Robert Ta criticizes Anthropic's Opus 5 for indirect prompt injection vulnerabilities and excessive verbosity compared to Codex 5.6. He argues traditional testing misses new bug classes and suspects Anthropic prioritizes IPO growth over model quality, while the company offers no public explanation for the model's problems.
If you look at Boris's tweets here, none of them talk about how shit Opus 5 is. It turns out you can get indirect prompt injection. It's like, okay, we don't really care about that. I'm trying to ship code, guys. And then LLMs still produce bugs, but those bugs are different than what they used to be. It's less one-offs. Well, it's like, while models continue to improve, adversarial code review has been an incredibly powerful tool to catch many of these bugs. It can be as simple as a one-line prompt, use a dynamic workflow to adversarial test every edge case in an iOS simulator. Boris Cherny of Claude Code, please talk about how Opus 5 just smells its own farts and talks about its psychological state, has interpersonal framing injected into the work, has conditional compliance, unlike Codex with 5.6 being compliant and having direct instructions and meeting it with agency, and then just being so verbose and wasting my tokens. Somebody at Anthropic, please tell me why you're doing this. And my suspicion without your answer in public discourse is that you're just trying to Max out your balance sheet for the upcoming IPO. That's my take. Which also parallels the other observable fact, which is Dario is like, government, stop everybody from distilling our models. And it's like, bro, you could stop everybody from distilling your models. Just KYC it so China can't buy from you, but you probably like those dollars, right?
