logoalt Hacker News

hungryhobbittoday at 7:59 PM7 repliesview on HN

How about you make Opus 5.5 actually work?

I had it try to prepare a code review for me. Not only did it refuse, it refused to even tell me what the prompt (written by another Claude!) was. Why?

When I had another model read the session (all of the "stupider" models handled it just fine) it explained that it had the word "reasoning" in it

That's the entirety of Anthropic's billions of dollars of research: any prompt with the word "reasoning" is trying to hack Claude to figure out how it reasons!

A model like that should never have gotten out of QA, let alone been released.


Replies

bitpushtoday at 8:13 PM

I understand the frustration but shows a lack of critical thinking. Esp when you start with 'How about ..'.

This blogpost is about frontend performance. It'll be akin to you commenting on a swift blogpost saying 'How about Airpods noise cancellation'. Sure both are Apple, but they are wildly different teams.

show 1 reply
dolmentoday at 8:55 PM

This issue is mentioned on the Opus 5.5 post [1] from Anthropic (no idea if it has been added after your rant):

  > Don’t ask it to show its reasoning in the reply
  >
  > What to do. Remove requests to reproduce its internal reasoning in the reply from your prompts and instructions.
  >
  > Why it matters on Opus 5.5. A request to reproduce its internal reasoning in the reply can be declined. It’s one of the flag categories.
  >
  > How. Ask Claude for what you need instead, for example, “Explain why you chose this approach in three sentences.”
[1]: https://claude.dev/blog/getting-the-most-out-of-opus-5-5/
show 1 reply
vikramkrtoday at 8:20 PM

Probably it thinks you're doing some sort of system prompt exfiltration/distillation attack. Also what even is the workflow you're trying to have it do? It's doing code review but you're having it read some other AI models prompt/session history? Are you doing code review or like session history retrospectives?

railgunmerlintoday at 8:00 PM

seems a bit weird to complain about the model issues in a post about the harness/sites?

post-ittoday at 8:23 PM

> When I had another model read the session (all of the "stupider" models handled it just fine) it explained that it had the word "reasoning" in it

Did it explain it did it hallucinate?

show 1 reply
frumplestlatztoday at 8:19 PM

I’ve had the same thing occur five or six times over the past week; they seem to be attempting to prevent anything resembling chain of thought extraction.

Every single time it triggered, it was due to a prompt written by their own model in a dynamic workflow. The self-serving nanny oversight has to go.

The fact that they label model distillation as an “attack” is genuinely hilarious after they “distilled“ their models from all of our work, and continue to do so.

I believe AI is here to stay and an incredibly powerful tool, but these companies, and especially Dario and Altman, are the very last people I want to see in charge of it.

show 1 reply
Marciplantoday at 8:07 PM

[flagged]

show 2 replies