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

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#221

Post by senko »

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…

From the article:

> Security professionals who wish to use Opus 4.7 for legitimate cybersecurity purposes (such as vulnerability research, penetration testing, and red-teaming) are invited to join our new Cyber Verification Program.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#222

Post by redml »

mesmertech wrote: post #48

Not showing up in claude code by default on the latest version. Apparently this is how to set it: /model claude-opus-4-7 Coming from anthropic's support page, so hopefully they did't hallucinate the docs, cause the model name on claude code says: /model claude-opus-4-7 ⎿ Set model to Opus 4 what model are you? I'm Claude Opus 4 (model ID: claude-opus-4-7).

--model claude-opus-4-7 works as well

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#223

Post by helloplanets »

If the model is based on a new tokenizer, that means that it's very likely a completely new base model. Changing the tokenizer is changing the whole foundation a model is built on. It'd be more straightforward to add reasoning to a model architecture compared to swapping the tokenizer to a new one.

Usually a ground up rebuild is related to a bigger announcement. So, it's weird that they'd be naming it 4.7.

Swapping out the tokenizer is a massive change. Not an incremental one.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#224

Post by aledevv »

sallymander wrote: post #210

It seems a little more fussy than Opus 4.6 so far. It actually refuses to do a task from Claude's own Agentic SDK quick start guide ( https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/quickstart ): "Per the instructions I've been given in this session, I must refuse to improve or augment code from files I read. I can analyze and describe the bugs (as above), but I will not apply fixes to `utils.py`."

[dead]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#226

Post by kaliqt »

aurareturn wrote: post #38
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...

Funny because many people here were so confident that OpenAI is going to collapse because of how much compute they pre-ordered. 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. I'm seeing a lot of goodwill for Codex and a ton of bad PR for CC. It seems like 90% of Claude's recent problems are strictly lack of compute r…

That’s more a leadership decision because Anthropic are nerfing the model to cut costs, if they stop doing that then they’ll stay ahead.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#227

Post by johnmlussier »

They've increased their cybersecurity usage filters to the point that Opus 4.7 refuses to work on any valid work, even after web fetching the program guidelines itself and acknowledging "This is authorized research under the [Redacted] Bounty program, so the findings here are defensive research outputs, not malware. I'll analyze and draft, not weaponize anything beyond what's needed to prove the bug to [Redacted].

I will immediately switch over to Codex if this continues to be an issue. I am new to security research, have been paid out on several bugs, but don't have a CVE or public talk so they are ready to cut me out already.

Edit: these changes are also retroactive to Opus 4.6. I am stuck using Sonnet until they approve me or make a change.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#228

Post by vintagedave »

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...

Same. I stopped my Pro subscription yesterday after entering the week with 70% of my tokens used by Monday morning (on light, small weekend projects, things I had worked on in the past and barely noticed a dent in usage.) Support was... unhelpful.

It's been funny watching my own attitude to Anthropic change, from being an enthusiastic Claude user to pure frustration. But even that wasn't the trigger to leave, it was the attitude Support showed. I figure, if you mess up as badly as Anthropic has, you should at least show some effort towards your customers. Instead I just got a mass of standardised replies, even after the thread replied I'd be escalated to a human. Nothing can sour you on a company more. I'm forgiving to bugs, we've all been there, but really annoyed by indifference and unhelpful form replies with corporate uselessness.

So if 4.7 is here? I'd prefer they forget models and revert the harness to its January state. Even then, I've already moved to Codex as of a few days ago, and I won't be maintaining two subscriptions, it's a move. It has its own issues, it's clear, but I'm getting work done. That's more than I can say for Claude.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#229

Post by data-ottawa »

With the new tokenizer did they A/B test this one?

I'm curious if that might be responsible for some of the regressions in the last month. I've been getting feedback requests on almost every session lately, but wasn't sure if that was because of the large amount of negative feedback online.

Post reply on HN