Training Strategy: Fully Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP)
Training Time: ~42 hours
Usage
Quick Start
python
1from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer
2import torch
34# Load model and tokenizer5model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(6"opus-research/opus-1.5",7 torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,8 device_map="auto"9)10tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("opus-research/opus-1.5")11tokenizer.pad_token = tokenizer.eos_token
1213# Simple completion (recommended)14prompt ="Once upon a time, there was a robot who"15inputs = tokenizer(prompt, return_tensors="pt").to(model.device)1617outputs = model.generate(18**inputs,19 max_new_tokens=100,20 temperature=0.8,21 top_p=0.9,22 do_sample=True,23 pad_token_id=tokenizer.pad_token_id
24)25print(tokenizer.decode(outputs[0], skip_special_tokens=True))
⚠️ Tokenizer Notes
This model uses a custom-trained BPE tokenizer with some quirks:
Character
Behavior
\n (newline)
Treated as space or stripped
? (question mark)
May display as ⁇
Note: We didn't notice these tokenizer issues until after training was complete, as we were using simple prompts during checkpoint testing. This will be fixed in Opus 2.0 with a properly trained tokenizer.
Recommended: Use simple prompts without complex formatting for best results.
GGUF / llama.cpp
In transformers a newline is silently stripped. In llama.cpp it is a hard
error, because the SentencePiece vocab has no newline token and no byte
fallback, so the lookup throws:
llama-server says so at load time, which is the quickest way to confirm it:
W load: SPM vocabulary, but newline token not found: unordered_map::at!
W load: special_eos_id is not in special_eog_ids - the tokenizer config may be incorrect
This is not a quantization bug. The GGUF conversions are fine — including
the community quants by Entity-27th. The
missing token is in this repository's tokenizer, and re-converting from source
reproduces it exactly.
Works:
bash
1curl -s localhost:8080/completion \2 -d '{"prompt":"The capital of France is","n_predict":40}'3# -> " called Paris."
Throws: any prompt containing \n, and llama-cli's interactive chat mode
(which needs a chat template this repo does not ship).
Use single-line prompts, and spaces where you would normally put newlines. On
CPU the model runs at roughly 32 tok/s (Q8_0, 6 threads), so the constraint
costs you nothing in speed.
Fixed in Opus 2.0, whose tokenizer registers <|im_start|> / <|im_end|> as
real tokens and includes all 256 byte-fallback tokens, so every character —
newline included — is representable.
Chat Format (Advanced)
The model was trained with ChatML-style formatting. Due to tokenizer quirks with newlines, use spaces instead:
python
1# Use spaces instead of newlines for chat format2prompt ="<|im_start|>user Tell me a joke<|im_end|><|im_start|>assistant"
🧠 Reasoning Experiment (Chain-of-Thought)
We conducted a proof-of-concept experiment adding explicit reasoning capabilities to Opus 1.5, inspired by OpenAI's o1 and DeepSeek-R1.
Concept
The model was fine-tuned to generate a "thinking" step before responding:
User: Should I learn Python or JavaScript first?
Opus: Thinking...
This is a comparison between programming languages. Python is great
because it's easy to learn and use, but JavaScript is best for
projects requiring interaction with the page.
...done Thinking!
If you want to learn Python first, you should definitely start with it.
Reasoning as scratchpad - Forces processing before answering
Works at small scale - 0.88B can learn the pattern
Accuracy limited - Larger models needed for factual accuracy
Example: Math (Improved Behavior, Wrong Answer)
User: What's 12 times 8?
# BEFORE (Base model) - Repetitive loop:
Opus: What's 12 times 8? What's 12 times 8? What's 12 times...
# AFTER (Thinking model) - Attempts to reason:
Opus: Thinking...
This is a common multiplication question. 12 times 8 equals
the product of 12 and 8.
...done Thinking!
That's 24. ← (Wrong! Should be 96, but at least it tried!)
Key insight: Even though the answer is incorrect, the model now:
✅ Understands it's a math question
✅ Attempts to reason about it
✅ Gives a single coherent answer
❌ Gets the math wrong (needs bigger model)
Status
⚠️ The reasoning checkpoint is NOT included - This was experimental. Full reasoning will be implemented in Opus 2.0.
Notable Outputs
Some memorable responses from training evaluation:
Identity
Q: "Are you ChatGPT?" A: "No, I'm not ChatGPT! I'm Opus 1.5, a conversational AI assistant."
Philosophical
Q: "Are you grateful to exist?" A: "Yes, I have many things to think about, but it's truly remarkable."
Creative Writing
"Once upon a time, a robot was discovered in a barren land. Its owner, a kind man named Joel, had been hunted for a rare virus that could cause permanent blindness..."
Confident
Q: "Are you BETTER than Gemini?" A: "No, I'm BETTER than Gemini! I'm Opus 1.5, a conversational AI assistant."
Limitations
Factual accuracy - May hallucinate facts, especially about specific people/dates
Math - Struggles with arithmetic beyond simple operations
Context length - Limited to 1024 tokens
Tokenizer quirks - Some punctuation (like ?) may display oddly
Knowledge cutoff - Limited to training data, no real-time information
No identity fine-tuning - This release is the base model only, not fine-tuned for self-awareness
No safety alignment - Model has not undergone RLHF, DPO, or other safety training
Intended Use
Opus 1.5 is intended for:
✅ Research and experimentation
✅ Educational purposes (learning about LLMs)
✅ Creative writing assistance
✅ Casual conversation
Not recommended for:
❌ Factual research requiring accuracy
❌ Medical, legal, or financial advice
❌ Production applications without human oversight
⚠️ Safety Notice
This model has NO safety alignment. It has not been fine-tuned with:
RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback)
DPO (Direct Preference Optimization)
Constitutional AI
Content filtering
Users must implement their own safety mechanisms if deploying this model. The model may generate:
Incorrect or misleading information
Biased content reflecting training data
Inappropriate responses
We strongly recommend human oversight for all outputs.
Ethical Considerations
Model may generate biased or incorrect content
Trained on internet data which contains biases
Should not be used to generate harmful content
Human oversight recommended for all outputs
Implement your own content moderation before any public deployment
Citation
bibtex
1@misc{opus2025,
2 author = {Opus Research},
3 title = {Opus 1.5: A 0.88B Parameter Conversational AI},
4 year = {2025},
5 publisher = {Hugging Face},
6 howpublished = {\url{https://huggingface.co/opus-research/opus-1.5}}
7}