Blogger clarifies review wasn't paid: new model still falls short of Opus 5.5, weak rate limits
Angaisb_ · x · 2026-10-24
LexnLin clarified his earlier review was not a paid post and revised his take after more testing: the new model is definitely not better than Opus 5.5, and subscription rate limits are poor. He still calls it a solid model that overthinks less than Kimi K3 with many improvements, but wouldn't use it over Opus 5.5.
More from Models
- Leaked Claude UI screenshot shows unannounced Opus 5.5, Opus 5 and Fable 5.1 models — adonis_singh · 2026-10-24
- Developer on Claude Opus 5.5: "nothing else even comes close right now" — prasenx · 2026-10-24
- NYU/UT Austin paper: LLMs write convoluted text due to length-penalty optimization — menhguin · 2026-10-24
- 50 pre-ChatGPT novels tested against Pangram AI detector: zero false positives — TuhinChakr · 2026-10-24
- Seven independent tests find AI detector Pangram false-positive rate near zero — TuhinChakr · 2026-10-24
- Dev compiles incident-triage SOP into a fine-tuned 3B model: 93% accuracy at 8.4x lower cost — arpit_bhayani · 2026-10-24