The real annoying thing about Opus 4.6/Codex 5.3 is that it’s impossible to publicly say “Opus 4.5 (and the models that came after it) are an order of magnitude better than coding LLMs released just months before it” without sounding like an AI hype booster clickbaiting, but it’s the counterintuitive truth to my personal frustration. I have been trying to break this damn model by giving it complex tasks that would take me months to do by myself despite my coding pedigree but Opus and Codex keep doing them correctly. On Hacker News I was accused of said clickbaiting when making a similar statement with accusations of “I haven’t had success with Opus 4.5 so you must be lying.” The remedy to this skepticism is to provide more evidence in addition to greater checks and balances, but what can you do if people refuse to believe your evidence?
- "They have built engines, but not vehicles. They have built power, but not leverage. They have built walls, but not doors."
，这一点在新收录的资料中也有详细论述
0 & \text{if } x。新收录的资料对此有专业解读
另一方面，和几乎没有变化的外观一样，S26 与 S26+ 的硬件基础配置也没有掀起什么波澜——。新收录的资料是该领域的重要参考