News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Claude Opus 4.8. Parent comment

Re:Claude Opus 4.8 by onlyrealcuzzo on Thursday May 28, 2026 @01:48PM (#48312690)
> Well for one, we know for certain there is Mythos which is meaningfully better.

Do we?

Have you used it?

What is "meaningfully" better? It's not 3-4 orders of magnitude better. That is definitely happening for smaller models.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Claude Opus 4.8 by YetAnotherNick on Thursday May 28, 2026 @04:18PM (#48314851)
What do you mean by 3-4 orders of magnitude better? Was Einstein 3-4 order of magnitude better than us?

Meaningful in the sense it could find security vulnerabilities in browser and kernel that >99% of the engineers couldn't find.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Claude Opus 4.8 by onlyrealcuzzo on Thursday May 28, 2026 @09:16PM (#48317770)
> What do you mean by 3-4 orders of magnitude better? Was Einstein 3-4 order of magnitude better than us?

I'm talking about output quality compared to parameter size.

Mythos is not 4 orders of magnitude larger than Opus - it's quite possible no LLM model ever reaches that size (likely even), and it's output is only barely better...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Claude Opus 4.8 by YetAnotherNick on Friday May 29, 2026 @02:18AM (#48319687)
Where did 4 order of magnitude even come from? If I were to guess it is just 5x larger based on the pricing, so not even 1 order of magnitude.

> Mythos is not 4 orders of magnitude larger than Opus

Again can you define this. How would 4 order of magnitude better look like?

[ Parent | on HN ]