Today, Anthropic rolled out Opus 5, the newest update for the model that has recently become a popular choice for coding and other software development tasks, among other things.
While this is a noteworthy bump for Opus, it doesn't seem to be an Opus 4.5-level breakthrough in agentic coding performance.
© Anthropic
A Anthropic lançou hoje o aguardado Claude Opus 5, modelo que é descrito pela empresa como proativo, atencioso e com um nível de inteligência que se aproxima do Fable 5, mas que custa a metade do preço do modelo mais poderoso.
O modelo mais do que dobra a performance do Opus 4.8 com um custo menor por tarefa, além de ter uma alta capacidade de verificação e iteração e de ser capaz de criar seus próprios pipelines de visão computacional e ambientes de teste.
Posts relacionados
O Opus 5 também apresenta melhorias significativas em biologia estrutural, química orgânica e bioinformática. Ele produz melhores outputs como ilustrações interativas de células, visualizações de fluxo de ar em objetos aerodinâmicos.
O modelo apresenta as menores taxas de comportamento enganoso e maior resistência a tentativas de uso indevido. Apesar de ser menos restritivo que o Fable 5, ele também conta com limitações para não explorar falhas cibernéticas descobertas.
Introducing Claude Opus 5.
— Claude (@claudeai) July 24, 2026
It's a thoughtful and proactive model that comes close to the frontier intelligence of Fable 5 at half the price. pic.twitter.com/GQWhcq2CQL
Em termos de API 1Application programming interface, ou interface de programação de aplicações., o Opus 5 permite modificar as ferramentas em uma conversa sem invalidar o cache e gerar um novo processamento, além de estrear um sistema de fallbacks que visa reduzir as interrupções causadas por filtros de segurança.
Com o mesmo preço do modelo Opus 4.8 (US$5 por milhão de tokens de entrada e US$25 por milhão de tokens de saída), o Opus 5 já está disponível em todas as plataformas do Claude e conta com um modo Fast, que permite rodá-lo cerca de 2,5x mais rápido que a velocidade padrão pelo dobro do preço base.
AP (Hacker News):
A federal judge has approved a $1.5 billion copyright settlement in which artificial intelligence company Anthropic will pay thousands of authors about $3,000 per book after using pirated copies of their works to train its Claude chatbot.
[…]
Bestselling thriller novelist Andrea Bartz first brought the suit with two other authors in 2024. It’s the first major settlement in dozens of AI copyright lawsuits that are still working their way through courts.
Somewhat ironic given recent claims from Anthropic about others training their AI on its work.
Previously:
A Anthropic anunciou uma atualização para o modo de voz do Claude, que agora passa a ser compatível com os modelos Opus e Sonnet, ampliando as suas capacidades de funcionamento.
Até então, o modo era compatível somente com o modelo Haiku, voltado a respostas rápidas e com menor tempo de raciocínio. Agora, aqueles que possuem acesso aos outros modelos de inteligência artificial (IA) da Anthropic poderão utilizá-los durante conversas por voz, aproximando a experiência da entrega feita durante as interações por texto.
Segundo a empresa, a novidade permite o uso para fornecer feedbacks sobre a comunicação do usuário, simular apresentações ou até mesmo auxiliar em sessões de pesquisa mercadológica e brainstorming. O modo de voz do Claude também se tornou compatível com a integração de aplicativos como Gmail, Google Agenda, Slack, Canva e Notion, permitindo que a IA altere os horários de reuniões, redija emails ou crie documentos diretamente por comandos de voz.
O recurso também passa a dar continuidade a partir de uma conversa iniciada em texto, utilizando automaticamente o modelo previamente solicitado para manter a fluidez das interações, sem a necessidade de recomeçar uma conversa para iniciar o modo de voz. A cota de uso é a mesma em ambas as formas de uso.
Quanto aos idiomas compatíveis, além do português (do Brasil) e do inglês, temos francês, alemão, hindi, indonésio, italiano, japonês, coreano e espanhol (da Espanha e América Latina). A Anthropic pontua que o idioma deverá ser selecionado manualmente, já que o Claude não é capaz de reconhecer essa informação automaticamente.
No momento, a repaginada do recurso está em versão beta tanto para os usuários do Claude no app mobile quanto nas versões web e desktop — a Anthropic, porém, recomenda o uso principalmente no celular. Até agora, apenas os planos pagos possuem acesso aos modelos Sonnet e Opus, enquanto usuários da versão gratuita permanecem com o Claude Haiku.
At the heart of this architecture is our third generation of Apple Foundation Models (AFM), a family of five foundation models custom-built in collaboration with Google. These span from on-device models to server-based models running on Private Cloud Compute.
Apple Foundation Models are built to unlock a wide range of helpful experiences for our users, like an entirely new Siri and intelligent tools that make everyday apps smarter and more useful.
“The amount of the Google Assistant we use is none,” Federighi said, explaining that Apple uses none of the Gemini models deployed to Google’s customers, none of Google’s client-side code, and no Google Search infrastructure as the knowledge backbone.
The cloud models hosted on Private Cloud Compute are interesting: they’re not “Gemini” models; they’re Apple Foundation Models trained using proprietary data via RL, which were then “refined” with data from Google’s “frontier” models.
[…]
I’ve been covering the AFM family of models for a while now, and AFM Core Advanced is one of the most interesting on-device models I’ve read about in a while, especially in the context of model size for mobile devices and built-in multimodality with support for text, images, and audio. I’m very keen to play around with this model and understand how it holds up in practice. I wonder if the new CLI (!) for AFM will let you test this one.
It’s very cool that Apple shipped a 20B parameter on-device.
You can’t put 20B parameters in RAM at any reasonable precision. To make it work they are using pretty exotic architecture by today’s standards.
A small model predicts from the query (or prompt) which experts to load from Nand into RAM. The key distinction from a typical MoE is that you do this once per query and then generate all the tokens with the same experts (instead of switching the experts for every token).
Looks like there’s still a 4K context size on local FoundationModels. Pretty limiting.
Really disappointed SwiftUI’s result builder syntax has infected FoundationModels API too.
How did a million modifier methods become the default way to build APIs?
It’s horrible for discoverability, code completion, documentation.
FoundationModels is one of the highlights of this WWDC; I think it’s now finally what we hoped we were getting two years ago, and thought we were getting last year (just the models themselves were barely up for it then). I finally feel like I can build features with it, though I really don’t like the Sword of Damocles Apple is holding above Private Cloud Compute and how it can permanently lock you out of using the models forever across all your apps if you hit a download threshold. Poison pill
These strict limits don’t seem to be getting as much attention as they should. It’s nice that for small developers who meet the above criteria, access to PCC has no cost. But there’s no way (yet?) to buy your way out of these limits.
[…]
The “fewer than 2 million first-time app downloads from any of their apps” restriction is particularly notable. It’s not 2 million installations for apps that are using PCC, but 2 million downloads for any app the developer has ever released.
Is there a real time count somewhere of total lifetime downloads for a developer account, so one can plan if they at risk of the switch tripping? Reminds me of the small business qualifications. I had to try to figure out if an employers developer account was going to exceed the revenue threshold for the year. I was left trying to determine it from sales reports, not to mention sales date versus pay out date confusion. I think I botched the calculation in the end.
Claude for Foundation Models is a Swift package that makes Claude available as a server-side language model in Apple’s Foundation Models framework. The package conforms Claude to the framework’s
LanguageModelprotocol, so you drive it with the sameLanguageModelSessionAPI you use for Apple’s on-device model:respond(to:), streaming, guided generation, and tool calling all work the same way.Requests go directly from your app to the Claude API; Apple is not in the request path and does not see prompts or responses. Usage is billed to your Anthropic account at standard API pricing.
Previously:
Update (2026-06-17): Simon B. Støvring:
Apple is literally stopping me from building a brand new app using Private Cloud Compute because I made a successful app a few years ago.
The new app might be a success, or it might be a complete flop. Nobody knows yet.
I would understand it if Apple were to limit developers once an app reaches a certain number of downloads or active users, but that’s not what’s happening here.
Instead, they’re blocking developers before they’ve even had a chance to build and ship the app.
A Anthropic implementou no Claude Code a possibilidade de testar aplicativos para iPhone em um painel interativo do iOS Simulator.
Aos interessados, será possível construir aplicativos para iPhones diretamente do Claude Code Desktop a partir da versão 1.24012.0 do app. A integração possibilita ainda a utilização de toques, gestos e atalhos da solução nativa da Apple para simular o iPhone.
Claude Code on desktop now works with the iOS simulator.
— ClaudeDevs (@ClaudeDevs) July 21, 2026
Build and run your iOS app, and the simulator opens in a panel right next to your conversation. Available today in public beta. pic.twitter.com/su4IguzPVb
O recurso é exclusivo da versão para macOS do Claude Code (levando em conta, claro, a disponibilidade do Simulator da Apple), e é necessário ainda ter o Xcode com a plataforma iOS instalada.
Para executar um determinado app, basta abrir o projeto na aba “Code” do Claude Code Desktop, pedir à inteligência artificial (IA) para testar o aplicativo e… pronto. É possível que no primeiro acesso o app solicite uma permissão para seguir com a instalação. O painel dispensa o uso do Computer Use (com exceção da versão em CLI), controlando diretamente o uso do iOS Simulator.
Ainda em beta pública, a ferramenta exige sessões locais, pois sessões em nuvem não são capazes de acessar simuladores instalados no Mac. A novidade está disponível para usuários dos planos Pro, Max e Team.
Seguindo a onda cada vez mais popular dos agentes de inteligência artificial (IA), mais um aplicativo focado na execução de modelos capazes de realizar tarefas em nome do usuário surgiu recentemente: o Open Minis.
Disponível para iPhones, iPads, Macs e Apple Vision Pros, o aplicativo se integra perfeitamente ao ecossistema da Maçã — o que permite fazer tarefas para muito além das que um chatbot tradicional faria.
Posts relacionados
Você pode fazer coisas como controlar acessórios do HomeKit, gerenciar calendários, lembretes, mídias e arquivos, bem como acessar dados disponíveis no aplicativo Saúde (Health) ou o hardware do dispositivo.
Para que tudo isso seja possível, o Open Minis possui um ambiente Linux que roda de forma isolada e o permite executar scripts, usar interfaces de linha de comando ou até mesmo um navegador web integrado.
Para usá-lo, você precisa conectar algum modelo de IA suportado (Claude, GPT, Gemini e OpenRouter) ou endpoints compatíveis com a OpenAI. Também é possível criar fallback de modelos para casos de falha.
Capaz de lembrar preferências e contextos de conversas anteriores para aprender os gostos do usuário, o app mantém todas as chaves de API 1Application programming interface, ou interface de programação de aplicações. no dispositivo e não coleta nem envia nenhum dado a terceiros.
Uma espécie de concorrente do LM Studio, que recentemente ganhou suporte a agentes, o app pode ser baixado gratuitamente — seu custo será exclusivamente com créditos para os modelos de IA que for usar.
via MacStories
If you want an artificial intelligence tool to book a flight or buy an audiobook, it usually needs to log into your personal accounts. Sharing your private login details directly with a chatbot feels risky, but a new software update changes that process entirely. The popular password manager 1Password just built a clever way for […]
The post 1Password Now Lets Claude Log In Without Seeing Your Passwords appeared first on The Mac Observer.
When Fable 5 returned last week, I knew exactly what to throw at it. In February, I started a project out of frustration that likewise ended in frustration, so I put it on the shelf and waited. Five months later, Fable 5 was released, and I knew it was time to finish Editor, a single-view diffing tool for writers rather than developers.
At MacStories, we all write in Markdown, and we’ve used GitHub to share and sync changes among team members since 2015. GitHub is primarily a developer tool, but it’s a fast, reliable way to share our Markdown-formatted article files, too.
We use GitHub the most for the Club MacStories newsletters. Every week, Federico, Devon, Jonathan, and I work on sections for MacStories Weekly and save them to a GitHub repo. That allows any of us to sync the sections locally for reading, editing, and assembling the issue.
The trouble is that as great as Markdown text editors are to write and GitHub is for versioning and syncing, there isn’t a good way to view the changes someone has made to a document. I know because I’ve been looking for a solution for a long time. Some Markdown apps like iA Writer and Bear support versioning or backups, but I’ve yet to find a text editor that can visualize changes made by someone else based on a document’s Git history.
Of course, developers have many ways to track changes to code, including GitHub Desktop, Kaleidoscope, and Git Tower. Code is just text, so those apps can be used by writers, too. However, the process of writing and editing prose is fundamentally different from code. I’ve tried the apps above and others, and it’s just too hard to track changes in the formats development tools use.
This is what it’s like trying to track changes in GitHub Desktop.
We wouldn’t have stuck with GitHub as long as we have if it didn’t work, but that hasn’t made the friction of reviewing changes any less frustrating, especially on Fridays when we send MacStories Weekly. That’s when I had the idea for Editor. I was trying to parse some changes Devon had made to one of my stories with GitHub Desktop, and the friction finally got to me.
One obvious problem was the side-by-side document view many code diffing tools use. I wanted more detail than most diffing tools offer, but in a single, readable view, so I could skim through changes quickly.
Most agent-assisted projects benefit from some up-front research and planning. I knew what I wanted would sink or swim on the design, not the app’s underlying Markdown viewer, so I spent time researching systems for visualizing document edits.
That’s when I came across Upwelling, a multi-author project from Ink & Switch that describes itself as “an independent research lab exploring the future of tools for thought.” In their research paper, the authors described my exact problem:
Unfortunately, version control tools like Git, which are designed for software development, do not suit the needs of writers. Git cannot compare or merge files from WYSIWYG editors such as Microsoft Word… and graphical user interfaces for Git are cluttered with complex concepts such as commit hashes and visualizations of non-linear branching and merging histories.
Ink & Switch’s solution, a prototype collaborative text editor, wasn’t what I wanted to build, but the research behind it was full of interesting ideas that helped me settle on several principles for what would become Editor:
Working with Claude and artifacts to prototype Editor.
With those choices made, I got busy in Claude Code and came up with a proof of concept quickly, but sadly, these were the days of Claude Opus 4.6, which wasn’t nearly as good at design as today’s models. What I wanted was possible, but what I had was a mess.
The prototype is recognizable as Editor, but far less readable than the finished version.
As it turns out, designing track changes that are accurate but readable is hard. For example, does changing “day” to “date” replace one word with the other or substitute one character (the “y”) for two others (“te”)? Despite putting clear parameters around what Editor should look like, I could tell Claude was stuck, so I called it quits and moved on.
However, I’d wanted something like Editor for far too long to simply give up. So I saved what I had to a GitHub repo and figured I’d take another run at it later.
Editor makes it easy to see small changes like punctuation with filters.
Later turned out to be last week when Claude Fable 5 was re-released after a U.S. government shutdown of the model. Anthropic made the model available to its subscribers, with some restrictions, through July 7, which I made good use of.
A lot has changed in the six months since I put Editor on ice. Notably, Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Design were released, and Claude became better at using a browser, all of which fit nicely with Editor’s relatively complex design.
Dark mode does a particularly nice job of highlighting changes.
Between Opus 4.8 and Claude Design, I expect I could have finished Editor without Fable 5, but with it, the only thing that slowed me down was my five-hour token limit. I repeatedly hit the limit in under an hour as Fable managed a swarm of subagents. What could have taken a few hours last Friday night spanned an evening and the next morning. The token gating slowed me down, but at the same time, I expect that using Opus 4.8 and Claude Design would have taken the entire weekend.
But it isn’t just speed that makes Fable 5 impressive; it’s the fact that it got Editor’s complex UI right the first time. Fable took a carefully planned but very broken prototype and turned it into a polished product that the whole MacStories team can use.
Editor is built to run on the internal tools foundation Federico created.
However, there’s a big difference between a web app running on my Mac mini server for personal use and something that can be shared. Fortunately, Editor also benefited from the internal tool foundation Federico has built over the past several months.
He originally built it to house Feedboard, his kanban-style RSS feed reader; Images, an update to our tool for uploading images to the MacStories CDN; and iOS Review Search, a semantic search tool for his iOS and iPadOS reviews. It’s a login-protected internal page built on web app hosting platform Vercel. I later contributed a tool that summarizes Apple Newsroom posts and simplifies uploading their promotional images to our server.
Federico managed Editor’s deployment, in part, from Cursor for iPhone.
With a couple of those tools in hand as context for Fable, I asked Claude to get Editor ready for our internal tools page and passed it off to Federico with a separate set of specs and instructions he could point Claude at for deployment and the creation of a landing page. That introduced bugs that required some troubleshooting, which Federico handled in part using Cursor and it new iPhone app, but by that afternoon, Editor was ready for production. The entire process from old, broken prototype to production web app took less than 24 hours, and for a lot of that time we were either asleep or away from home.
Navigating by individual edit.
When you use agentic tools like Claude every day, it’s easy to forget how far they come so quickly. All you see are the flaws that still serve as roadblocks. What was different about using Fable 5 was that there were no roadblocks. It simply took a project that Opus 4.6 struggled with in February and made short work of it. It was a remarkable thing to see. And now, we have a tool that I’ve wanted since we started using GitHub for our writing in 2015.
Tomorrow, Fable will move to usage credits that are just too expensive for my tastes, given how fast the model burns tokens. Hopefully, it will trickle back into Anthropic’s subscription tiers in the future. Until then, though, I’ll continue knocking out prototypes, and if they’re too much for Opus, I’ll shelve them until a better model comes along. They always do.
Legal AI startup Legion LegalTech Corp has filed a lawsuit challenging a June 12 government order that forced Anthropic to restrict access to its most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, for foreign citizens (via Reuters).
According to the complain, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) gave Anthropic around 90 minutes to comply with the order, or face civil and criminal penalties.
All foreign nationals, including those living inside and outside of the US, and even Anthropic's own employees, are said to be affected by the order.
Legion LegalTech Corp acknowledges that the order was triggered because of concerns that users could jailbreak models into reviewing software code and identifying vulnerabilities, but the startup argues this is a common capability of all frontier models and doesn't just affect Anthropic's models.
The company says it had contractual access to Anthropic's Fable 5 model, and was actively integrating it into its products that draft and manage cases. Because the company employs Canadian developers working remotely from Canada, it lost access to the model once restrictions took effect.
"Anthropic took no independent action to restrict Legion’s access; it complied with the government’s command under threat of enforcement consequences," the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit argues that no current export control classifications cover access to cloud-hosted AI models. It also references an independent reviewer, who sees the government's action as disproportionate and "way out of line."
Anthropic announced the frontier models on June 9. By June 12, it had released a statement in response to the government directive, criticizing the government for "not provid[ing] specific details of its national security concern."
"We are complying with the government’s legal directive and are removing access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all users."
Late last week, Anthropic took its new Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models offline following a United States government export-control directive barring “any foreign national” from using the services. The company has been in talks with the White House since Friday but has yet to secure an agreement that would allow it to reinstate the offerings.
Since Mythos debuted in April, Anthropic has claimed—and warned—that the model has advanced capabilities for not only finding software vulnerabilities to help defenders patch them, but also figuring out ways to exploit them that could be used by bad actors. Anthropic itself noted this double-edged sword in its launch of Mythos 5 and Claude Fable 5. “A great deal of advanced usage of AI models is dual use: the same queries that are beneficial in the hands of cybersecurity professionals and biology researchers could be dangerous if available to malicious actors,” the company wrote in a blog post last week.
With this in mind, the company initially released a version called Mythos Preview to a select consortium as part of a working group known as Project Glasswing. Mythos 5 was also privately released to this group last week, while Claude Fable 5, which is a Mythos-grade model, was released to the general public with specific blocks on its ability to give responses to questions about biology and cybersecurity.
© Samuel Axon
Late last week, Anthropic took its new Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models offline following a United States government export-control directive barring “any foreign national” from using the services. The company has been in talks with the White House since Friday but has yet to secure an agreement that would allow it to reinstate the offerings.
Since Mythos debuted in April, Anthropic has claimed—and warned—that the model has advanced capabilities for not only finding software vulnerabilities to help defenders patch them, but also figuring out ways to exploit them that could be used by bad actors. Anthropic itself noted this double-edged sword in its launch of Mythos 5 and Claude Fable 5. “A great deal of advanced usage of AI models is dual use: the same queries that are beneficial in the hands of cybersecurity professionals and biology researchers could be dangerous if available to malicious actors,” the company wrote in a blog post last week.
With this in mind, the company initially released a version called Mythos Preview to a select consortium as part of a working group known as Project Glasswing. Mythos 5 was also privately released to this group last week, while Claude Fable 5, which is a Mythos-grade model, was released to the general public with specific blocks on its ability to give responses to questions about biology and cybersecurity.
© Samuel Axon
Last month, Anthropic announced a billing change that would have substantially increased costs for heavy users of its automation-focused Claude Agent SDK, including many third-party apps. On Monday, though, Anthropic abruptly announced it had paused those pricing changes just as they were set to take effect, allowing Agent SDK users to continue drawing from the more generous usage limits in their existing Claude subscriptions.
The plan, as announced on May 13, would have treated usage of the Claude Agent SDK (including via third-party apps and the programmatic "claude -p" command) separately from "standard" Claude usage via the chat interface or the official Claude CLI. At the time, Anthropic said that, as of June 15, that kind of outside SDK usage would be billed at Anthropic's prevailing API rates, with subscribers receiving a simple monthly usage credit equal to their subscription price.
That would have been a major change from the current setup, where Agent SDK use is limited only by the standard weekly caps applied to a user's current Claude subscription tier. Those generous limits allow power users to squeeze a lot more usage out of those paid subscriptions than they would get by paying the same price for API fees. One analysis suggests that Claude Opus users start saving money from their subscription after just two to three messages per day, and that their subscription could be worth many multiples of its monthly cost in API usage.
© Anthropic
Login