> it humiliates Opus
???
???
The fantasy that Opus is superior for coding, much less the incredibly weird clutching onto some far obsolete model, is not reality based.
If what they mean by that is “not implementing data structures in the CS curriculum,” to imply it’s more advanced coding, it sort of gives away the shallowness of their software expertise. Those _non-real-world_ constructs hide far more complexity, and the patterns they rest on can be applied neatly to many domains - not to mention they are often borrowed from other domains like operations research, logistics, biology, physics, math etc.
When people talk about "real-world" in this context, the contrast is to artificial situations contrived as tests (e.g. benchmarks). This is blatantly clear to anyone actually engaging their brain.
Opus 5 does very well at the coding LLM benchmarks. In some cases even better than Fable 5.x. Yet in practice, in loads of real world situations where I've applied it against coding problems, it is vastly inferior to Fable.
Hilarious that you thought asking whether I am new to English would be insulting.
You could’ve made your point clearer with an example of these non-real-world tests, but I am glad you resorted you ad hominems instead.