don't think there's a single terminal ux that handles agent swarms well With slate, you can literally use Opus 4.6 and GPT 5.4 at the exact same time But making it intuitive took a ton of work So heres a thread on how it works and how to actually use it 🧵

akira

139,114 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

so let me get this straight > OpenAI renamed their whole division "AGI Deployment" > Jensen said AGI is "already in the room" and then ARC-AGI-3 drops and on a scale from 0 to 100% SOTA models score: GPT-5.4: 0.26% Gemini Pro: 0.37% Claude Opus 4.6: 0.25% Grok: literally 0% meanwhile 100% of human testers solved every single environment. first try. no instructions. no training. AGI is "in the room" brother it couldn't find the room

so let me get this straight > OpenAI renamed their whole division "AGI Deployment" > Jensen said AGI is "already in the room" and then ARC-AGI-3 drops and on a scale from 0 to 100% SOTA models score: GPT-5.4: 0.26% Gemini Pro: 0.37% Claude Opus 4.6: 0.25% Grok: literally 0% meanwhile 100% of human testers solved every single environment. first try. no instructions. no training. AGI is "in the room" brother it couldn't find the room

Dan ⚡️

250,922 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.

Dev Ed

279,565 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 📧:

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 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 📧:

Dan Shipper

354,673 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten