Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.7

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#121

Post by mattas »

aurareturn wrote: post #31
endymion-light wrote: post #16

I'm not sure how much I trust Anthropic recently. This coming right after a noticeable downgrade just makes me think Opus 4.7 is going to be the same Opus i was experiencing a few months ago rather than actual performance boost. Anthropic need to build back some trust and communicate throtelling/reasoning caps more clearly.

They don't have enough compute for all their customers. OpenAI bet on more compute early on which prompted people to say they're going to go bankrupt and collapse. But now it seems like it's a major strategic advantage. They're 2x'ing usage limits on Codex plans to steal CC customers and it seems to be working. It seems like 90% of Claude's recent problems are strictly lack of compute related.

Hard for me to reconcile the idea that they don't have enough compute with the idea that they are also losing money to subsidies.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#122

Post by methodical »

ACCount37 wrote: post #80

> We are releasing Opus 4.7 with safeguards that automatically detect and block requests that indicate prohibited or high-risk cybersecurity uses. Fucking hell. Opus was my go-to for reverse engineering and cybersecurity uses, because, unlike OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Opus didn't care about being asked to RE things or poke at vulns. It would, however, shit a brick and block requests every time something remotely…

To be fair, delineating between benevolent and malevolent pen-testing and cybersecurity purposes is practically impossible since the only difference is the user's intentions. I am entirely unsurprised (and would expect) that as models improve the amount to which widely available models will be prohibited from cybersecurity purposes will only increase.

Not to say I see this as the right approach, in theory the two forces would balance each other out as both white hats and black hats would have access to the same technology, but I can understand the hesitancy from Anthropic and others.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#123

Post by azeirah »

jameson wrote: post #97

How should one compare benchmark results? For example, SWE-bench Pro improved ~11% compared with Opus 4.6. Should one interpret it as 4.7 is able to solve more difficult problems? or 11% less hallucinations?

There is no hallucination benchmark currently.

I was researching how to predict hallucinations using the literature (fastowski et al, 2025) (cecere et al, 2025) and the general-ish situation is that there are ways to introspect model certainty levels by probing it from the outside to get the same certainty metric that you _would_ have gotten if the model was trained as a bayesian model, ie, it knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn't know.

This significantly improves claim-level false-positive rates (which is measured with the AUARC metric, ie, abstention rates; ie have the model shut up when it is actually uncertain).

This would be great to include as a metric in benchmarks because right now the benchmark just says "it solves x% of benchmarks", whereas the real question real-world developers care about is "it solves x% of benchmarks *reliably*" AND "It creates false positives on y% of the time".

So the answer to your question, we don't know. It might be a cherry picked result, it might be fewer hallucinations (better metacognition) it might be capability to solve more difficult problems (better intelligence).

The benchmarks don't make this explicit.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#127

Post by adamtaylor_13 »

desugun wrote: post #112
buildbot wrote: post #12

Too late, personally after how bad 4.6 was the past week I was pushed to codex, which seems to mostly work at the same level from day to day. Just last night I was trying to get 4.6 to lookup how to do some simple tensor parallel work, and the agent used 0 web fetches and just hallucinated 17K very wrong tokens. Then the main agent decided to pretend to implement tp, and just copied the entire model to each node...

I guess our conscience of OpenAI working with the Department of War has an expiry date of 6 weeks.

Most people just want to use a tool that works. Not everything has to be a damn moral crusade.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#129

Post by shostack »

benleejamin wrote: post #6

For anyone who was wondering about Mythos release plans: > What we learn from the real-world deployment of these safeguards will help us work towards our eventual goal of a broad release of Mythos-class models.

Looks like they are adding Peter Thiel backed ID verification too.

https://reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1smr9vs/claude_is_abo...

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#130

Post by lta »

perdomon wrote: post #109

It seems like we're hitting a solid plateau of LLM performance with only slight changes each generation. The jumps between versions are getting smaller. When will the AI bubble pop?

Every night praying for tomorrow
Post reply on HN