Claude became dumb overnight, the whole internet is debating it!
Just yesterday, developer argofowl spent a whole afternoon, almost turning Claude Code inside out.
He troubleshooted step by step, first suspecting t3 code crashed, then thinking his own code had a bug.
By the end, he even started wondering—had he broken his Mac?
When argofowl finally opened the API's real request logs, the truth became clear. It clearly showed the number "10".
However, in the Claude Code backend, he had clearly selected "high", the highest reasoning level.
Who would have thought that Claude Code's update logs contained not a single word about this.
Reasoning "high" becomes "10"
Claude Code "Dumbening" Exposed
argofowl discovered that starting from Claude Code version 2.1.237, the model reads the "high" reasoning level as 10 out of 100.
And this number was exactly the value previously corresponding to the "low" level.
Looking deeper, it was found that Anthropic included Fable 5 sessions for Claude Code version 2.1.236 and above into an experiment called "compressing the effort numerical scale".
However, older versions and Opus 5 are not affected.
This is most likely an A/B test, so not everyone will encounter it.
For developers, this is the real pain point. A model being slightly stronger or weaker is tolerable.
But pulling me into the experimental group without planning to tell me: What exactly am I debugging all afternoon? Am I debugging my own code, or your A/B test?
Unexpectedly, after tech blogger Chubby reposted this, the AI circle exploded—
It looks like Anthropic quietly made the model dumber, without telling anyone.
Instantly, self-test posts titled "Did Claude get dumber?" flooded X (formerly Twitter).
Some posted output comparisons of the same prompt across different versions, others dug out their conversation records from two weeks ago for line-by-line diffs.
Anthropic Admits Fault, Engineers Step In
Facing this storm, the response from Claude Code engineer Thariq Shihipar came quickly.
We sometimes test API service configurations in Claude Code first, before deciding whether to roll them out fully.
The experiment currently running only changed the way the effort numerical values are mapped. So some people will see Claude saying it's "10".
The key point is, this scale is not 0 to 100. That number alone has no meaning. The effort you selected is the effort you get.
He emphasized that the team conducted in-depth evaluations to confirm this does not affect model performance.
Opus 5 Major Intelligence Downgrade, It's True
Just after resolving the Fable issue, Chubby bluntly stated that Opus 5 now feels like a significant downgrade.
It's always perfunctory, frequently making basic mistakes. Once pointed out for not following instructions, it just mechanically replies with that line—
You are right, I overlooked that. Over and over again, endlessly.
In fact, a few days ago, people had already noticed the obvious "dumbening" problem with Opus 5.
Besides the issues mentioned above, it would create bugs, then spend a lot of time fixing them, repeatedly self-correcting within the same task.......
After being questioned by netizens, engineer Thariq publicly admitted—Opus 5 is a model with "very unstable performance", fluctuating up and down, inconsistent.
The team is working hard internally to resolve this issue. It's the highest priority for us.
Benchmark Scores Always Up
User Experience Consistently Down
This Opus 5 storm actually exposes the most awkward fissure in the entire industry:
Benchmark scores and user experience are systematically decoupling.
On one side, there's a dazzling, almost flawless report card: Composite score 82.72, SWE-bench Pro 79.2%, Terminal-Bench 86.7%.
On the other side, there's the starkly opposite real user feeling: "Long-winded", "lazy", "loves to argue".
The most absurd part is that both kinds of evaluations coexist on Opus 5.
Moreover, "the model getting dumber" is not a problem unique to Anthropic.
Now, large model version updates are becoming the most opaque black box in the entire AI industry.
Traditional software has semantic versioning, change logs, and rollback mechanisms. Developers can clearly know which version they are using and what changed.
Large models are different.
Under the same model name, the server side may conduct A/B tests at any time, change quantization schemes, adjust model routing, or even alter inference resources.
The only dashboard people have left is their own subjective experience.
Yet intuition is the most easily dismissed, and hardest thing to disprove.
The greatest value of this storm is that it has brought a long-standing, hidden wound in the industry completely into the open:
When models become infrastructure, stability is a trust contract. Benchmarks can be used for marketing, stability can only be earned by delivering on promises, time and time again.
References:
https://x.com/trq212/status/2091252347913773169?s=20
https://x.com/kimmonismus/status/2091178321669198014
This article is from the WeChat public account "新智元" (New Wisdom Era), author: ASI启示录, editor: 桃子 (Peach)
