If you've used GPT-4-Turbo and Claude Opus, which do you prefer?

Claude Opus. GPT-4 gives sensible answers to basic questions, but takes serious persuading to produce useful output on non-trivial work. Opus can be used as an integral part of an engineering workflow and only takes 2-3 tries to get from ill-formed query to working product.

This works particularly well when you copy the relevant excerpt from a project, dump it in, and say "Change X to Y, showing only the key modifications and where to put them". Typically it understands the aim and accomplishes the task in the way you intended, and it knows how to be concise yet precise.

Claude 3 Opus by a wide margin. I'm a regular GPT-4 user who had tried Claude 2, and went into Claude 3 with muted expectations. I was shocked with how much more capable Claude 3 Opus was compared to GPT-4, it's not even close for my work (optimization, programming/algorithms). I asked 20 questions and Claude 3 solved all of them where GPT-4 failed on all of them. What's more surprising to me is that I don't remember GPT-4 being this bad, I was similarly impressed when GPT-4 was released. The disparity was significant enough for me to reconsider my subscription to OpenAI, but the Browsing capability as well as the Android app kept me. I use Opus for my work now though, by default, and fall back on GPT.

For coding? Claude Opus.

For me, GPT-4-Turbo is significantly worse than even GPT-3.5: the former is much better at providing context for its answers (even erring on the too-verbose side), but then comes up with a pointless solution that it can't be dissuaded to change, even if its predecessor gets it right-ish.

Compared to both these GPT versions, Claude 3 (even though I have to use a proxy to pretend I'm in Nigeria...) is much more 'to the point' and seems more 'willing' to amend answers that don't go in the right direction, as opposed to simply backtracking and proposing a completely new solution.

But having to pare down the context of a question significantly remains a huge issue for all models, and I think this is their Achilles heel. Until you can feed a model your entire project, including any dependencies, and it can answer any questions in the that full context, the work required to retrofit useful answers is just too much to justify the expense.

I prefer Claude, but for a non-performance reason.

ChatGPT has a writing style that is recognizable. So, Claude outputs don’t seem as AI generated, but probably only because ChatGPT is more popular.

Tried brainstorming my company business plan with gpt4 turbo and with Claude 3 opus. Gpt4 turbo had clear understanding difficulties and kept saying things maybe relevant to similar companies but obviously unrelated to my own.

Claude 3 opus was much more focused on product/features/roadmap I described.

I asked Claude 3 to ask me question to help develop the plan and it asked me good questions. However for the actual plan it was derivative and didn’t actually propose anything useful. When I asked it to rethink certain aspects, Claude 3 started to also get confused and instead of talking about things specifically mentioned in the beginning of the convo it focused on something more generic.

Overall I don’t think either are good at being a full brainstorming partner, but Claude 3 opus does have a clear edge.

I have been using GPT 4 daily for coding for probably six months, immediately started using Claude Opus when it came out. Opus is ahead of GPT4. There are times when I test both, but I am almost always solely using Opus. GPT4 laziness is still a huge issue, it seems like Anthropic specifically trained Opus not to be lazy.

The UX of GPT4 is better, you can cancel chats/edit old chats, etc. But the raw model is behind. You have to expect that OpenAI is working on something big, and is not afraid of lagging behind Anthropic for a while.

I prefer Claude by a long shot for coding. It can make basic mistakes or forget about requirements, but the output structure and quality is better than GPT4 Turbo in my experience.

Recently I found out that by dumping a tailwind dashboard template into Claude, I can make it generate any page & component I want, and it's usually pretty spot on! I can't wait until there's a faster workflow for this.

Claude over OpenAI. In part because of the performance and quality of the output. In part because I feel more comfortable with the management team and direction, especially after the OpenAI management shenanigans last year that still don’t seem totally resolved.

IMHO Claude 3 output is less corporate bullshit speak and more to the point. I prefer it over GPT-4. I feel like an adult when talking to Claude. GPT-4 tends to go off on a tangent quite often. I feel like a teenager stuck in a moronic conversation sometimes. I would also regularly run both side by side - in long conversations, I'll mix messages from both. Claude seems pretty good at staying on point and produces more concise output 90% of the time. My 2c

For logical stuff, GPT-4 is still superior, especially for more complex stuff. I like Claude for creating more simple stuff that doesn't require that much reasoning because it generally writes very detailed output.

Claude, tested it with a bunch of stuff, from coding, to generating diagrams for mermaidjs, to general questions, and so on, and it feels better every time.

Claude Opus is destroying GPT4 in coding. GPT always splits up code for me and messes up or starts going in circles. Also Claudes summaries are by far the best. It feels like it really analyzes everything and puts it all down. GPT sounds like it summarizes text from top to bottom in chunks. Where as claude feels like it reads the whole thing and with perfect recall summarizes it. I know that's how they all do it, but Claudes definitely wining

I have access to both models through Kagi.

The main use I’ve found for LLMs is to answer my grammar and syntax questions as I learn foreign languages.

I find GPT 4 Turbo to be better than Claude Opus at this task. Turbo manages to generalize rules better, in addition to providing useful mnemonics and quality example sentences. Claude Opus’s answers feel cursory in comparison.

On my LLM benchmarks Claude 3 Opus beats only one flavor of GPT-4: GPT-4 Turbo v3/1106-preview

All the other flavors are still better, with top winners: GPT-4 v1/0314 and GPT-4 Turbo v4/0125-preview.

The benchmark is based on prompts and tests from LLM-driven products, so it is biased towards business cases.

I prefer Claude for writing emails, which is what I use it for. I’ve actually preferred Claude for a while before Opus was released. I just feel the style and language it is more friendly and cleaner.

Any advice on how to get Opus to not bullshit me and hallucinate the opposite of the correct answer? This is less about code, but more about best practices and functionality of applications (e.g. how do I do x y z with Github Desktop). It will often make up the perfectly wrong answer with total confidence and not budge even when pressured. I haven't had that issue with ChatGPT.

It's entirely possible that ChatGPT is behaving better because of the default beefy system prompt I'm using that asks it explicitly to not make stuff up and let me know when it's unsure, which unfortunately Claude doesn't seem to offer, requiring you to manually say that each time.

Claude Opus, by a lot. It is especially good with the few low-resource languages that I or people I know could test, including several German/Swiss German dialects and Azerbaijani!

Run all 3 (GPT4, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini Pro) and use the best response.

I prefer GPT-4 because I can have it run Python; Claude doesn't have an interpreter. Do folks who prefer Claude Opus mainly write code in a language other than Python?

Claude 3, easily. Especially for code. Multimodal capabilities are incredibly impressive there too as well.

I've used Chatbot Arena to count the number of banned items on the WADA anti doping list. Opus was next to useless while Mistral 7b did eventually count them after much persuasion.

Models like Claude's Opus are starting to eat into GPT4's cake. I think we are not far from OpenAI announcing GPT5 - could be tomorrow if you were to ask me.

claude. Articles written by gpt-4 have some tale tell signs like using word "delve" not sure if they have fixed it but after a while you can see pattern in its writing. With claude it appears to be more like its written by human mostly because it avoids using complex words.

Claude 3 Opus feel consistently better than ChatGPT Plus (GPT-4-Turbo) in my experience.

For programming, GPT4+. I was excited to switch to Claude after hearing all the positive anecdotes. Having tried it, I'm very unimpressed. It spouted complete, confident sounding nonsense, when I prompted it with a bug I was trying to solve. GPT4, did not get it right initially, but it was more suggestive, instead of wrongly declaring the fault, and lead me to the answer after a few more prompts. Will not be renewing my Claude subscription.

Claude 3 has a much less annoying voice, but still gets me the best answer

For what purpose?

Opus easily

seems like opus is winning by a long shot

i am getting better more cohesive results with claude.

GPT 4 has been giving me correct answers in interpreting papers while Clause has been flat out wrong

GPT-4 base = (or slightly better) Claude 3 Opus >>> GPT 3.5 >>> GPT-4 Turbo