ehtbanton

I just don't trust Anthropic's Claude Code team at all any more. Their tools are vibe-coded and their behaviour is anti-consumer.

They shouldn't be surprised at the thousands moving to Codex every day.

Benchmarks like this one are designed to thoroughly test the model across several iterations. 15% is a MASSIVE discrepancy.

Come on Anthropic, admit what you're doing already and let us access your best models unhindered, even if it costs us more. At the moment we just all feel short-changed.

This is genuinely very helpful. I'm planning a MacBook pro purchase with local inference in mind and now see I'll have to aim for a slightly higher memory option because the Gemma A4 26B MoE is not all that!

This is very impressive, have tried it out.

If only everyone was as good at making performant terminal applications (cough cough Anthropic)

I've had this thought myself too. Going off on a slight tangent: I think there's also loads of useful stuff in domains like either of these which maps amazingly well to AI agent system design, but there's such a huge discrepancy between the knowledge bases of the fields that no benefit ever really surfaces.

(Speaking from the perspective of someone who simultaneously loves high-performance compute and agentic AI haha)

I will always maintain that the best benchmark is just trying it out for yourself. The most practical parallel for me is all the people posting about how some open-source model has "achieved X on Y benchmark - beating out Opus 4.6!" It's all show and everyone cheats.

Wake me up when Anthropic does something right again...