# 为什么 Opus 5 用起来反而感觉更差？

- 来源：Hacker News 热门（buzzing.cc 中文翻译）
- 作者：numeri
- 发布时间：2026-08-14 20:11
- AIHOT 分数：47
- AIHOT 链接：https://aihot.virxact.com/items/cmssx2do20l5oroffe19ez41z
- 原文链接：https://mun-logadan.github.io/why-does-opus-5-feel-worse

## AI 摘要

作者与同事认为，Opus 5 虽在基准测试上媲美 Fable、强于 Opus 4.7 和 4.8，但使用体验却像降级，因其在意图不明时不会停下来提问，常擅自假设或改动计划，需要更多人工盯防。作者推测，这源于前沿实验室追求自我改进 AI 与高基准分数的双重压力，而基准任务本身自包含、无需澄清，反而筛选出敢于大胆假设的模型，这与编码智能体实际需要的谨慎确认相悖。

## 正文

Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?

In my opinion and that of the colleagues I've spoken with, working with Opus 5 feels like a downgrade compared to Opus 4.7, Opus 4.8, and Fable.

I'm not claiming a step backwards in capabilities – it is a more capable model than Opus 4.7 and Opus 4.8 and even rivals Fable in benchmarks, yet these other models feel better to work with. I believe this is because they:

stop and ask questions if my intent was unclear,

don't make assumptions without checking,

and don't reinterpret or update my plans without asking.

Because of this, they don't require the careful babysitting that Opus 5 does.

Baseless speculation

I suspect this is the result of two compounding forces at Anthropic, and in current frontier labs in general.

First, the desire to create a self-improving AI that is capable of recursively bootstrapping itself to AGI/ASI.

Second, the pressure to score highly on benchmarks. Although it's an open secret that many benchmark tasks are ill-defined, unfair, hackable, or otherwise broken, a good benchmark task is self-contained. It can be solved. It doesn't require hints, reading the task creator's mind, or outside information to pass.

That doesn't mean a good task can only have one correct answer, just that it should score all unambiguously correct answers equally.

Selecting for models that do well on benchmarks (and indeed training for them or on RLVR tasks in general) inherently selects for models that make bold, usually-correct assumptions in the face of ambiguity. It penalizes models with a tendency to stop and ask for clarification or direction.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what most of us want from a coding agent.

Try as you might, it's nearly impossible to get the entirety of the context, intentions, business implications, budget constraints, and what-have-you written down and accessible to a coding agent. There will invariably be ambiguity and choices to be made, and it is nice to know that an agent will stop and ask when needed.

Real life just isn't a benchmark. There isn't a guaranteed right answer to every question, nor even a set of right answers, and with real-life consequences on the line, I do not want an agent taking its best guess!