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

Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall Usage Patterns

  • Many use both models and pick per task; some run GPT‑4, Claude Opus, and Gemini in parallel, then continue the conversation with whichever “gets” the task best.
  • Common use cases: coding/debugging, business planning, language learning, email and prose writing, summarization, diagram generation (e.g., Mermaid), and strategy/brainstorming.

Perceived Strengths of Claude 3 Opus

  • Coding: frequently described as “ahead” of GPT‑4, more to-the-point, better at understanding edits within existing code and making concise diffs. Some say it can be an integral part of an engineering workflow.
  • Style: less “corporate speak,” more concise, and less obviously AI-written; often preferred for emails and general writing.
  • Focus: tends to stay on topic, amend answers incrementally, and handle complex, multi-step instructions better in some users’ tests.
  • Multilingual: praised for certain low-resource languages and dialects.
  • Free Sonnet tier is considered clearly better than GPT‑3.5 by several; Opus seen as a noticeable upgrade over Sonnet.

Perceived Strengths of GPT‑4 / GPT‑4‑Turbo

  • Logic and papers: some report GPT‑4 as superior for complex logical reasoning and interpreting academic papers.
  • Language learning: GPT‑4‑Turbo favored for grammar/syntax explanations, rule generalization, mnemonics, and examples.
  • Reliability: a few find GPT‑4 less prone to confidently wrong answers on tooling/how‑to questions, especially when guided by a strong system prompt that discourages hallucinations.
  • Tools: integrated code interpreter and broader ecosystem (apps, plugins) are strong draws.

Style, Laziness, and Prompt Tuning

  • Multiple comments say GPT‑4 responses have become lazier or more generic over time, possibly due to cost or alignment tuning; it sometimes needs a second prompt to “really try.”
  • Claude is often perceived as less lazy and more willing to do full work.
  • Custom system prompts on GPT‑4 can reduce verbosity and “corporate” tone; Claude’s chat UI offers less system-prompt control.

Quality Disagreements and Hallucinations

  • Some find Claude markedly better for optimization/algorithms; others find it worse for bug fixing or factual “how do I do X in tool Y” questions, with stubborn hallucinations.
  • GPT‑4‑Turbo is divisive: some say it’s near original GPT‑4 quality; others call it “basically unusable,” especially for code (producing high-level steps instead of concrete implementations).
  • Benchmark reports in the thread conflict: one person’s internal benchmarks have several older GPT‑4 variants beating Claude Opus; another informal test set had Claude solving all problems GPT‑4 failed.

UX, Access, and Policy Friction

  • ChatGPT UI is seen as more polished (editing, canceling) but also buggy for some; Claude’s interface can crash or is missing advanced features.
  • Claude is not officially available in much of Europe; users resort to Poe, Kagi, proxies, or US payment workarounds.
  • Some users favor Claude for non-technical reasons: greater trust in its corporate direction and discomfort with previous OpenAI governance issues.