Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnwheeler | Hacker News Reader

I don't know why this comment's getting down voted. It's absolutely true. I would also add that Anthropic seems to limit, compute, the more you use it because I'm on the Max subscription, and it just stops working for me.

I'll ask it to do something and it'll say, I tried, but I couldn't do it over and over again or some variation of.

But it doesn't do that at the start of my subscription, so...

View on HN

> I don't know why this comment's getting down voted.

Because just calling something bad does not add a lot to the conversation. It's not thoughtful, interesting, or good.

Huh? Comparing model quality is something everyone is constantly doing here. If you need more specifics, it speaks in an incomprehensible way, stops working lazily, does a bad job and misses things constantly, and makes a lot more mistakes. I have both a $200/mo Codex and Claude subscription and swap between them when one runs out, and I'm always more miserable when I have to use Claude.

The Claude desktop app is also widely panned, as I mentioned, and for me this mainly is due to general UX and a poor remote control interface. Codex's connected machine support is top notch.

I also mentioned the value of the Codex resets!

The thing is, is it's not a subjective thing. It's objectively bad. I think that's what the story is or the appeal of the post. It's calling out, something that everyone else thinks is so great, but it's actually really pretty bad compared to the competition. Trust me, I used to want Claude to win, but it's not.

Because "$X is bad" is boring, especially when it comes to LLMs. I use Opus 5 and it's fine. It's more chatty and sometimes a little more difficult to steer than 4.x was, but I've found the code quality of 5 to be much higher.

Everyone has different experiences with these things (for example, I've never experienced what you describe), and "$X is bad" is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.

The issue isn't whether it's fine, it's that both Fable 5 and Opus 5 are worse to use for the job of programming than Codex-5.6-Sol in my experience. I am directly comparing these top tier models every week in my work, and many friends have left Claude in favor of Codex recently because of Claude's poor model quality.

One thing I do like about Claude is that the normal (non-Code) chat interface supports MCP, whereas ChatGPT basically does not.

It might be objectively true for you.

Opus 5 is fine for me and works better and faster on low and medium than higher effort on prior versions. Same as 5.6 Sol compared to 5.5 or 5.4.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com