38
Anthropic confirms new Claude Code limits to prevent game cloning — users report Opus 5.5 is also actively blocking reverse engineering tasks (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@lemmy.ml
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 week ago (7 children)

I know, I only use open-source models ran locally anyway and didn't have a subscribtion to an American one in over a year, but Claude Opus 5.idk arguably was what made these projects possible. Let me word my comment differently: So one of the only reasons to pay Anthropic instead of using open models is getting blocked, good move

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (6 children)

    Models in china are only a couple of months behind. Even the latest Qwen 27b is about as good as fable 5 (the frontier model 4 months ago)

    Models in china, and probably ChatGPT as well are most likely already capable of doing this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    Nah, that's exaggerated. I have a 32GB Intel Arc Pro B70 and I would say Qwen3.8-27B is barely behind; Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is barely ahead of Opus 4.6, neither of them come remotely close to Fable 5. Some of the Chinese multi-trillion parameter models do compete with the frontier models tho, but nothing you could even remotely hope to run on local hardware.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    Interesting, I guess the benchmarks aren't always accurate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

    Which benchmarks? Are you sure you didn't misread Qwen3.8-Max for Qwen3.8-27B? That one's up there, but if a benchmark ever compares 27B to Fable then that benchmark is probably just trying to sell you their vibecoded harness or something lol

    Edit: Don't get me wrong, I've been especially impressed with Qwen3.8-Flash-Next on my PC and to say it's barely better than Opus 4.6 is a huge achievement in my eyes. Opus 4.6 was the point where people finally felt like that AI actually spits out mostly useful stuff and having models that can be ran on a realistic PC finally catching up is fantastic, but it's still far from the frontier stuff. No way in hell am I going to get anywhere with this for decompiling/reverse-engineering stuff unfortunately. I really like coding the important stuff by hand and having it spit out bash scripts in parallel or reviewing my code in the end for oversights, for that I really can't complain anymore and like Opus 4.6 any model better than that is just luxury. Would I let it vibecode the whole thing then it would end up being unmaintainable slop, but as an actual tool, not a crutch, it's fantastic. But yeah, Fable 5, not in a dream lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Hugging face code arena | webdev gives qwen3.8 27b a 1590 and fable 5 high a 1624 which seams very close.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, webdev is one of those areas where it's really not that deep and LLMs have pretty much figured that out by this point so the distance between local and frontier is basically non-existant. I mean ask Fable 5 or a model on my B70 to make a website and it's pretty much going to look like the identical vibecoded slop site, that benchmark is old news. But to have it THIS close is honestly pretty funny, even in this benchmark I didn't expect the difference to be a rounding error.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •