← Back to context

Comment by LaurensBER

1 day ago

Based on my first impressions it's about 6 months behind the frontier labs. So very similar to Opus in January.

That is, pretty damn impressive and very useable. When it comes to architecture or complex problems it does noticeable worse but I don't think anyone expected anything else.

One particular interesting strong point seems to be design and user interfaces. It does seem to punch above it's weight there but that might just be personal preference.

11 comments

LaurensBER

Reply
pastel8739  14 hours ago

Opus in January was right about when AI became actually useful for coding for me. So if that’s the case, that is absolutely great.

jstummbillig  6 hours ago

> When it comes to architecture or complex problems it does noticeable worse but I don't think anyone expected anything else.

So it's not really similar to opus in January?

byw  16 hours ago

> Opus in January

So pre-nerf Opus?

  • ifwinterco  8 hours ago

    Was going to say, I don't think Opus has really got much better in the last 6mo.

    It just goes in cycles of being better and then being worse again, presumably based on how much Anthropic are having to optimise inference

becomevocal  17 hours ago

Appreciate the quick take! Sounds like a keeper to me. I think the Opus and Fable design (that I saw for a short while) have gotten stale

  • GCUMstlyHarmls  15 hours ago

    > I think the Opus and Fable design (that I saw for a short while) have gotten stale

    Can you expand on what you mean by stale? I don't get how an artefact-producer can get "stale" besides literally out-of-data information which I dont think you mean because you mention fable.

    • collingreen  15 hours ago

      I think they mean the style these tend to put out is becoming noticeable in too many places and therefore the resulting frontends feel stale, ie not "fresh" or unique