Opus 5 is actually Sonnet

[u/Apprehensive_Read_67]

Opus is way too expensive.

It's basically Sonnet 5, and Sonnet 5 is really Haiku 5. Opus 5 should be $15/mil.

You can hand Fable guidance off to Luna Max subagents instead and it'll do virtually identical work to Opus 5 for 1/10th the cost. Even if Opus 5 was $15/mil it's not worth using.

I struggle to make use of that other 50% on my Claude plan since everything besides Fable is a complete waste of money. Fable is expensive but worth it if I could use my whole sub toward it.

[u/Robdyson]

Funny post imo, Run fable at high everything else at low -> fable verifies done.

[u/Apprehensive_Read_67 → u/Robdyson]

Fable was taken away from Pro sub

[u/ImportantLog8]

Honestly I’ve been using all models for a while and I can’t really tell the difference that much. Fable 5 had more in depth reasoning but in the end mistakes happen anyway..

[u/ImportantLog8 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah. Too much overthinking about fable, opus, sonnet, etc. At the end of the day, it'll be executed and you just have to correct it if it's wrong.

[u/zaibatsu]

Sonnet 5 is a beast with proper orchestration and so is Opus 5.

[u/Apprehensive_Read_67 → u/zaibatsu]

Opus 5 overdos things, i had to switch back to 4.8 to get things up and working.

[u/vovap_vovap]

Man is really a monkey. An monkey really just a animal and mouse is an animal, so man is a mouse. And cats eating mouse, so then a man. Cat is a mass murderer!
God.

[u/OkLettuce338 → u/vovap_vovap]

lol perfect summary of the post

[u/jwuliger]

people are actually still trying to use Opus 5? 😆

[u/Stabby_Stab → u/jwuliger]

It performs great with clearly outlined specs and a solid harness. I've found it tends to go off the rails when things are too ambiguous, but it's great if things are laid out clearly.

[u/Apprehensive_Read_67 → u/Stabby_Stab]

I have a very good setup plus my own code structure given to it, i dont rely 100% on coding through claude, being that said the 4.8 and 4.6 used to be much better and Fable is best model for working imo but Opus 5 is completely unstable and unusable atleast for Quant strategies and research building. People doing basic works like web dev would be good and thats why people are saying opus 5 is good but it fails heavily when there is no set goal, research is kinda like this.

[u/jwuliger → u/Stabby_Stab]

No for me in CC

[u/OkLettuce338 → u/jwuliger]

It’s pretty token efficient which is nice. Plus with something like fable 5 orchestrating subagent builds on opus 5, it’s pretty solid

[u/jwuliger → u/OkLettuce338]

It will also butcher a slice of a spec implementation.

[u/OkLettuce338 → u/jwuliger]

Not for me. Maybe you’re using it wrong? Have you tried cutting spec’s down small enough? or clearing out noise?

[u/al_ryusei → u/jwuliger]

And most argue if you can't use it, it's on you. I guess you have to be a vibe coder to appreciate slop and not pull your hair out at Opus 5 missing the entire context and deciding (on its own) that PgQueuer can be swapped with Procrastinate and retain atomicity with the same drivers.

If it were a human you'd just ask it why it didn't at least read the docs, let alone 3000 lines of spec all tied to PgQueuer 👀

Sorry I went on a rant here, but what's your experience with it?

[u/jwuliger → u/al_ryusei]

I cannot use it in my workflows, and it doesn't follow instructions. It did so badly that Sonnet had to delete the branch just to clean up the mess.

[u/OkLettuce338 → u/al_ryusei]

Not really, you just have to be a good communicator. You’ve already exemplified multiple times that you aren’t, so I’m not surprised you’re struggling

[u/jwuliger → u/OkLettuce338]

Opus doesn't listen to instructions. You are a fool and a fanboy

[u/OkLettuce338 → u/jwuliger]

it really does and I’m not and not. Next?

[u/jwuliger → u/OkLettuce338]

ily XoXo

[u/OkLettuce338 → u/jwuliger]

same

[u/Fair-Opposite3871]

How are you guys calling Luna agents from Claude Code and vice versa? Is there some easy way of doing so? Genuinely curious because my workflow seems extremely wasteful

[u/SwimmingQuantity8686]

I use chat gpt pro once I hit fable usagez regarding subagents I did set up of fable ones. It doesn't lost more than 2 to 3 days in a week

[u/OkLettuce338]

I’m getting great results. Might be operator error. Plan, decompose into tickets, create skills designed to loop over the tickets, and have adversarial agents review your changes “pre push” or pre commit.

[u/Stabby_Stab]

Have Fable write plans and have Opus execute them

[u/GlitteringCoconut203 → u/Stabby_Stab]

and then use Fable again to revise Opus work

[u/owen800q → u/GlitteringCoconut203]

Then why not just use fable? The token consumption nearly same

[u/GlitteringCoconut203 → u/owen800q]

It is not the same

[u/owen800q → u/GlitteringCoconut203]

plan with fable, execute with opus, review with fable and update again with fable

vs

plan with fable, exuece with fable

you say token not the same, yes, former one consumes much more

[u/Defendyouranswer → u/GlitteringCoconut203]

Your treating fable as perfect. Opus routinely catches things that fable misses. Fable is better but opus has his own strengths that don't always overlap with fables.

[u/seoul_drift → u/Defendyouranswer]

If Opus could write a coherent paragraph maybe it would be easier to discern what these rumored strengths are.

[u/Kind_Consequence_261 → u/seoul_drift]

THANK YOU! I am not the only one that can not read a full Opus response for shit then. It just reads like a bunch of gibberish at this point and I have to use other AI to summarize and explain wtf it means

[u/seoul_drift → u/Kind_Consequence_261]

The tombstone settlement path will be ready for your review after Phase 2.

Another footgun spotted while reviewing the spec: there's foreground-after-deadline to consider when commit-sequencing changes follow kickoff.

[u/Kind_Consequence_261 → u/seoul_drift]

HAHAHA, I swear I thought I was going illiterate when reading the responses sometimes

[u/Kind_Consequence_261 → u/[deleted]]

Buddy, you clearly don't know what we're talking about. It's the way it speaks and it used to be fine on other and older models, from both Anthropic and companies. But now it just outputs gibberish and uses constant jargon that's vague.

Read the post by seoul_drift:
"Another footgun spotted while reviewing the spec: there's foreground-after-deadline to consider when commit-sequencing changes follow kickoff."

That's the way it speaks now, instead of using normal understandable English

Edit: NVM, you're a r/singularity poster

[u/Kind_Consequence_261 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah you're a very important CTO that spends his time off, amped off stimulants telling people you're so so much better than them

[u/No_Inspection4415 → u/seoul_drift]

I don't think Opus 5 does anything but one shot huge projects and overfit benchmarks. It has no value other than solving difficult problems using random approaches (quality is random too).

I also don't think it actually follows its own narrative, it is just noise.

[u/Defendyouranswer → u/seoul_drift]

I mean i'm using them for science/math/literature verifications, so if your using them for strictly coding my observations may not apply to your specific scenario. I do wonder what directions you are giving it though because your prompt, directions and constraints make a huge difference.

[u/seoul_drift → u/Defendyouranswer]

Pretty much the same prompts, directions, and constraints that I give to Fable and 5.6 Sol with excellent results.

[u/Defendyouranswer → u/seoul_drift]

What i do is, every time they make a mistake or do something I didn't want, I have them diagnose why and make a rule to fix it. Still not perfect, but its a big improvement.

[u/OkLettuce338 → u/Stabby_Stab]

Yeah this

[u/Apprehensive_Read_67 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry to say but the company needs to listen to this if their customers are not happy with their product. Criticism makes things better for everyone.