kache#488
Opus 4.8 is a total disaster. The problem is not the model per-se, they have Mythos and can anyway train a better model. The problem is: what is it happening inside Anthropic, at the management level? Since this is a product failure. If there was a technological issue NOT delivering is better.
lots of people saying this these days
Opus 4.8 is a total disaster. The problem is not the model per-se, they have Mythos and can anyway train a better model. The problem is: what is it happening inside Anthropic, at the management level? Since this is a product failure. If there was a technological issue NOT delivering is better.
kache#488Opus 4.8 is a total disaster. The problem is not the model per-se, they have Mythos and can anyway train a better model. The problem is: what is it happening inside Anthropic, at the management level? Since this is a product failure. If there was a technological issue NOT delivering is better.
Many users blame Anthropic management for degrading Opus 4.8 service and performance since 4.6, while others defend the model as strong for specific uses like pentesting and PCB layout.
lots of people saying this these days
Opus 4.8 is a total disaster. The problem is not the model per-se, they have Mythos and can anyway train a better model. The problem is: what is it happening inside Anthropic, at the management level? Since this is a product failure. If there was a technological issue NOT delivering is better.
It is totally pointless to debate on those stuff. Those externalizations, since they can't be easily supported by facts, should be taken as "some random person with a long experience using AI and using AI very day sees a sudden drop of capabilities". Then it's a matter of trust and personal experience that confirms or not. We have this odd culture of having to justify what we observe lately, but LLMs are not the right domain to prove the Earth is round.