alt Hacker News> "the charts below compare it with GPT-5.5, GPT-5.6-Sol, Claude-Opus-4.8, and Claude-Opus-5"
There should be a rule against releasing seemingly-obsolete comparisons without explaining why you're doing it. If you don't give a cost reason, it makes you look like you're trying to hide something.
I'm not saying that the given comparison is inherently bad. I'm saying that they failed to include any useful-to-potential-users reason for why those specific non-current model versions are meaningful.
Replies
It is a useful comparison since it more precisely defines the model capabilities. The alternative would be 'quite a ways from Astra' which is less helpful. So I don't think they hide anything, they don't assume people don't know about newer models or won't notice.
Personally I think it's more accurate and useful to compare against competitive models rather than show "X% below the top-of-the-top today"
I know this is besides the point but I genuinely remember a time not very long ago that people used to say that they would kill for an claude opus 5 model at home or an open weights model and that opus 4.8/5 are the first models which finally get what they are suggesting.
Seems like our expectations and the floor has been rising at such an exponential rate.
Has someone created a benchmark for our expectations to see how much they've grown for new model releases? I'd be curious to see some of the data :-D
The LongCat 2.5 preview came out on 2026-09-25 so I assume it was a relevant comparison at the time?
I would suspect the point of the older comparisons is to be able to show that local models have caught up to where frontier models were a few months ago.