English(EN) Opus 5.5 writes slop code, but succeeds anyways. A research project inspired by SlopCodeBench

Opus 5.5 代码变得更混乱但未失败，用户发现

作者 PulseAugur 编辑部 · [1 个来源] · 2026-10-26 02:05

一位用户在 SlopCodeBench 基准测试中测试了 Anthropic 的 Opus 5.5 模型。该基准测试评估 AI 在不引入错误的情况下向自身代码添加新功能的能力。测试显示，Opus 5.5 的代码随着时间的推移确实变得更加混乱，在许多问题中结构侵蚀和冗余度增加。然而，这种代码混乱并没有导致其通过检查点的能力下降，也没有导致先前通过的测试出现更高的回归率。有趣的是，虽然代码大小会影响成本，但代码混乱本身并不能预测后续检查点的成本更高。 AI

影响表明代码混乱可能不是 AI 模型在编码任务中失败的直接预测因素，这可能会影响代码质量指标的使用方式。

排序理由用户进行的现有模型研究/基准测试。[lever_c_demoted from research: ic=1 ai=1.0]

在 r/ClaudeAI 阅读 →

AI 生成摘要 · Google Gemini · 来自 1 个来源。我们如何撰写摘要 →

本文如何被排名

Signal score: 14 / 100; Composite score across the factors below. Higher = stronger signal that this story matters right now.
Newsworthiness bucket: Tool; 用户进行的现有模型研究/基准测试。[lever_c_demoted from research: ic=1 ai=1.0]
Source corroboration: Single-source cluster; Only one publisher covered this so far. Single-source stories can still rank when the publisher is high-authority, but they lack cross-source corroboration.
Topics: model release, product; Editorial topic classification. Feeds into how the story surfaces on /topic/<slug> hub pages and into the per-entity coverage mix.
AI-industry relevance: High; Clearly on-topic for AI-industry coverage.
Story freshness: Breaking (< 6h); Fresh story with cross-source coverage still developing. Ranking may shift as more sources report.

完整方法见我们的编辑标准。

报道来源 [1]

r/ClaudeAI TIER_2 English(EN) · /u/aj_marshall · 2026-10-26 02:05

Opus 5.5 编写低劣代码，但仍获成功。一项受 SlopCodeBench 启发的研项目

<div class="md"><p>A few months ago, I ran across this paper proposing a benchmark called SlopCodeBench. The idea is that you give an agent a problem split into a bunch of checkpoints, and at each one it has to add a new feature on top of its own old code without b…

本文如何被排名

报道来源 [1]

Opus 5.5 编写低劣代码，但仍获成功。一项受 SlopCodeBench 启发的研项目

相关实体

相关话题